CHAPTER THREE
THE DEAD UNCONSCIOUS
FROM the fact now established that the soul is not immortal,
it would follow as an inevitable conclusion, that the dead are not
conscious in the intermediate state, and consequently cannot act the
part attributed to them in modern Spiritualism. But there are some
positive statements to which the reader's attention should be called,
and some instances supposed to prove the conscious state which should be
noticed.
1. The Dead Know not Anything.-- As a sample of the way the
Bible speaks upon this question, let the reader turn to the words of
Solomon, in Eccl. 9: 5, 6, 10: "For the living know that they shall
die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a
reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their
hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a
portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun. . . .
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou
goest."
This language is addressed to the real, living, intelligent,
responsible man; and how could it be plainer? On the hypothesis of the
commonly believed distinction between the soul and the body, this must
be addressed to the soul; for the body considered as the mere material
instrument through which the soul acts, is not supposed of itself to
know anything. The body, as a body, independent of the soul, does not
know that it shall die; but it is that which knows, while one is alive,
that it shall die -- it is that same intelligent being that, when dead,
knows not anything. But the spirits in Spiritualism do know many things
in their condition; therefore they are not those who have once lived on
this earth, and passed off through death; for such, once dead, this
scripture affirms, know not anything -- they are in a condition in which
there is "no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom."
This is a plain, straightforward, literal statement; there is no
mistaking its meaning; and if it is true, then it is not true that the
unseen agents working through Spiritualism, are the spirits of the dead.
2. The Spirit Returns to God.-- Another passage from the same
writer and the same book, may recur to the mind of the reader, as
expressing a different and contradictory thought. Eccl. 12: 7.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it." A careful analysis of this
passage reveals no support for Spiritualism; for it does not say that
the spirit, on returning to God, is conscious, or is capable of coming
back and communicating with mortals. It is not denied that different
component parts enter into the constitution of man; and that these parts
may be separated. Solomon himself may therefore tell us what he means by
the term "spirit" which he here uses. He employs the same word
in chapter 3: 21 of this same book, but says that beasts have it as well
as men. And then in verse 19, he explains what he means, by saying that
they (man and the lower animals) all have one breath. The
record of man's creation in Gen. 2: 7, shows that a vitalizing
principle, called the "breath of life," was necessary to be
imparted to the organized body, before man became a living being; and
this breath of life, as common to man and to all breathing animals, is
described in Gen. 7: 21, 22, by the term [HEBREW CHARACTERS IN
PRINTED TEXT] (ruahh), the same word that is used for
"breath," in Eccl. 3:19, "spirit," in verse 21, and
"the spirit," which God gave to man, and which returns to God,
in chapter 12: 7. Thus it is clear that reference is here made simply to
the "breath of life" which God at first imparted to man, to
make him a living being, and which he withdraws to himself, in the hour
of man's death. Job states the same fact, and describes the process, in
chapter 34: 14, 15:
"If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto
himself his [man's] spirit [same word] and his breath; . . . man
shall turn again unto dust." No one can fail to see here that Job
refers to the same event of which Solomon speaks.
And at this point the question may as well be raised, and answered,
"Whence comes this spirit which is claimed to be the real man,
capable of an independent and superior existence without the body?
Bodies come into existence by natural generation; but whence comes the
spirit? Is it a part of the body? If so, it cannot be immortal; for
"that which is born of the flesh is flesh." John 3: 6. Is it
supplied to human beings at birth? If so, is there a great storehouse,
somewhere, of souls and spirits, ready-made, from which the supply is
drawn as fast as wanted in this world? And if so, further, is it to be
concluded that all spirits have had a pre-existence? and then what was
their condition in that state? And again, how does it happen, on this
supposition, that this spirit in each individual exhibits so largely the
mental and moral traits of the earthly parents? These hypotheses not
being very satisfactory, will it be claimed that God creates these
spirits as fast as children are born to need them? and if so, who brings
them down just in the nick of time? and by what process are they
incarnated? But if God has, by special act, created a soul or spirit for
every member of the human family since Adam, is it not a contradiction
of Gen. 2: 2, which declares that all God's work of creation, so
far as it pertains to this world, was completed by the close of
the first week of time? Again, how many of the inhabitants of this earth
are the offspring of abandoned criminality; and can it be supposed that
God holds himself in readiness to create souls which must come from his
hands pure as the dew of heaven, to be thrust into such vile tenements,
and doomed to a life of wretchedness and woe at the bidding of defiant
lust? The irreverence of the question will be pardoned as an exposure of
the absurdity of that theory which necessitates it.
3. The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect.-- This expression is
found in Heb. 12: 23, and seems, by some, to recognize the idea that
spirits can exist without the body, and are to be treated as separate
entities. Thus interpreted it might appear to give some support to
Spiritualism. But it will by no means bear such an interpretation. The
apostle is contrasting the privileges of Christians in the present
dispensation, with the situation of believers before the coming of
Christ. What he sets forth are blessings to be enjoyed in the present
tense. Yes, says one, that is just what I believe: We are come to
spirits; they are all about us, and tip and talk and write for us at our
pleasure. But hold! nothing is affirmed of spirits separately. The whole
idea must be taken in. It is the "spirits of just men made
perfect; " and the participle "made perfect" agrees with
"just men," or literally "the just made perfect" [GREEK
CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT], not with "spirits." It is
the men who are made perfect to whom we are said to have come.
But there are only two localities and two periods, in which men are
anywhere in the Scriptures said to be made perfect. One is in this life
and on this earth, and refers to religious experience ("Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect"); the other is not relative, but actual and absolute, and
refers to the future immortal state when all the people of God will
enter upon eternal life together ("God having provided some better
thing for us, that they [the ancient worthies] without us should not be made
perfect." Heb. 11: 40). Thus, taken in either of the only two
ways possible, the text furnishes no proof of Spiritualism. It doubtless
refers to the present state, the expression, "spirits of just
men," being simply a periphrasis for "just men, "the same
as the expression, "the God of the spirits of all flesh "Num.
16: 22), means simply "the God of all flesh," and the Words
"your whole spirit, and soul, and body" (1 Thess. 5: 23),
means simply the whole person.
4. Spirits in Prison.-- The apostle Peter uses an expression,
which, though perhaps not often quoted in direct defense of
Spiritualism, is relied upon extensively in behalf of the doctrine of
the conscious state of the dead, which, as already shown, is the
essential basis of Spiritualism. And such texts as these are here
noticed to show to the general reader, that the Bible contains no
testimony in behalf of that doctrine, but positively forbids it, as
further quotations will soon be introduced to show. The passage now in
question is 1 Peter 3:19, where, speaking of Christ, it says: "By
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." By the
use of strong assumption, and some lofty flights of the imagination, and
keeping in the background the real intent of the passage, a picture of
rather a lively time in the spirit world, can be constructed out of this
testimony. Thus the spirits are said to be the disembodied spirits of
those who were destroyed by the flood. See context. They were in
"prison," that is, in hell. When Christ was put to death upon
the cross, he immediately went by his disembodied spirit, down into hell
and preached to those conscious intelligent spirits who were there, and
continued that work till the third day when he was himself raised from
the dead. A thought will show that this picture is wrong, (1) in the
time, (2) in the condition of the people, (3) in the acting agent, and
(4) in the end to be attained. Thus, when Christ had been put to death,
he was "quickened" (or made alive), says the record, "by
the Spirit." This was certainly not a personal disembodied Spirit,
but that divine agency so often referred to in the Scriptures. "By
which," that is, this Spirit of God, he went and preached. Then he
did not go personally on this work The "spirits " were the
antediluvians for they were those who were disobedient in the days of
Noah. Now when were they preached to Verse 20 plainly tells us it was
"when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of
Noah." In accordance with these statements now let another picture
he presented: Christ, by his Spirit which was in Noah (1 Peter 1: 11),
and thus through Noah, preached to the spirits, or persons, in Noah's
time, who were disobedient, in order to save all from the coming flood
who would believe. They were said to be "in prison," though
still living, because they were shut up under condemnation, and had only
one hundred and twenty years granted them in which to repent or perish.
Thus Christ was commissioned to preach to men said to be in prison,
because in darkness, error, and condemnation, though they were still
living in the flesh. Isa. 61: 1. Dr. Adam Clarke, the eminent Methodist
commentator (in loco), places the going and preaching of Christ
in the days of Noah, and by the ministry of Noah for one hundred and
twenty years, and not during the time while he lay in the grave. Then he
says
"The word [GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT]
(spirits) is supposed to render this view of the subject improbable,
because this must mean disembodied spirits; but this certainly
does not follow; for the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb.
12: 23), certainly means righteous men, and men still in the church
militant: and the Father of spirits (Heb. 12 9) means men still in
the body: and the God of the spirits of all flesh (Num. 16: 22 and 27:
16), means men, not in a disembodied state."[1]
5. Cannot Kill the Soul.-- "Fear not them which kill the
body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
hell." Matt. 10: 28. We know what it is to kill the body; and by
association of ideas, it seems quite natural to form a like conception
of the soul as something that can be treated in the same way. Then if
the soul cannot be killed like the body, the conclusion seems easy of
adoption that it lives right on, with all sensations preserved, as it
was with the body before its death. If it were not for the pagan
definition of "soul," which here comes in to change the
current of thought, such conclusions drawn from this text would not be
so prevalent; and a little attention to the scope of Christ's teaching
here will readily correct the misapprehension. This is brought out
clearly in verse 39: "He that findeth his life shall lose
it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."
This is easily understood. No one will question what it is to lose his
life; and Christ says that he who will do this for his sake, shall find
it. Any one who has been put to death for his faith in the gospel has
"lost his life" (had the body killed) for Christ's sake. But
Christ says, Do not fear them, even if they do this. Why? -- Because ye
shall find it -- the life you lost. When shall we find it? -- In the
resurrection. John 6: 40; Rev. 20: 4-6. The expression, "shall find
it," thus becomes the exact equivalent of the words, "are not
able to kill the soul;" that is, are not able to destroy, or
prevent us from gaining that life he has promised, if we suffer men, for
his sake, to "kill the body," or deprive us of our present
life. The correctness of this view is demonstrated by the word employed
in these instances. That word is [GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT]
(psuche). It is properly rendered "life" in verse 39,
and improperly rendered "soul" in verse 28. This lesson, that
men should be willing to lose their life for Christ's sake, was
considered so important that it is again mentioned in Matthew, and
reiterated with emphasis by Mark, Luke, and John; and they all use this
same word [GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT] which is rendered
"life." In one instance only in all these parallel passages
have the translators rendered it "soul;" and that is Matt. 10:
28, where it is the source of all the misunderstanding on that text.
6. Souls Under the Altar.-- As a part of the events of the
fifth seal as described in Rev. 6: 9-11, John says he saw the souls of
the martyrs under the altar, and heard them crying for vengeance. If
they could do that, it is asked, cannot disembodied souls now
communicate with the living? Not to enter into a full exposition of this
scripture, and the inconsistencies such a view would involve, it is
sufficient to ask if these were like the communicating spirits of the
present day. How many communications have ever been received by modern
Spiritualists from souls confined under an altar In glowing symbolism,
John saw the dead martyrs, as if slain at the foot of the altar; and by
the figure of personification a voice was given to them just as Abel's
blood cried to God for vengeance upon his guilty brother (Gen. 4: 10),
and just as the stone is said to cry out of the wall, and the beam out
of the timber to answer it. Hab. 2: 11.
7. The Medium of Endor.-- Aside from the direct teaching of
the Scriptures, it is still held by some that there are scenes narrated
in the Bible which show that the dead must be conscious. The first of
these is the case of Saul and the woman of Endor, whom he consulted in
order to communicate with the prophet Samuel, as narrated in 1 Samuel
28. Here, it must be confessed, is brought to view an actual case of
spirit manifestation, a specimen of ancient necromancy; for the
conditions, method of procedure, and results, were just such as pertain
to the same work in our own day. But then, as now, there was no truth
nor good in it, as a brief review of the narrative will show. (1) Samuel
was dead. (2) Saul was sore pressed by the Philistines. Verse 5. (3) God
had departed from him. Verse 4. (4) He had cut off those who bad
familiar spirits and wizards, out of the land, because God had forbidden
their presence in the Jewish theocracy, as an abomination. Verse 3; Lev.
19: 31. (5) Yet in his extremity he had recourse to a woman with a
familiar spirit, found at Endor. Verse 7. (6) She asked whom she should
bring up, and Saul answered, Samuel. Verse 11. (7) Saul was disguised,
but the familiar spirit told the woman it was Saul, and she cried out in
alarm. Verse 12. (8) Saul reassured her, and the woman went on with the
séance. Verse 10. (9) She announced a presence coming (not from heaven,
nor the spheres, but) up out of the earth, and at Saul's request gave a
description of him, showing that Saul did not himself see the form.
Verse 13. (10) Saul "perceived" that it was Samuel (not by
actual sight, but from the woman's description; for the Hebrew [HEBREW
CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT] and the Septuagint, [GREEK
CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT] signify to know, or perceive, by an
operation of the mind.) Verse 14. (11) The woman supposed it was Samuel;
Saul supposed it was Samuel; and that personation is, then, by the law
of appearance, spoken of, in whatever it said or did, as Samuel; as,
"Samuel said to Saul," etc. Verse 15. (12) Was Samuel really
there as an immortal soul, a disembodied spirit, or as one raised from
the dead -- No because (a) immortal souls do not come up out of
the ground, wrapped in mantles, and complain of being disquieted and
brought up; (b) Samuel was a holy prophet, and if he was
conscious in the spirit world, he would not present himself at the
summons of a woman who was practicing arts which God had forbidden; (c)
God having departed from Saul and having refused to communicate with him
on account of his sins, would not now suffer his servant Samuel to grant
him the desired communication through a channel which he had pronounced
an abomination; (d) Samuel was not present by a resurrection, for
the Devil could not raise him, and God certainly would not, for such a
purpose; besides Samuel was buried at Ramah, and could not be raised at
Endor; (e) It was only the woman's familiar spirit, personating
Samuel as he used to appear when alive -- an aged man clothed with a
mantle. His object was to make both the woman and Saul believe it was
Samuel, when it was not, just as communicating spirits to-day try to
palm themselves off for what they are not. As a specimen of ancient
Spiritualism, this case is no particular honor to their cause and as a
proof of the immortality of the soul, and the conscious state of the
dead, it is a minus quantity.
8. The Transfiguration.-- Jesus took three of his disciples,
Peter, James, and John, apart into a high mountain, and was transfigured
before them; his face became as the sun, and his raiment was white as
the light, just as it will be in the future kingdom of glory, which this
scene was designed to represent. And there then appeared Moses and Elias
talking with Christ. But Moses had died in the land of Moab nearly
fifteen hundred years before, and it is at once concluded that the only
way to account for his appearance on this occasion, is to suppose that
he was still alive in the spirit world, and could appear in a
disembodied state, and talk with Jesus as here represented. But such a
conclusion is by no means necessary. Jesus was there in person, Elias
was there in person; for he had not died, but had been translated bodily
from this earth. Now it would be altogether incongruous to suppose that
the third member of this glorious trio, apparently just as real as the
others, was only a disembodied spirit; an immaterial phantom. Unless the
whole scene was merely a vision brought before the minds of the
disciples, Moses was as really there, in his own proper person, as Jesus
and Elias. But there is no way in which he could thus be present, except
by means of a resurrection from the dead; and that he had been raised,
and was there as a representative of the resurrection, is proved, first
by his actual presence on this occasion, and secondly, by the fact that
Michael (Christ, who is "the resurrection and the life," John
11: 25) disputed with the Devil (who has the power of death, Heb. 2: 14)
about the body of Moses. Jude 9. There could be no other possible ground
of controversy about the body of Moses except whether or not
Christ should give it life before the general resurrection. But Christ
rebuked the Devil. Christ was not thwarted in this contest, but gave his
servant life; and thus Moses could appear personally upon the mount.
This makes the scene complete as a representation of the kingdom of God,
as Peter says it was (2 Peter 1: 16-18); namely, Christ the glorified
King, Elias representing those who will be translated without seeing
death, and Moses representing those who will be raised from the dead.
These two classes embrace all the happy subjects of that kingdom. This
view of the matter is not peculiar to this book. Dr. Adam Clarke, on
Matt. 17: 3, says: "The body of Moses was probably raised again, as
a pledge of the resurrection.'[2]
And Olshausen says: "For if we assume the reality of the resurrection
of the body, and its glorification,-- truths which assuredly belong
to the system of Christian doctrine,-- the whole occurrence presents no
essential difficulties. The appearance of Moses and Elias, which is
usually held to be the most unintelligible point in it, is as easily
conceived of as possible, if we admit their bodily glorification."
Those passages which speak of Christ as the "first-fruits,"
the "first-born front the dead," the "first-born among
many brethren," "of every creature," etc., refer only to
the chief and pivotal importance of his own resurrection, as related to
all others; and Acts 26: 23 does not declare that Christ should be the
first one to be raised from the dead, but that he first, by a
resurrection from the dead, should show light to the Gentiles. (See the
Greek of this passage.) These scriptures therefore prove no objection to
the idea that Moses had been raised from the dead, and as a victor over
the grave, appeared with Christ upon the mount. Thus another supposed
stronghold affords no refuge for the conscious-state theory, or for
Spiritualism.
9. The Rich Man and Lazarus.-- With the features of this
parable, as found in Luke 16, which is supposed to prove the dead
conscious, and Spiritualism possible, the reader is doubtless familiar.
It should ever be borne in mind that this is a parable; and in a
parable, neither the parties nor the scenes are to be taken literally,
and hence no doctrines can be built upon such symbolic representations.
But not only is it a parable, but it is a parable Based upon traditions
largely entertained by the Jews themselves in the time of Christ. Thus
T. J. Hudson ("Law of Psychic Phenomena," p. 385) says:--
"It is a historical fact, nevertheless, that before the advent
of Jesus, the Jews had become imbued with the Greek doctrine of Hades,
which was an intermediate waiting station between this life and the
judgment. In this were situated both Paradise and Gehenna, the one on
the right, and the other on the left, and into these two compartments
the spirits of the dead were separated, according to their deserts.
Jesus found this doctrine already in existence, and in enforcing his
moral precepts in his parables, he employed the symbols which the
people understood, neither denying nor affirming their literal
verity."
Thus Christ appealed to the people on their own ground. He took the
views and traditions which he found already among them, and arranged
them into a parable in such a way as to rebuke their covetousness,
correct their notions that prosperity and riches in this life are tokens
of the favor and approbation of God, and condemn their departure from
the teachings of Moses and the prophets. As a parable, it is not
designed to show the state of the dead, and the conditions that prevail
in the spirit world, But if any persist that it is not a parable, but a
presentation of actual fact, then the scene is laid, not in the
intermediate state, but beyond the resurrection; for it is after the
angels had carried Lazarus into Abraham's bosom. But the angels do not
bear any one anywhere away from this earth, till the second coming of
Christ and the resurrection of the dead. Matt. 24: 30, 31; 1 Thess. 4:
15-17. Finding no support .in this portion of scripture for the
conscious-state theory, with its spiritualistic possibilities, appeal is
next made by the friends of that theory to the case of --
10. The Thief on the Cross.-- Luke 23: 39-43. When one of the
malefactors who were crucified with Jesus, requested to be remembered
when he should come into his kingdom, according to the record in the
common version, the Lord replied, "To-day shalt thou be with me in
paradise." To go from death into paradise the same day, means to go
into the spirit world without a body, or discarnated, as Spiritualists
claim. And so it would be if such was Christ's promise to the thief; but
it was not.
The little adverb "to-day" holds the balance of power as to
the meaning of this text. If it qualifies Christ's words, "Verily I
say unto thee," it gives one idea; if it qualifies the words,
"Thou shalt be with me in paradise," we have another and very
different idea. And how shall the question of its relationship be
decided? -- It can be done only by the punctuation.
Here another difficulty confronts us; for the Greek was originally
written in a solid line of letters, without any punctuation, or even
division into words. Such being the case, the punctuation, and the
relation of the qualifying word "to-day," must be determined
by the context. Now it is a fact that Christ did not go to paradise that
day. He died, and was placed in the tomb, and the third day rose from
the dead. Mary was the first to meet him, and sought to worship him..
But he said, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my
Father." John 20: 17. Paradise is where the Father is (see 2 Cor.
12: 2-4; Rev. 2:7; 22: 1, 2), and if Christ had not been to his Father
when Mary met him the third day after his crucifixion, he had not then
been to paradise; therefore it is not possible that he made a promise to
the thief on the day of his crucifixion, that he should be with him that
day in paradise.
But further, the day of the crucifixion was the day before the
Sabbath; and it was not lawful to heave criminals on the cross during
that day. John 19: 31. If they were still living when the time came to
take them from the cross, they were taken down, and their legs were
broken to prevent their escape. The soldiers on this occasion broke the
legs of the two thieves because they were still alive; "but when
they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his
legs." Verses 32, 33. The thief therefore lived over into the next
day.
Thus there are two absolutely insuperable objections against allowing
the adverb "to-day," to qualify Christ's promise, "Thou
shalt be with me in Paradise:" (1) Christ did not go to paradise
that day; and (2) The thief did not die that day. Before these facts the
conscious-state argument built upon this incident, vanishes into thin
air. Just place the comma (a punctuation mark not invented till 1490)
after "to-day" instead of before it, and let that word qualify
the verb "say" and emphasize the time when it was spoken, and
all is harmonious. The thief's request did not pertain to that day, but
looked forward to the time when Christ should come into his kingdom; and
Christ's promise did not pertain to that day, but to the time in the
thief's request; so he did not falsify it by not going to his Father for
three days afterward The thief is quietly slumbering in the tomb; but
Christ is soon coming into his kingdom. Then the thief will be
remembered, be raised from the dead, and be with Christ in that paradise
into which he will then introduce all his people. Thus all is as clear
as a sunbeam, when the text is freed from the bungling tinkering of men.
The strongest texts and incidents which are appealed to in defense of
the conscious-state theory, have now been examined. If these do not
sustain it, nothing can be found in the Bible which will sustain it. All
are easily harmonized with these. Thus in Paul's desire to "depart
and be with Christ" (Phil. 1: 23, he does not there tell us when
he will be with Christ; but he does tell us in many other places; and it
is at the resurrection and the coming of Christ. Phil. 3: 11; 1 Thess.
4: 17. When he speaks of our being clothed upon with our house from
heaven (2 Cor. 5: 2), he tells us that it is when
"immortality" is "swallowed up of life." But that is
only at the last trump. 1 Cor. 15: 51-54. If we are told about the woman
who had had seven husbands (Matt. 22: 23-28), no hint us given of any
reunion till after the resurrection. If God calls himself not the God of
the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22: 32), it is because he
speaks of "those things that be not as though they were" (Rom.
4: 17), and the worthies of whom this is spoken, are sure to live again
(Heb. 11: 15, 16), and hence are now spoken of as alive in his sight,
because they are so in his purpose. Texts which speak of the departure
and return of the soul (Gen. 35: 18; 1 Kings 17: 21, 22, are referable
to the "breath of life," which is the meaning of the word in
these instances rendered "soul."
Three passages only have been referred to, which declare positively
that the dead know not anything. It was thought preferable to answer
certain objections, before introducing further direct testimony. But
there are many such passages, a few more of which will now be presented,
as a fitting conclusion to this branch of the subject. The reader's
careful attention is invited to a few of the various texts, and the
conclusions that follow therefrom.
1. Death and Sleep.-- Death, in numerous passages is compared
to sleep, in contrast with the wakeful condition. See Ps. 13: 3; Job 7:
21; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; l Cor. 11:30; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:14; etc. But
there is only one feature in sleep by virtue of which it can be taken as
a figure of death; and that is, the condition of unconsciousness which
shuts up the avenues of one's senses to all one's environment. If one is
not thus unconscious in death, the figure is false, and the comparison
illogical and misleading.
2. Thoughts Perish.-- So David testifies: "Put not your
trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His
breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his
thoughts perish." Ps. 146: 3, 4. The word "thoughts" does
not here mean simply the projects and purposes one has in view, which do
often fail, when the author of them dies, but it is from a root which
means the act of thinking, the operation of the mind; and in death, that
entirely ceases. It cannot therefore be the dead who come out of the
unseen with such intelligence as is shown in Spiritualism.
3. Job's Statement.-- Speaking of a dead man, Job (14: 21)
says: "His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are
brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." If the dead cannot
take cognizance of matters of so much interest as these, how can they
communicate with the living as the spirits do?
4. No Remembrance of God.-- David, in Ps. 6: 5 and 115: 17,
again testifies: "For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in
the grave who shall give thee thanks?" "The dead praise not
the Lord, neither any that go down into silence" Is it possible
that any righteous man, if he is living and conscious after going into
the grave, would not praise and give thanks to the Lord?
5. Hezekiah's Testimony.-- Hezekiah was sick unto death. Isa.
38: 1. But he prayed, and the Lord added to his days fifteen years.
Verse 5. For this he praised the Lord, and gave his reasons for so doing
in the following words (verses 18, 19): "For the grave cannot
praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit
cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee,
as I do this day." This is a clear affirmation that in death he
would not be able to do what he was able to do while living.
6. New Testament Evidence.-- The New Testament bears a
corresponding testimony on this subject. None will be saved except such
as Christ raises up at the last day. John 6: 39, 40. No one is to
receive any reward before the resurrection. Luke 14: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 8. No
one can enter God's kingdom before being judged; but there is no
execution of judgment before the coming of Christ. 2 Tim. 4:1; Acts
17:31; Luke 19:35; etc. If there is no avenue to a future life by a
resurrection, then all who have gone down in death are perished. 1 Cor.
15: 18. Such texts utterly forbid the idea of consciousness and
activity, on the part of any of the human family, in death.
This part of the subject need not be carried further. It has been
dwelt upon so fully simply because of its determinate bearing on the
question under discussion. Spiritualism rests its whole title to
credence on the claim that the intelligences which manifest themselves
are the spirits of the dead. The Bible says that they are not the
spirits of the dead. Then if the Bible is true, the whole system rests
upon deception and falsehood. No one who believes this will tamper with
Spiritualism. One cannot have Spiritualism and the Bible, too. One or
the other must be given up. But he who still holds on to the theory that
the dead are conscious, contrary to the testimony of the Scriptures has
no shield against the Spiritualistic delusion, and the danger is that he
will sooner or later throw the Bible away.
Notes
[1] Original edition.
[2] Original edition.
Not found in the mutilated edition, revised by Dr. Curry.
|
