The Resurrection Not Progressive.
THE theory which especially calls for our attention is that which is sometimes known as the progressive theory. It is largely favored by “liberalists,” and indeed by all classes that deny the personal coming of our Lord to raise the dead. We state it briefly, in the language of a distinguished writer, in one of the leading periodical organs of Universalism, as follows: “The truth is, that the resurrection is a progressive work. It is a translation from the earthly to the spiritual life. It is simply a release of the spirit of man from his corporeal surroundings. He continues to live. The essential element that constitutes man a rational and intelligent entity does not die when it lays off its tabernacle of clay, but is given greater facility to do its exalted ministry as an angel of God.” This is a “progressive” statement, the first sentence being explained by the second, the second by the third, and so on to the end. The “progressive work,” according to this theory, is not to be construed so as to imply that there is progression in the process of the resurrection, as an individual experience, but that the matter of passing into the resurrection state is a progressive work, in opposition to the common idea of a simultaneous resurrection. The translation from the earthly to the spiritual life does not take place by degrees, but is accomplished at once as to the individual, while it is progressive as to the race. The idea is, that the soul possesses all the elements of the spiritual or resurrection body, and that its emergence from the corporeal structure, the earthly body, in the event of death, is in itself the resurrection. Hence the statement that “it is simply a release of the spirit of man from its corporeal surroundings.” It being “simply” this, and nothing more, there is no radical difference between death and the resurrection from the dead, and no perceptible distinction in time between the two events, if we can call them two events. Death is the resurrection; for death releases the spirit from its corporeal surroundings, removes the “intelligent entity” from its “tabernacle of clay,” and translates it from the earthly to the spiritual life beyond. This is no misconception of the doctrine of a progressive resurrection. We take it in the language of its friends, and clothe it in the garb they have prepared for it, and shall deal with it in all honesty. If it does not confound death and the resurrection, at least as to time, we fail to comprehend it. Death does all for the man that this theory ascribes to the resurrection; and the two events are so related, if they are not identical, that one never takes place without the other. We object to this theory that it is liable to the censure that Paul passed upon some heretical theories of the resurrection in his day. He encountered some who affirmed that “the resurrection was passed already;” and they doubtless argued the subject learnedly, and made their theory appear plausible; for the apostle assures us that they had “overthrown the faith of some.” It is clear, however, that the apostle did not agree with them. Whatever he taught concerning the resurrection of the dead, it is certain that he favored no theory that would allow it to be said of those gone before, that their “resurrection is past.” This is the very point he denied and censured. But if the resurrection occurs at death —if it is simply a release of the spirit of man from its corporeal surroundings—how are we to avoid saying of the dead of other generations, and even of our friends who have recently died, that with them “the resurrection is past already?” There is, indeed, no possibility of avoiding this; and if the theory is correct, Paul might as well have complained of any who asserted that the death of the dead was past, and charged them with “overthrowing the faith,” as to complain of those who affirmed that the dead had already passed into the resurrection state. We object to this “progressive” theory, again, that it destroys the very idea of the resurrection of the dead. It teaches instead the resurrection of that which never died. Of the man “translated from the earthly to the spiritual life,” it says, “He continues to live.” How, then, was he dead? Only as to his body—the “tabernacle of clay.” But does the “tabernacle of clay” ever live again? Does the body that died have any share whatever in the rising again? Not according to this theory. Its teaching is, that the spirit is released from its earthly surroundings; that it lays off its corporeal incumbrance and never puts it on again. It passes at once to a higher plane of life, in total separation from all that is material. That which died never lives again, and that which “continues to live” never dies. Where, then, is the resurrection of the dead? There is, in this theory, absolutely no room for the idea of the dead living again. There is a “translation” of the spirit, a separation from the body, which might be called a promotion, but we see no resurrection. No intelligible conception of a resurrection can be formed without the idea of something living again which had been dead; but this radical idea of a resurrection is excluded utterly. When Christ arose, he said, “I am he that liveth, and was dead, and, behold, I am alive for evermore.” His was a resurrection, a coming back to life. The resurrection is a miracle. It belongs to no other class of facts than the supernatural. Those who have gotten above or beyond the admission of the miraculous have no place for this doctrine, and no business with it. And being a miracle, it must be studied in the light of miracles. If it were a natural event, we should study it in the light of natural events. We should then want to see something about the laws, the forces, or the agents or causes, that were to bring it to pass. We should look after the obstructions or difficulties to be encountered, and scan all the conditions necessary to the production of the contemplated result, and summon to our aid all the light that philosophy and science could bring; but this is all out of place while studying a miracle. The resurrection does not result from natural laws or causes, and therefore the study of these will shed no light upon the question of its possibility or probability. In order to determine the possibility of its occurrence, we must study the supernatural powers and agencies on which miracles depend; and in deciding upon its probability we are to look at the moral ends proposed, and see whether he who only can accomplish the work has given his word that he will do it. We are thus brought back to divine revelation for all light and all hope. It is a subject of revelation purely, an effect of divine power and wisdom, beyond the range of natural agencies. So the Saviour regarded it, and would have others regard it, when he rebuked the Sadducees for their unbelief, and their vicious methods of argumentation on the subject. They tried to carry the laws of earthly life, and the limitations of natural agencies, over into the sphere of the miraculous. In this they erred, as do modern objectors, who disbelieve the doctrine of the resurrection because they are unable to see its processes, or to comprehend the forces necessary to accomplish it. The Saviour’s reply to all such objectors was pertinent, and will never cease to be appropriate, so long as men strive to obstruct faith in the resurrection by alleging difficulties arising from their imperfect perception of natural laws. “Ye do therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” The resurrection depends on God’s power. If he is able to raise the dead, that is enough. It is illogical to reason on this subject without taking God into the account. If he possesses power enough and wisdom enough, and promises to do it, that ends controversy with Christians. We therefore close this chapter with the remark, that it is absolutely impossible for any one to frame an objection to the resurrection of the dead on natural or philosophical or scientific grounds, that does not imply a limitation of the power of God, and make that limitation material to its statement and its ultimate reliance.—Second Coming of Christ, by Bishop Merrill.