THE STATE OF THE DEAD

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Oct 2, 1855

THE STATE OF THE DEAD

But we return to the Bible. Our reasoning would be but vain, except it were in harmony with the Word of inspiration. We have already seen that the Scriptures do not tell us that man is in possession of immortality in his present state of existence, but they exhort him to seek for it. Doubtless this sentiment is contrary to the early teaching of most of our readers. We have been taught, "The body is mortal, it will soon die; the soul is immortal, it can never die." The Bible, however, contradicts this sentiment. Eze. xviii, 4, 20. "Behold all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine, the soul that sinneth it shall die." Here theologians have found themselves in a difficulty, and to extricate themselves from it, have stated that the death of the soul, was the death that never dies. What death is that? We should consider it a contradiction of terms, and that there was no death about it. What would you think if some

one should begin to talk to you about a person, and tell you they lived a life that never lived? You would certainly think the person was not yet born. So with the expression, "death that never dies," it carries with it the idea of eternal life. We now come to the investigation of

THE STATE OF THE DEAD.

Do the Scriptures teach that man is conscious between the periods of the death and resurrection of the body?

The position of the believer in the immortality of the soul on this subject, and in regard to what is termed death, may be gathered from the following: a passage Dryden renders from Ovid, who died A. D. 18:

"Nor dies the spirit, but new life repeats, In other forms, and only changes seats. Then death, so called, is but old matter, dressed In some new figure, and a varied vest. Thus all things are but altered, NOTHING DIES. Death, so called, can but the form deface, The immortal soul dies out to seek her fortune."

The above is true, if the soul is the life of the man. Death is termed the separation of the soul from the body. We inquire, What dies? Certainly not the body; for that they tell us has no life only what it derives from the soul. If the soul is immortal, that does not die, and the Poet's sentiment would be true.

"There's no such thing as death. What's called so is but the beginning of a new existence. A fresh segment in the eternal round of change."

But the Bible declares [Gen. ix, 4, and Lev. xvii, 11] "the life of the flesh is the blood." We will now notice a few testimonies of Scripture on the subject of death. Ps. cxlvi, 3, 4. "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, (what God breathed into his nostrils,) he returneth to his earth; (unto dust shalt thou return;) in that very day his thoughts perish." Solomon says, [Eccl. ix, 4, 6.] "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 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." Here it is stated in positive language "The dead know not anything." Well, says the objector, that is, their bodies do not know anything. We inquire, Did their bodies know anything when they were living? Not according to your position. You have claimed, that the soul of man is the mind; so all the thoughts and knowledge of man must be centered in the soul. The mind cannot exist without thoughts. But in the day a man dies, "HIS THOUGHTS PERISH." Then his mind is gone. The testimony from Solomon, the dead know not anything, [Eccl. ix,] is a consequent on the first testimony, [Ps. cxlvi, 3, 4,] they know not anything, for their thoughts have perished. How different this testimony from the belief entertained by professing christians of the present time, that "the dead know more than all the living; for their souls are in the presence of God, and there they see as they are seen, and know as they are known;" and some teach that they are familiar with the acts of earth and heaven, for they return and are guardian angels to the living.

But Job says, [Chap. vii, 21.] "And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be." Shall not be on earth, says the objector. But we reply, Job says, I shall not be. Shall not

exist. Where would he be? Sleeping in the dust of the earth.

Oh, says the objector that is the body that sleeps. We reply, it is the same part that transgresses, and that you say is the soul.

Again, in Chap. iii, 13, Job says, "For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept; then had I been at rest, with kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves, or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver; or as an hidden, untimely birth, I had not been." What stronger language could be used to express unconsciousness? In Chap. x, 18, 19, he says, "Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been."

But, we are told, the foregoing testimony applies to the body; for it is after Job gives up the ghost, that he says, "I should have been as though I had not been;" the ghost still exists. You claim, then, that this ghost is a part capable of consciousness separate from the body. "The word ghost is a Saxo word, derived from gust of wind, and occurs fourteen times in the King's version."—Bible vs. Tradition.

The giving up the ghost instead of signifying that man is in possession of an entity, that can be conscious separated from the body, simply means, they breathed out their last. If because the Bible states concerning men, that they gave up the ghost, the testimony proves it to be conscious after leaving the body, then it must have been conscious before it entered the body; and this presupposes that the ghost, or soul as it is termed, would have been conscious if it had never been connected with the body. None of us have knowledge of anything prior to this life, and we know of no Scripture testimony to show our pre-existence. So we conclude if Job would be in death as though he had not been, he would have no consciousness whatever.

In Chap. xiv, 10-12, Job says, "But man dieth, and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?" Where? In heaven says the advocate of the immortality of the soul.

"Life holds the etherial spirit in, And binds it down to brotherhood with brutes. Death gives it wings to mount above the stars."

We will let Job answer his own question. "As the waters fail from the sea, and as the flood decayeth and drieth up: so man lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep." The dead are said to sleep.

In John xi, 11, we have an account of the sickness, death, and resurrection of Lazarus. "After that he said unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of his sleep." "Then said his disciples, Lord if he sleep, he shall do well." Verse 14. "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." As they came near Bethany, Martha the sister of Lazarus met Jesus and said, "Lord if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." "Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha said unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, (at the last day,) yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, (at the last day,) shall never die. ("Changed in a moment" to immortality.) Believest thou this?" Then Jesus, with the two sisters of Lazarus, came weeping to the grave. After praying to his Father, he turns his attention to the grave and cried, Lazarus come forth. To suit the theory of the present day he should have cried, O Immortal spirit of Lazarus, come down

from heaven and animate this lifeless clay. We get no intimation from this language that Lazarus came from any place but the grave. Certainly it would have been cruel to call his immortal spirit from heaven to come down and raise the body, and subject it again to all the evils of the world.

What a contrast we find between the teachings of men and that of the Bible. The poet says,

"I'll praise my Maker while I've breath, And when my voice is lost in death: Praise shall employ my nobler powers."

David says, [Ps. cxv, 17,] "The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence."

Chap. vi, 5. "For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?"

Chap. lxxxviii, 10-12. "Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah. Shall thy loving kindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" The advocates of immortality claim that these texts apply to the body; but it will be necessary for them to show that a live man's body praises the Lord, before we can admit their position. Paul says, "With the mind I myself serve the law of God."

We have an account in Isaiah, [Chap. xxxviii,] of Hezekiah's sickness, by which he was brought near the grave. The Lord restored him again to health; but in his thanksgiving to God he does not state, that the Lord had delivered him from endless joys, or from a safe passage into heaven; but "Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption. 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." His soul had been delivered from the pit of corruption. If his soul was incorruptible, we fail to see what would have been the damage had it passed into a pit of corruption. A pit of corruption could not corrupt it.

An attempt to harmonize the immortality of the soul with the above text, reminds us of a proposition that was published quite extensively in the news papers of the day not many months since. "If an irresistible force be brought against an immovable body, what will be the result?" On a few moment's reflection any one would see that it was an impossibility. So to place an incorruptible soul in a pit of corruption would be an act of the same nature as that proposed above. But Hezekiah speaks of the deliverance of his soul from the pit as proof that God loved his soul. If his soul had passed into the pit, it would have received damage; namely, corruption. It would have turned back again to dust.

We have seen already, that the word soul in its primary use means the whole person. See Gen. xlvi, 26. "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt * were three score and six." Acts xxvii, 37. "And we were all in the ship two hundred three score and sixteen souls." But it is objected that Christ says in Matt. xvi, 26, "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul." Is not the soul here spoken of as something in distinction from the man who loses it? In Luke ix, 25, it is recorded, "For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world and lose himself, or be cast away." Comparing the text in Matthew with Luke, we learn that the soul here spoken of as lost, is the man himself who will be cast away. Says Christ Matt. v, 13, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."

But says the objector, Paul says, [1 Thess. v, 23,] "I pray God your whole spirit, and soul and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." This testimony would not prove that the soul was capable of a separate existence. Paul is merely speaking of man in an organized condition, and prays that he may be preserved blameless. That man, in a living, organized form is possessed of those parts, we do not deny. The term soul is sometimes applied to man's life while in that position. But to prove that the part termed soul

was susceptible of a separate existence, it would be necessary to show that it had been separated from the body, and while thus separated, maintained its consciousness.

"We say the true meaning of soul is, a creature that lives by breathing: and as the essential endowment of such a creature is life, so life will stand often as a correct meaning of the soul. When soul is applied to man, it may be translated life, soul, man, you, yourself, person, myself, thyself, &c., according to the text."—Bible vs. Tradition. According to the preceding testimony, there is no necessity of claiming that the text [1 Thess. v, 23] refers to a disembodied spirit.

As testimony is commonly quoted to prove the immortality of the soul, there is either a useless repetition in the above text, or man is possessed of two parts, each independent of the body. First, they quote a text that speaks of the spirit, and tell us that is the immortal part. Next they quote a text that speaks of the soul, and that is the immortal part. But in the above text we have both words introduced, and they are used in such a manner as to lead us to conclude that they apply to two different parts of man. But we understand that Paul prayed that they might be preserved as beings, body, life and breath. The word that is rendered soul in this text is psuche.

"The Greek term psuche is the only Greek word used for soul. It comes from psucho, to breathe; to blow; its primary meaning is the breath, a living being, any animal that lives by breathing; the soul. Life, is a secondary and accommodated use of the term."—Bible vs. Tradition, p. 37.

The word in the above text, rendered spirit, is pneuma, which signifies breath.

"The Greek word pneuma, derived from pneo, to blow, has been chosen by inspiration to represent the Hebrew word ruah. It means wind, air, breath, and a something, or principle contained in them, which imparts and sustains life."—Bible vs. Tradition, p. 85.

Some seem to think if they can produce a text that says anything in regard to the spirit in man, that they have certainly proved the immortality of the soul; so they urge such texts as the above, and Job xxxii, 8, upon us as proof that man has a deathless spirit, ("But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding,") not stopping to consider, that not a word is said in these testimonies concerning the nature of the spirit, or its duration.

Some urge forward Gen. xxxv, 18, as proof of the separate existence of the soul. "And it came to pass as her soul was in departing, (for she died,) &c. It is claimed that here was something that departed. We reply that which departed was her life, as we may learn from the closing expression of the above testimony, "For she died." "She died," which caused her soul (life) to depart. Compare Gen. i, 20, 30, as rendered in the margin, with the above text.

Again, it is said, Elijah, prayed [1 Kings xvii, 21] "Let this child's soul come into him again." This text, letting it have all the bearing possible on the subject, would not prove the soul to be a part capable of a conscious existence, separate from the body. Elijah prayed that the soul might enter the body, it was that which would impart life to the body. Of course, the same soul leaving the body would cause it to die. But we inquire, what caused the death of the child? "His sickness was so sore that there was no breath left in him." Then the soul here spoken of is the breath of life. The breath of itself is not the life. But as we may learn from Gen. vii, 22, (margin,) it is called, "the breath of the spirit of life." "The life is in the blood." And by constant invigoration from the gases of the atmosphere conveyed to the blood through the lungs, man is kept in a healthy and active state.

It is claimed by those who advocate the view of the conscious existence of the soul in death, that Solomon must have believed that the soul or spirit was capable of a separate existence from the body. For he inquires, [Eccl. iii, 21,] "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, or the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the

earth?" From the above text it is urged, that there must be a spirit in man that exists after death, or Solomon would not have asked, "Who knoweth the spirit of man?" But do our objecting friends admit the conclusion to which their own argument would carry them? If because Solomon says, "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth up," his testimony proves that man has a deathless spirit; does it not prove the same for beasts when applied to them? "Who knoweth the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

We do not consider his testimony to prove, that either man or beasts have deathless spirits. An inference, it is true, has been thus drawn from his testimony, but is there, we inquire, any authority for drawing an inference from a text to support a sentiment, unless we are sure the sentiment is plainly taught in Scripture? Dr. Adam Clarke remarks on Matt. v, 26, "Let it be remembered, that by the consent of all, (except the basely interested,) no metaphor, is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls." If we can find that Solomon teaches in positive language that men have immortality, then (and not till then) will we consent to draw an inference to that effect from the above text.

We will now examine the context of the text, and inquire, Does Solomon, in Eccl. iii, teach the existence of spirits after death? We will begin with verse 18, and read. "I said in mine heart concerning the estates of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts." We do not understand that Solomon is going to teach that in every respect man is no higher than a beast. Man is endowed with higher intellectual faculties, and has the promise of immortality set before him to encourage him to seek God. There is, however, one point Solomon would call our attention to, in which man is not above the beast. Verse 19. "For (because, the reason why men are beasts) that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts: even one thing befalleth them, as the one dieth, so dieth the other, yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, for all is vanity." We are told that the death of man is the separation of the soul from the body. Says Solomon, "As man dieth, so dieth the beast." But according to Ps. civ, 29, the death of the beast is caused by taking away the breath. "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust."

Verse 20. Solomon continues, "All go unto one place, (we are told men go to heaven, then beasts go to heaven also,) all are of the dust, all turn to dust again." Here we have the positive testimony of Solomon. He then inquires, Who knoweth the spirit of man, &c. Who knows that it is contrary to what he has stated? The question compared with his positive statement, is like this. I state that this ink with which I am writing is black. Who knows that it is blue? No one would suppose I meant to have them infer that the ink was blue; for I had already positively stated that it was black. So with Solomon: he has stated first just how the case was, and then inquires, Who knows that the opposite is true? But we inquire was there a prevailing sentiment to give rise to such a question in the days of Solomon, if the soul was not immortal? Yes: Heathen Philosophers boldly asserted the immortality of the soul, and declared that when they died their souls would be deified, and dwell among the gods. If they had lived virtuous lives here, and had been a benefit to the world, they should go immediately among the greater gods, but were it otherwise they should go among the lesser gods. In accordance with this sentiment, Socrates is represented as saying just before he died, "Don't think when you carry out my body that you are burying Socrates. You will bury my body, but I shall go to be among the gods." Solomon living in a time when such a sentiment prevailed, made his positive statement in regard to it as we have above

copied, and how natural the inquiry that follows: "Who knoweth (that the Heathen sentiment is true) the spirit of man that goeth upward?" He has told us that man (not merely his body) turns to dust. The Douay (Catholic) Bible gives us the following rendering of the above text: "Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward."

The advocates of the doctrine we are opposing, unwilling still to quit their long-cherished position, urge forward the case of the souls under the altar, [Rev. vi, 9, 10,] supposing it to be conclusive testimony that the soul is conscious after death.

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth! And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them that they must rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

This scene presented to John, was a view of events as they would exist under the fifth state of the church, here brought to view under the fifth seal. These souls spoken of had not been born when John beheld them, and heard them cry for vengeance. So to claim that these souls must have been conscious when John saw them, is folly. He had a view of the persecutions of the Papal Church upon the people of God.

Some have supposed the souls were seen in heaven. But if they were redeemed and were in perfect happiness, why were they calling for vengeance on their blood? If the common theory be true, the very act of their blood's being spilled, hurried them into heaven. The scenes John was viewing were upon earth, and when he viewed the souls as they would be, they were under the altar, not under (as some would say) the altar of incense in heaven, but under the altars of Papal sacrifice. "They must rest until their fellow servants and their brethren should be killed as they were." Then their souls had been killed, (were dead) and (the dead know not anything,) were unconscious!

They were to rest. The Scriptures do not speak of men going to heaven to rest when dead. But, says Job, Chap. iii, 17, "There (in the grave) the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together," &c. But it is urged, "They cried," for vengeance and must therefore have been conscious. We answer, in the Scriptures intelligence is sometimes ascribed to inanimate objects, not to show that they possess consciousness, but to show the manner in which God regards the people connected with those objects. In Hab. ii, 11, we read, "The stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it." By reading the context we may learn this sentiment: if a city was built with blood or by bloodshed, the very city itself would witness against those who built it, and the idea is here conveyed by the wall's speaking.

James v, 4. "Behold the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth," &c. Here wages are represented as crying; not that money is conscious, or possessed of intelligence, but to show that God regards the dishonest dealings of men with their fellow men.

When Cain had spilled the blood of his brother upon the earth, God does not say to him, that the immortal soul of Abel came and informed me; but "The voice of thy brother's blood, crieth to me from the ground." God beheld his blood, and it revealed the fact that wrong had been committed, a life had been taken, and thus it called for vengeance; but no one would claim that the blood had a voice. So in Revelation, when the fifth seal was opened, "The souls of them that had been beheaded, cried."

We have already shown that the word soul sometimes applies to the life. ("The life of the flesh is the blood.") The blood of those who had been slain as it ran under the altars of sacrifice spoke for vengeance with the same voice as did Abel's blood. This testimony is not to give us to understand that the soul is conscious, but being given hundreds of years before hand, was to comfort and encourage God's people who might be called upon to pass through the fiery ordeal. God assured them, that although they might suffer, he beheld their lives they had laid down, and in a little season he not only would avenge them on the Papacy; but according to the promise given before of Christ, "He that will lose his life for my sake and the gospels, shall keep it unto life eternal," they might expect a rich reward.

John saw these souls again as he was viewing events connected with Christ's second coming, as recorded in Rev. xx, 4. "And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, . . . and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." According to the above testimony, when he first saw them, they were dead; for he says they lived, (came to life.) His next testimony, shows that this is what he means; for, "The rest of the dead (then these were part of the dead,) lived not again (did not come to life) until the thousand years were finished." It seems this testimony then cannot be made to prove anything in favor of consciousness in death.

Others perhaps at this point in the investigation stand ready to refer us to the case of Saul and Samuel, supposing it to prove the existence of the soul after death. But let us examine the matter with care. 1 Sam. xxviii, 3. "Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city."

"And the Philistines gathered themselves together, and came and pitched in Shunem." "And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart greatly trembled. And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit," . . . and they said, "There is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor?" And Saul came unto the woman and he sware to her that no harm should befall her for performing this work he desired. "Then said the woman, whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, bring me up Samuel; and when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice; and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul; and the king said unto her, Be not afraid; for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth; and he said unto her, What form is he of? and she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel." "And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" Samuel is represented as saying to him, [verse 19,] "Moreover, the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me."

The above testimony is far from establishing that for which it is often quoted: the immortality of the soul. There is not a word said in regard to the soul. It is first stated that Samuel was dead and buried. How then could he converse in this manner without a resurrection? The testimony is that Samuel was disquieted, and brought up. The scene all goes to show (if it was a reality) that Samuel had a resurrection. But we inquire, Is it reasonable to suppose that God would impart power to the woman that she might raise Samuel to converse with Saul, when he would take no notice of him through the means of communication he had himself appointed? viz., dreams, Urim and prophets.

Again, should we take the position commonly claimed, that this was a conversation between Saul and Samuel's soul, can we admit, that Saul and his sons were going to be admitted the next day into heaven, ("to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,") when we are informed that God would not answer his prayers, and as Samuel is represented as stating to him, [verse 16,] "The Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?" If we believed it to be real that Saul was the next day to be with Samuel, it would simply prove that Saul would be in the grave.

We look upon it as a deception that was practiced upon Saul. It is not stated that he saw Samuel, but he received his testimony from the woman. This is a case of consultation with familiar spirits. The act of professing to consult with the dead, is a sin abhorred in the sight of God as we may learn from the Scriptures.

When the Lord was about to bring the children of Israel into the land of Canaan, he said to them, "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." Deut. xviii. "Because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." Here the Lord protests against professing to consult with the dead; and numbers it with the sins which had filled up the cup of the Amorites.

When God made the promise to Abraham, the reason given him that his seed should sojourn in a strange land, was, "For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." Gen. xv, 16. But when they were given up to idolatry, and engaged in the damning sin of necromancy, the Lord's anger was kindled against them and he drove them out of the land.

Isaiah speaks of a work of consulting with spirits, that should after exist in the following manner: [Chap. viii.] "When they say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter, should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?" Why not seek to the dead? If the sentiment be true that the spirits of our dead friends are our guardian angels, consistency would teach that there should be some medium of communication between them and their friends whom they were guarding. But the testimony of Job is, [Chap. xiv, 19-21.] "And thou destroyest the hope of man. Thou prevailest for ever against him, and he passeth: thou changest his countenance, and sendest him away. His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not: and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them." From this testimony we learn, that man in the state of death is not in a position to guard his friends on earth, for he is ignorant of their prosperity and adversity.

The same sentiment is taught concerning Abraham by Isaiah, [Chap. lxiii, 16.] in directing his petition to God concerning his inheritance. "Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not." It would be absurd to claim that Abraham was ignorant of those who were looking for the same inheritance promised him, if he was their guardian angel.

How different the above testimonies from that of one of the great men of this nation, when placing his son in the Military Academy at West Point, "Remember (said he) that the heroes of the revolution are about you, and are watching your movements."

To the dead is not the place to go for knowledge. But Isaiah says, "To the law and the testimony, if they (those who seek unto familiar spirits) speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The Word declares "the dead know not anything," while necromancy ascribes knowledge to the dead, at least in its present form, (Spiritualism.) We understand the case of Saul and Samuel to be a case similar to the Spiritual manifestations of the present time, with this difference: in ancient time the work was performed by pretending to raise the dead, but at the present by consulting with departed souls. Then no communication of this kind was a pretended resurrection of the person with whom men were desirous of consulting. But now legions of spirits, professing to be the souls of our friends who have "left the shores of time," flock around, earnestly desiring the privilege of instructing us.

It is claimed by the advocates of the conscious existence of the soul in death, that the deaths of the patriarchs, and saints of old time, are recorded in such a manner as to give us to understand that they still exist after death. The death of Isaac is a sample of those they quote. Gen. xxxv, 28, 29. "And the days of Isaac were an hundred and four-score years. And Isaac gave up the ghost and died, and was gathered unto his people, being old and full of days; and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him." Here it is claimed "he was gathered to his people." Where were his people? There is no testimony that says they were in heaven. We shall claim that they were in the grave, from the last clause of the text above quoted, Esau and Jacob buried him.

His father certainly was in the grave, and went to his fathers when he went to the grave. Gen. xv, 15. "And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace: thou shalt be buried in a good old age." He went to his fathers in the grave.

When Jacob supposed his son was destroyed by beasts and was mourning for him, his testimony goes far from proving that he was in heaven. Gen. xxxvii, 35. "And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him: but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him."

We should conclude if any of the patriarchs were favored with the privilege of entering heaven, David would be one, as he is said to be a man after God's own heart. But what is the testimony concerning David? Paul testifies concerning him, [Acts xiii, 36.] "For David after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers and saw corruption." David at death went to his fathers and saw corruption. Certainly there is no corruption in heaven.

Peter speaking of David, [Acts ii, 34.] says, "For David is not ascended into the heavens."

If (as some say) David is in a conscious state, where is he? Peter says [Acts ii, 29.] "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day."

The testimony of the Bible, is far from stating that the worthies of old went to heaven when they died. Paul says, [Heb. xi, 13.] speaking of a multitude of saints, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises."

[To be Continued.]