OR, AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION AND FUTURE CONDITION OF MAN.^
By Editor
BY THE EDITOR.
(Continued.)
IMMATERIALITY.
Although we noted in the outset that the light of nature and reason is insufficient to decide the immortality of the soul, yet as there are a few points to which some may be fondly cleaving in the belief that the doctrine can be fairly demonstrated therefrom, it may not be amiss briefly to notice them. The first is the argument drawn from immateriality. The soul, it is claimed, is immaterial and hence immortal in its nature. Having progressed so far as we have in this investigation, this point need not detain us long. We reply then. 1. We neither know what matter is nor what spirit is, but only some of the qualities of each. 2. Where is the proof that the soul is immaterial? It certainly is not drawn from nature; for all nature is material; it is not drawn from reason; for reason cannot comprehend the existence of immateriality; it cannot be drawn from revelation; for that expressly declares that man is dead, and the mind carnal. We do not mean to be understood that the mind is material; but we do claim that all vital and mental phenomena result from material causes.
But allowing the utmost latitude to this view, it equally proves the souls of all animals, fishes, reptiles and insects immaterial; for they remember, fear, imagine, compare, manifest gratitude, anger, sorrow, desire, &c. Bishop Warburton expressly says, “I think it may be strictly demonstrated that man has an immaterial soul; but then the same arguments which prove that, prove likewise that the souls of all living animals are immaterial.” Whoever therefore affirms the immortality of man from the immateriality of his soul, is bound to affirm the same, not only of the nobler animals, but also of all the lower orders of the brute creation. Here, again, believers in natural immortality are crushed beneath the weight of their own arguments. If it be said that God can, if he choose, blot from existence the immaterial soul of the beetle and the titmouse; we reply, so can he that of man; and then its immortality is at an end, and the whole argument abandoned.
CAPACITIES OF THE SOUL.
The argument here is that as all men are capable of immortality, therefore all are immortal. We might sternly remind the adducers of this argument that we are here asking for proof, and that inferences will not be admitted to the stand. As to the argument itself, we might brand upon its idiot forehead, “Incompetent,” and thus give a summary dismissal. But we ask, Is it not almost an infinitely small portion of the race that has manifested those great powers on which this argument is based? And if an argument may be based on the capacities of some, may not an equal and opposite argument be based on the incapacity of others? And as there is almost every conceivable gradation of intelligence, who will tell us whereabouts in this scale this infinite endowment is first perceptible? Looking at the human race and the races immediately below, we behold a point where they seem to blend indistinguishably into each other. Will an utter lack of capacity be affirmed of the higher order of animals? And descending in the scale, where shall we stop? or, which is the same thing, according to this argument, where does immortality first let go its hold? “Dr. Brown, according to his biographer Dr. Welsh, ‘believed that many of the lower animals have the sense of right and wrong; and that the metaphysical argument which proves the immortality of man, extends with equal force to the other orders of earthly existence.’” Similar views are attributed to Coleridge and Cudworth.
But on this argument we have said enough. It has already wrapt itself from sight in the heavy mantle of its own fog.
UNIVERSAL BELIEF AND INBORN DESIRE.
Men have universally believed in the immortality of the soul, it is claimed, and men everywhere desire it; therefore all men have it—strange conclusion from strange premises. As to the first part of this argument, the universal belief, that appears not to be true in fact. On this a glance at a quotation or two, must suffice. “We find Socrates and his disciples represented by Plato, as fully admitting in their discussions of the subject, that ‘men in general were highly incredulous as to the soul’s future existence.’ The Epicurean school openly contended against it. Aristotle passes it by as not worth considering, and takes for granted the contrary supposition, as not needing proof.” When Cicero “sets himself to prove the immortality of the soul, he represents the contrary as the prevailing opinion,” there being “crowds of opponents, not the Epicureans only; but which he could not account for, those that were the most learned persons had that doctrine in contempt.”
Touching the other portion of the argument, the universal and inborn desire, those who make use of it to make it of any avail, are bound to supply and prove the suppressed premise, which is that all men have what they desire. The syllogism would then stand thus: (1.) All men have what they desire. (2.) All men desire immortality. Conclusion. Therefore all men are immortal. This is a fair statement of the question; but are any presumptuous enough to take the ground that all men have what they desire? Is it true in fact? Do not our everyday’s observations give it the unqualified lie? Men desire riches; but all do not possess them; they desire health, but all do not have it; they desire happiness here, but what an infinitely small portion of the race are really happy. To try to get over the matter by saying that these desires which men have may be gratified by their taking a right course, is an abandonment of the whole argument; for thus much we readily grant concerning immortality: all men may gratify their desires here by taking a right course; but immortality is suspended upon conditions, and those only will have it in whom these conditions are found to be rigidly complied with.
But there is another deadly flaw in this argument in another respect; for it is not immortality in the abstract that is the object of this great desire among men, but happiness. And the very persons who contend for immortality because men desire it, hold that a great portion of the race will be forever miserable. But this is not what men desire; and not being what they desire, it follows that all will not obtain what they desire, and hence the argument built on desire is good for nothing on their own showing. It simply proves universal salvation, or that men will be forever happy because all men desire it, or it proves nothing.
ANALOGIES OF NATURE—A DISTINCTION.
The day shuts down in darkness; but it is not forever lost; the morn returns again, and the bright sun comes forth rejoicing as a strong man to run a race. Nature is bound, cold and lifeless, in the icy chains of winter; but it is not lost in absolute death. Anon the spring approaches, and at his animating voice and warm breath, the pulse of life beats again through all her works; her cold cheek kindles with the glow of fresh vitality; and she comes forth adorned with new beauty, waking new songs of praise in every grove. The chrysalis, too, that lay apparently a dead worm, motionless and dry, soon wakes up to a higher life, and comes forth gloriously arrayed, like a “living blossom of the air,” sipping nectar from the choicest sweets of earth, and nestling in the bosom of its fairest flowers. And so too, it is claimed of man, “that when the body shall drop as a withered calyx, the soul shall go forth like a winged seed.”
Let us take care that here our judgments are not led captive by the fascinations of poetry, or the rhetorical beauties of which this argument is so eminently susceptible. Among the many instances of nature, we find only a few that present the analogies here presented. The chrysalis so often referred to, after it has spent its brief day as a living butterfly, perishes and is heard of no more forever. So with all the higher order of animals: they fall in death and make no more their appearance upon our path. The most then that can be drawn from this argument is a faint foreshadowing perhaps of a future life. But here, let it be understood, there is no issue. We all agree that the race shall be called again to life. “As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. xv, 22. But the point at issue is, Are our souls immortal, and must this life be, to all our race, necessarily eternal? To prove that man will live again is one thing; to prove that that life will be eternal, is quite another.
THE ANOMALIES OF THE PRESENT STATE.
How often do we here see the wicked spreading himself like a green bay tree, having more than heart could wish, while the righteous grope their way along, in trouble and want. The wicked are exalted, and the good oppressed. This does not look like the arrangement of a God who is the patron of virtue and the enemy of vice. It is therefore argued that there will be another state in which all these wrongs shall be righted, virtue rewarded and wickedness punished. Yes, we reply, there will. But certainly a space of time infinitely short of eternity, would suffice to correct all the anomalies of this brief life, which so puzzle men here. This argument, like the former, may be a fair inference for a future state; it may portend to the ungodly a scene of retribution, but can prove nothing as to its eternity.122
POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS.
Thus far our reasoning has been rather of a negative than a positive character; showing that the reasons on which an uncontingent immortality is predicated of man, are not valid. With a few considerations, positive in their nature, we dismiss this part of the subject.
1. Adam was on probation. Life and death were set before him. “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” said God. The only promise of life he had in case of disobedience, came from one whom it is not very flattering to the advocates of a natural immortality to call the first propounder and natural ally of their system. But had Adam been endowed with a natural immortality, it could not have been suspended on his obedience. But it was so suspended, as we learn from the first pages of revelation. It was therefore not absolute but contingent. Immortal he might become by obedience to God: disobeying he was to die. He did disobey, and was driven from the garden. “And now,” said God, “lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever;” therefore the cherubim and flaming sword were placed to exclude forever his approach to the life-giving tree. Quite the reverse of an uncontingent immortality is certainly brought to view here. Adam could bequeath to his posterity no higher nature than he himself possessed. The stream that, commencing in the garden of Eden, has flowed down through the lapse of 6000 years, has certainly never risen higher than the fountain head; and we may be sure we possess no superior endowments in this respect to those of Adam.
2. The second consideration under this head is, the exhortations we have in the word of God to seek for immortality, if we would obtain it. “Seek the Lord, and ye shall live,” is his declaration to the house of Israel. Amos v, 4, 6. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. vi, 23. Gift to whom? To every man irrespective of character? By no means; but gift through Christ to them only who are his. Again, “To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor and immortality, [God will render] eternal life.” Rom. ii, 7. Varying the language of the apostle a little, we may here inquire, what a man hath, why doth he yet seek for? The propriety of seeking for that which we already have, is something in regard to which it yet remains that we be enlightened by the advocates of the dominant theology.
Of man while living, we are now prepared to take leave. We have examined into his constituent parts, as brought to view in the Bible record of the creation; and though “fearfully and wonderfully made,” we still find him but a unit, and that mortal. We have examined the terms applied to him in this life, which are supposed to contain the mystery and bear the burden of immortality; but we find they will not support the popular assumption. Nor can we find in the phenomena of his creation or his life, any evidence that he bears within his bosom a quenchless spirit, an undying principle. It now only remains that we trace his condition in and beyond the grave.
MAN IN DEATH.
Finding nothing in the description of man in life, from which we can even infer a compound nature, or an unconditional immortality, we inquire if in any description of his state in death, we find anything from which we can legitimately infer that he is in possession of a separate entity capable of existence, and which does exist, independently of the body. Overlooking the infantile babblings of science, falsely so called, we appeal at once to the inspired word. In plain and unmistakable terms it speaks as follows: “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 forever in anything that is done under the sun. For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest.” Eccl. ix, 5, 6, 10.
This quotation contains a clear enunciation of the doctrine which we believe. But before proceeding to adduce other positive scriptures on this point, we will examine the more prominent of those passages which we have been taught to believe furnished conclusive evidence of the soul's conscious existence after death. For it is certain that when objections are suffered to lie undisturbed in the mind, their influence is, so far as it goes, however unconscious we may be of the fact, to close it to the entrance of conviction, and shut the eyes to the bearing and importance of any amount of positive testimony that may be produced. It is for this reason that we think it best for the writer on this subject, to address himself in the forefront of the investigation, to the work of breaking down the barriers which prejudice or education may have raised in our minds against the harmonious teaching of the word of God.
EXAMINATION OF SCRIPTURES SUPPOSED TO TEACH MAN'S CONSCIOUSNESS IN DEATH.
a. Gen. xxv, 8. It is claimed that the deaths of the patriarchs are recorded in such a manner as to give us to understand that their existence did not cease with death: Abraham, for instance: “Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years, and was gathered to his people.” Gen. xxv, 8. God had promised Abraham [see Gen. xv, 15] that he should go to his fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age. Now what evidence have we that his fathers were righteous persons? It is a very significant fact, to say the least, that he had to be separated from his kindred and his father’s house, in order that God might make him a special subject of his providence. And if we may credit the book of Jasher, his “people” were gross idolaters. If this be so, they were, at the time of Abraham's death, according to popular opinion, burning in hell. And if Abraham's being gathered to them means that his soul should go to be with theirs, it follows that God gave him the not very consoling promise, that he should “go to hell in peace.” But none of “Abraham's seed” will be willing to admit for a moment that such can be the condition of their “righteous father.” We answer then that his being gathered to his people simply means his being gathered to them in the grave, the common receptacle of all the dead. Jacob said when mourning for Joseph, whom he supposed dead, “I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning.” Gen. xxxvii, 35. And the apostle, speaking of David, says that he “was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption.” Acts xiii, 36.
b. Gen. xxxv, 18. “And it came to pass as her soul was in departing (for she died),” &c. On this passage Luther Lee remarks, “Her body did not depart. Her brains did not depart. There was nothing which departed, which could consistently be called her soul; only upon the supposition that there is in man an immaterial spirit, which leaves the body at death.” But the reader needs not to be reminded that neh-phesh, the word here used for soul, signifies something else besides brain and body. For our part we much prefer the exposition of Parkhurst, mentioned above, that neh-phesh may here signify the breath. And such an idea is in the strictest accordance with reason and matter of fact; thus, it came to pass as her breath was departing (or as the breath of life was leaving her) for she died, &c. Compare this with Gen. i, 20, 30, margin.123
c. 1 Sam. xxviii, 15, or, The Witch of Endor. In considering this singular chapter, several important points must be noticed. 1. The Lord had departed from Saul, and “answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by Prophets.” Verse 6. 2. In this condition, he seeks information by means of necromancy. But necromancy (a pretended communication with the dead.—Webster) God had specially denounced and forbidden as a heinous sin. Deut. xviii, 9-11. It is therefore morally certain that the Lord would not answer him in this way. 3. If Samuel's immortal soul was in heaven, as of course it was if popular theology be true, it is very improbable that it should come back to earth, at the bidding of such a notorious sinner as one who had a familiar spirit. 4. If Samuel had come from heaven, to go back of course at the close of the interview, he uttered an untruth when he told Saul that he should be the next day with him [verse 19]; for we cannot suppose for a moment that one whom God had utterly forsaken here, would immediately be received into heaven. 5. Samuel is represented as saying, “Why hast thou disquieted me to bring me up?” [verse 15] not why hast thou brought me or my immortal soul down from heaven, but why hast thou brought me up? showing conclusively that if this is to be understood as a literal transaction, Samuel came, not down from heaven, but up from the grave, by a bodily resurrection; in which case the conscious-state dogma receives no countenance from it whatever. But we should consider it as highly improbable that the witch should be permitted to bring Samuel up bodily from the grave, as that she should be permitted to bring, at will, his immortal spirit down from heaven. We therefore consider the whole thing a deception of the Devil, a display of satanic power, an ancient spirit manifestation; differing from the modern only in this respect: that then to make his deception take, he had to pretend to bring up the dead; now he gets astride the prevailing belief of a conscious-spirit entity, and rides the immortal souls all back from heaven.
d. 1 Kings xvii, 21, 22. “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” The same claim is set up from this text as from Gen. xxxv, 18, and we reply that the same exposition may be given of it. And that this is a correct exposition is shown from the account of the child's sickness and death in verse 17. His sickness was so sore, says the record, that there was no breath left in him. And then, as would naturally be supposed, when Elijah comes to restore him, he prays that the very thing that had left him and thereby caused his death, might come into him again, and cause him to live; namely, the breath of life.
e. Ps. xc, 10. “The days of our years are three score years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” What flies away, and where does it fly to? it is here asked. It will be noticed that the latter clause of the verse states the reason why our strength is labor and sorrow; and it must strike any one as very singular reasoning to say that our strength is labor and sorrow, because it is soon cut off, and we go to heaven (?) We should rather conclude the idea to be, that it is soon cut off, and we go into the grave, where, according to the quotation from Eccl., there is no work, wisdom, knowledge nor device. This is confirmed by Eccl. ix, 3. “The heart of the sons of men is full of evil; and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.” Had this text read, “and after that they go away,” it would have been exactly parallel to Ps. xc, 10; for no essential difference can be claimed between going and flying. But here it is expressly told where we go: we go to the grave. What is omitted in Ps. xc, 10, is here supplied.
f. Eccl. iii, 21. “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” This text is made the basis of an opinion that Solomon believed man had a spirit capable of a separate conscious existence in death. But do our friends not perceive that the beasts also are said to have a spirit, and if it follows from that expression, that man's spirit is conscious after death, the same is also true of the beast? Do they not know also that the word rendered spirit in both cases is their great enemy, ruach, the very same word that is in the text but one before, rendered breath: “they have all one breath?” Now let us examine the context. Solomon expresses a desire in verse 18, that the sons of men might see that they themselves are beasts. Not that he intended that man is in no respect superior to a beast; for he is in many respects: in his organization, in his reasoning faculties, and infinitely so in his future prospects, if righteous. But he simply means, as we learn from verse 19, that in one respect, in respect to death, man possesses no superiority over the other orders of animated existence. “For,” he says, “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 [in this respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast. All go unto one place [if then men go to heaven, beasts go there with them]; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” After having thus expressly declared that the life and condition in death, of man and beast, are exactly alike, can we suppose that he means in the very next verse to contradict all he has said before, and declare that there is a difference? We cannot. It is therefore but reasonable to conclude that the translation of this passage as given by John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, is correct; namely, “Who knoweth the spirit of man (an sursum ascendat) whether it goeth upward,” &c. The Douay Bible renders the passage thus: “Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descend downward?” To this agree the Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldee Paraphrase and Syriac version. Such a view, that man's spirit went up and the beast's down, was doubtless prevalent in the heathen world, in the days of Solomon. After stating therefore, the facts in the case, he inquires, Who knows that this heathen sentiment is true, that man's spirit goes up, and the beast's down? He had declared that they all went to one place. Who can contradict it? Let any one take a different view of this scripture, and free it from difficulty if he can.
g. Eccl. xii, 7. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Here, it is said, is an express declaration that the spirit does fly away to God, or that the soul lives after the body is dead. Well, as the spirit is said to be something expressly given us of God, and that too, in connection with the body made of dust, we ask for the record of this gift, and a description of the thing given. The mind naturally reverts to Gen. ii, 7, where it is recorded that the body of man was formed of dust, and the breath of life was breathed into it directly from God. Is then this breath of life the spirit which God has given man? We have no record of any other. But this breath of life, as we have seen, is common to all living things, and cannot therefore be used as a distinguishing characteristic of man. And if this breath, as drawn from the surrounding atmosphere, may be said to come from, or be given by God, with the same propriety may it be said, when it leaves the body at death, to return unto him. This text therefore furnishes no assistance to the opposite of the views we hold, nor any objection to our own.
h. Matt. x, 28. “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul [and after that have no more that they can do—Luke], but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” On the authority of this text it is claimed that the soul is a thing endowed with life distinct from the body; that it lives on in consciousness after death; for killing the body does not and cannot kill it. So far indeed it looks very plausible. But we must take into consideration that the word here rendered soul is psyche [psuche], a word forty times rendered “life” in the New Testament. In the 39th verse of the same chapter we have an instance: “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it.” Substitute the word soul here for life, and take the expression, to lose the soul, in the popular signification, and what a text we should have! “He that findeth his soul shall lose it in hell; and he that loseth his soul in hell in everlasting misery for my sake, shall find it!” But the word is there correctly translated life, and means just what it says: He that findeth his life, that is, seeks by a compromise of the truth and the gospel of Christ, to save his life in this world, shall lose it, or be deprived of it in the world to come; but he that follows devotedly in the footsteps of his Saviour, even though he should thereby lose his life here, or be put to death by those who can kill the body, but have no more that they can do, shall find himself in the world to come in possession of a life, over which the puny arm of man has no control. So in verse 28: We are not to fear them which can kill the body, or deprive us of our brief span of life here, but cannot touch that life which is hid with Christ in God, which will be bestowed upon us when our great Life-giver shall appear. Col. iii, 3, 4.
i. Matt. xvii, 3, or The Transfiguration. “And behold there appeared unto them, Moses and Elias talking with him.” Although Moses was buried long ages before on the lonely mount of Nebo, here he is, or rather his immortal soul, it is claimed, present and conscious on the mount of transfiguration: from which the conclusion is, that the soul does not become unconscious when the body dies. In regard to this transaction, we remark, that it was a vision, as it is called in verse 9, or Moses and Elias were really and bodily present on the occasion. On either assumption the text is easily and clearly explainable. If it was merely a vision it is not necessary that Moses or Elias should be even immaterially present, and therefore it would have nothing to do with the question of consciousness in death. But if it was a real transaction, then they themselves were present, and not merely their immortal souls. Elias had been translated, and hence could be present without involving any involvement of soul and body. This, Luther Lee admits when he says, “So far as Elias is concerned, we admit, there is little or no force in it, since he was translated and did not die; but so far as Moses is concerned the argument is conclusive.” Not quite so conclusive as it is supposed; for if Moses was bodily present, it was not by virtue of any immortal soul in its independent existence, but by a resurrection. Dr. Clarke admits this as his comment on this passage shows. Thus he says, “Elijah came from heaven in the same body which he had upon earth, for he was translated and did not see death, 2 Kings ii, 11. And the body of Moses was probably raised again as a pledge of the resurrection.” If this is correct, it affords a good explanation of Jude 9, which must otherwise remain somewhat shrouded in mystery. This passage however need not detain us longer. If Moses was not there, the whole scene was a vision; if he was there he was resurrected; and in either case no argument can be drawn from it in favor of the conscious state of the dead, or the existence of the soul separately from the body.
j. Matt. xxii, 32, or Christ and the Sadducees. “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” This testimony would not be true, it is claimed, if there was not an immortal part of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then living; for otherwise, contrary to the express declaration of Christ, God would be the God of the dead. But a careful attention to the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees, will utterly preclude such a conclusion. See verse 23: “The same day came to him the Sadducees which say there is no resurrection, and asked him,” &c. The Sadducees professed to believe the writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed the writings of Moses but taught the resurrection. Here then was a fair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to object their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning marriage, and then state a familiar fact, viz., that seven brothers one after another all had one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem very difficult to their minds, no doubt. How will this matter be arranged in the resurrection, which you teach? Whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ and the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state, nor does their query or Christ's answer, have any reference to such a state. They do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men's immortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, whose wife shall she be in the resurrection (a future event)? Christ tells them that they err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. And then to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouth, he proceeds to prove—what? a conscious, intermediate state? No; but the resurrection, from the writings of Moses. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, says he, [“as touching the dead that they rise,” says Mark; and “that the dead are raised,” says Luke] have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Let us now show that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and our argument on this passage is closed. That Moses by this language did teach the resurrection of the dead, we think is easily evident. Thus, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead; but God is not the God of the dead (or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead; as the Sadducees believed them to be), but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What therefore shall we logically and scripturally conclude from this fact? Why, simply that they shall live again or have a resurrection from the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved the point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection.
But grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed for it, and what becomes of Christ's reputation as a reasoner, and a teacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection; but when he closes his argument, lo, mirabile visu! he has proved that all men are alive, and therefore there is no need of a resurrection! He neither meets the query of the Sadducees nor defends himself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus, ye who can!
If any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but claim from it that such resurrection took place at death, a theory not uncommon at the present time, we reply that they thereby abandon the conscious-state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died on another ground, viz., a resurrection. But further, this is equally foreign from what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an event which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman, who had died. They asked him, saying, “In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them, &c. And Jesus answered and said, “When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven.” Mark xii, 23-25. Again, in Luke's account, Jesus says, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Luke xx, 35. Thus we see that a future event is everywhere referred to, and if he in reality proved that an event had already taken place, which he designed to show would take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or his wisdom than the former supposition.
But enough on this argument. We have found it an irrefragable evidence for the resurrection of the dead, and a future life; but it affirms nothing whatever for consciousness in death.