Your ShelfYour Projects

Modern Spiritualism

4%

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Oct 2, 1879

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 5, No. 37.

Read the full edition

Modern Spiritualism.

By Editor

THEY ARE NOT THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD.

BESIDES the demons so often spoken of in the Scriptures (commonly translated devils), there is another class of spiritual existences recognized there, namely, the angels of God. We hold that none of these are the spirits of dead human beings. Angels have sometimes appeared in the similitude of men, but that a distinction is recognized is very plain. Paul says in Heb. 2:16, that Christ took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; therefore the seed of Abraham are not angels. In the account of the transfiguration, which was the only instance of the appearance (after death) of any of Adam's race, till after the resurrection of Christ, Moses and Elias are called by name, but they are not called angels. At the resurrection of Christ, "the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven," while saints came up out of their graves.
We elsewhere prove that the devil was not of human origin; as he was a sinner before the fall of the human race. Peter also says that the angels that sinned were cast down, to be reserved unto the Judgment. 2 Pet. 2:4. Jude says the same. Verse 6. Paul says the saints shall judge angels; but this judgment, to which the fallen angels are reserved, is not in this life. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. The Saviour promised the apostles that, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, they shall sit upon thrones, judging. Matt. 19:28. And John located their occupancy of the thrones of judgment after the resurrection. Rev. 20. Thus the distinction of saints and angels is still preserved in the world to come. Again, that there are heavenly intelligences not of human origin is shown in Gen. 3, where it is stated that God placed cherubim to guard the way of the tree of life. This was before the death of any of the human race.
The passage of Scripture that is, perhaps, more than any other, pressed into the service of Spiritualism, is found in Rev. 22:9; but this also is made to serve in that cause by a perversion. Spiritualists affirm that the angel said he was one of the prophets. The word one is not in the text, neither is it necessary to be supplied to make sense of the text, or to make it harmonize with the general teachings of the Scriptures. To the contrary, we contend that the addition of this word gives a wrong sense to the passage—one not justified by the Scriptures; yet that addition is quite necessary to make it even seem to teach the spiritual theory. It is quoted with this addition by Judge Edmonds, in "Spiritual Tracts," No. 2, p. 12, or "Reply to Bishop Hopkins," by a Mr. Barnum, in a discussion at Clarksfield, Ohio, published at Oberlin; and is so used, though not in the form of a verbatim quotation, by Woodman, "Reply to Dwight," p. 19; and by Gov. Tallmadge in the Introduction to the "Healing of the Nations," p. 24. The angel refused to be worshiped by John, saying, "I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." Now if there is an ellipsis to be supplied anywhere in the passage it is quite as natural to read it: "I am thy fellow-servant, and the fellow-servant of thy brethren the prophets," etc. All intelligences are fellow-servants of the same Deity.
But if the passage contained the interpolated word, and read as quoted by Edmonds and others, it would not necessarily teach the spiritual view, as Enoch and Elijah did not die, and many saints were raised from the dead at the resurrection of Christ; and one of these could have said with truth what is attributed to the angel in Rev. 22:9.
This leads us to examine the subject of Scripture psychology, or perhaps more properly Scripture anthropology; for we wish to inquire what the Scriptures teach of man as a being, a subject of the government of God. And we feel confident that a fair examination of this subject must convince those who make the word of God their standard of faith that it is impossible that these rappers should be the souls or spirits of dead men.
Man was formed of the dust of the earth; when the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the man (that was made of the dust) became a living soul. Gen. 2:7. These words are translated from the Hebrew neh-phesh chay-iah. The correct use of these words seems to be but little understood. It is generally supposed that the term soul, or living soul, implies an immortal, intelligent principle, superadded to the man that was made of the dust of the earth. But the Scriptures do not so teach. The man that was made of the earth became a living soul, or living creature. But he was made before he received the breath of life; of course he was then an inanimate, lifeless creature, or soul. Some reader, may, perhaps, be shocked at the idea of a lifeless or dead soul; but the Scriptures are our guide, and they warrant the expression. In Num. 6:6, the law of the Nazarite is that "he shall come at no dead body;" Hebrew, meth neh-phesh, literally, dead soul. The same also in Num. 19:13. Again, Eze. 18:4, says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." There could then be no impropriety in calling it a dead soul.
The Hebrew word neh-phesh occurs in the Old Testament 745 times. It is translated soul, 473 times; life, 118 times; person, 29 times; mind, 15 times; heart, 15 times; body, 10 times; will, 4 times; thing, twice; beast, twice. It is translated 43 different ways, but is never spoken of as being immortal. It first occurs in Gen. 1:20: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life;" Hebrew, soul; see margin. Also in verse 30: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life;" margin, Hebrew, a living soul. Verse 24 is nearly like verse 30, but neh-phesh is translated creature. On this passage, Dr. Clarke says:—
"Neh-phesh chayiah; a general term to express all creatures endued with animal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations; from the half-reasoning elephant down to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the polyp, which seems equally to share the vegetable and animal life."
If this expression, living soul, applied to man in Gen. 2:7, proves his natural immortality, it would equally prove the immortality of those living souls or creatures spoken of by Dr. Clarke, as quoted above. But we do not consider that they prove the immortality of these inferior creatures or imply their equality with man; nor does man's superiority and hope of immortality rest on such expressions.
The doctrine of inherent immortality, independent of the gospel of Christ, is not a Bible doctrine, and of course is not of divine origin. But it is the foundation of Spiritualism, and therefore we cannot wonder at the great efforts of Spiritualists to uphold the dogma. Were we ignorant of Satan's devices, we should be astonished that a doctrine, which has not a single testimony of Scripture to sustain it, should come to be a cardinal doctrine, professedly based on the Scriptures. And when we see hundreds and thousands of professors of Christianity renouncing the Bible for Spiritualism, claiming that it affords the most reasonable and philosophical evidence of the immortality of the soul, we can but think it is because the words of the Lord in Gen. 3:19, and the gospel hope of the resurrection of the dead, have been rejected.
We are admonished by this that error is always dangerous in its tendency, whatever appearance it may present. It may in a measure be inert, and be regarded as harmless, or even useful, till called into activity by circumstances, and may then become the prevailing and overspreading abomination of the age. Error is never innocent. If it appears to be idle, it is yet like the seed thrown into the ground, which, though lost to the eye and beyond immediate notice, is nevertheless gaining strength to spring forth into life and activity. And as we do not expect a harvest except the grain passes through a process of gradual development, so error is often sown in stillness, and acquires strength without opposition, because the nature of its fruit is not yet apparent. By association, also, vice itself ceases to appear repulsive; therefore, we should not be surprised if those who have sported with error in its youth, should consent to nourish it in its age. That these remarks are pertinent, we think will appear on examination of the subject.
When man was created, he was subject to law, and (contrary to the teachings of Spiritualism) placed on probation, or made accountable for his actions. The Lord forbade a certain course of action, declaring as a penalty if he pursued it, that he should "surely die." The serpent contradicted God, and said man should not die though he disobeyed. Here the foundation was laid for the theory of Spiritualism. But the issue is on record—the result is apparent to all. The serpent "beguiled" them to destruction, as the Bible says. Adam died, Eve died, and their posterity are every day dying around us. But the deceptions of the "wicked one" are not ended. He has introduced false expositions of God's word, and yet makes man believe that he is right. Satan assumes a wise demeanor, and introduces himself as a learned philosopher! telling man that his body was corruptible in its nature, and it would have died if he had never sinned! but his "soul" is immortal and cannot die though he sin ever so much. And this, alas, is currently believed. But if this were so, it would be more proper to say that the Lord beguiled man, making him believe that death was the consequence of his sin, and not of his nature; wherein then did the serpent lie? We ask the reader to pause and reflect, and turn from a doctrine involving such impious conclusions.
It is certainly safe and right to take the Lord's own exposition of the penalty he threatened, as enunciated in the sentence pronounced against the transgression. The sentence pronounced by the Lord was this: That man should return unto the ground from whence he was taken. His action was this: He drove man out of the garden, and deprived him of the tree of life, lest he should eat and live forever. By this we learn what God meant when he told man he should die if he disobeyed. And here we have before us the record of the creation of man, his probation, his fall, the sentence, and its execution; facts in which we are all interested, a thralldom in which we are all involved, and hence the necessity exists for a full understanding of the subject. But not an intimation is given of a soul-entity or intelligent immortal principle that escaped the sentence. What, it may be inquired, became of his intelligence, his thoughts, when he returned to the earth? We will let David in the Psalms answer. As the organization of man was given by Moses, so the disorganization was described by David. Ps. 146:4: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." This does not mean, as some have inferred, that his purposes perish; for David was carried out to build a house for the Lord, which was carried out after his death; nor does it refer to what he has thought in the past; for David's past thoughts are yet preserved in his writings. It can only refer to the power of thought, or process of thinking, which ceases at death.
No idea is more strongly opposed by Spiritualists generally than that death leaves us in a state of unconsciousness, or, as the Bible says, that "the dead know not anything." Yet this is admitted by much good spiritualistic authority. See the following proofs:—
"There was no other spirit near me when I closed my race on earth. I was not without her presence a moment, though a short interval elapsed in which I saw no one. . . . It was not over an hour after I left it [the body] till my spirit was conscious of all that was passing in the house."—Pilgrimage of Thomas Paine in the Spirit World, pages 18, 19.
"I shall be first to greet his spirit when he enters our home. The struggle will be but for a moment. He will be lost in unconsciousness. When he returns to himself he will find," etc.—Spirit of Louisa W. Johnson (sister of Wirz), Rel. Phil. Journal, Nov. 18, 1865.
"That which is one of the most interesting passages in life's journey, and would be so regarded and enjoyed by every one if they understood it, is passed by most like going through a dark tunnel on a railroad, if with any consciousness at all, with a shudder. I am told that several hours elapsed before consciousness returned. I was not then in the room where I had passed away. . . . My first consciousness was very dreamy and uncertain."—Birth into Spirit Life, by Dr. A. B. Child, Progressive Age, Dec. 17, 1864.
"And if a person is spiritually in a certain sphere at death, in that sphere he finds himself the moment he resumes his consciousness."—Ballou, quoted by Hare, page 322.
"What event first made you conscious of being in the spiritual world? "No particular event. I became conscious gradually. "Was there any suspension of your consciousness? "Yes. "How long did it continue? "I have no means of telling how long. "Is the suspension of consciousness the same in all persons? "It is with it different persons, depending on circumstances—longer where the death is sudden; each has his own time."—Judge Edmonds, Vol. 2, Appendix B, page 524.
"The man so killed—what was his sensation? It was for a time suspended. To him, existence was nothing. . . . So Professor Webster was eight days and a half unconscious."—Death and the After-Life, by A. J. Davis, pages 18, 19.
"It is said that some spirits require a thousand years to awake to consciousness. Is this true? "Yes, this is true."—Through Mrs Conant, Banner of Light, June 3, 1865.
Some spirits, it is true, say the opposite of this; but why do they lie about it? and which (if either) is to be believed? EDITOR.