No. 2

STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH.

Mr. Editor: An item of religious belief concerning the state of the dead having been noticed in the Intelligencer of the 15^th and 20^th of this month, and the editors having intimated as much as that their columns are now closed to the subject, allow me to say a few things upon the question so raised through the medium of your paper.

The inquiry whether the soul sleeps with the body in an unconscious state in the grave is not original with the present age. Whatever philosophy, aside from the teaching of the Scriptures, may say upon the subject, it is evident to my mind that the views of the first article alluded to are not sustained by the Bible, taken as a whole. The writer of that article has quoted a single class of texts, which depend for their true meaning upon the just rules of interpretation for the whole volume.

Suppose, in imitation of his example, we quote another class of texts, which on their face inculcate just the opposite sentiment. Take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus—Luke 16: 19, 31—which can have no intelligible meaning, even as a metaphor, if we admit the doctrine that the soul sleeps with the body in an unconscious condition. Again: Christ says to the dying thief—Luke 23: 43—"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." The Apostle says—Philippians 1: 23—"For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better." Again he says—2 Corinthians 5: 8—"We are confident, and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." Much more might be quoted to show the ground of the doctrine received among professed Christians as to the state (especially) of the pious dead. But I will at this time add but a single passage more. It is the language of Christ in refutation of the Sadducees—Matthew 22: 31-32—"Have ye not read that which was written unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." He meant distinctly to affirm that those patriarchs were still living; which was true of their spirits, though their bodies slept in the dust.

By a similar rule of interpretation, the passage in Acts 2: 34, affirming the non-ascension of David into the heavens, must refer to his mortal part, which, indeed, had not been raised and glorified, as the body of Christ was at his ascension. This is clearly the antithesis of Peter and the point of his argument, which was to prove the doctrine of the resurrection, and not to teach that the soul is unconscious till then. The passage in John 13: 33 has no relation to the question, as it was directed to those who die in their sins, and will never be in heaven, where Christ is, on that account. So in John 3: 13, the words, "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven," by no means prove that the soul is in an unconscious state. The phrase "ascending into the heavens" has several applications in the Scriptures, and its proper meaning in each place must be determined by the connection. See, for example, Ephesians 4: 8, 10; Acts 1: 9, 11; also 2 Corinthians 12: 2, 4. From these and many other statements of Scripture, the phrase in question must be modified to suit the nature of the subject; and if there be different gradations, properly termed the heavenly state, yet each implying also a different degree of power and glory, it is evident that no mere man has ascended to that high estate, to be in a condition of equality with the Father: and in this sense the words of Christ are true, that no man hath ascended into heaven, &c., although all who have died in the faith have gone to be with Christ; and in the lower sense of being in a conscious state in His manifested presence, it is proper to represent that they have been removed from this world to Paradise or Heaven. Again: even in the most literal application of the passage, it does not teach the unconscious state of the soul; for but two persons are regarded as having been translated, of one of whom it is simply said that he was not, for God took him; and in regard to the other, that he went up bodily in a whirlwind, out of mortal sight, and afterwards appeared, with Moses, communing with Christ on the mount of transfiguration—thus showing that the ascension and descension were precisely the exceptions to the general rule in respect to the mortal part of man which the passage contemplates. But, whatever its meaning, it is evident that a state of unconsciousness for the soul was never intended to be affirmed thereby. The passage in the 11^th chapter of John—"thy brother shall rise again"—was spoken especially of his body and of the miracle then to be performed, and teaches nothing respecting the state or condition of the soul after death. That was the consolation Christ offered—that Lazarus should then be restored to them; it was a miracle to prove His power over death, but not to prove that, when we die, our spirits may not go to meet our friends in heaven. The other passages quoted in the article referred to, respecting the recompense of the righteous and the wicked in the earth, and also the sleep and the resurrection of the body, have too remote a bearing on the question to need any comment.

Now, as to "the popular creed," and "the dogma which can claim no higher authority than the heathen philosophy of Greece and Rome," and which is entirely at variance with the teachings of Christ, the prophets, and apostles, we have nothing more to say than that not a single text in the Bible can be adduced to show that the soul sleeps with the body in the grave; and if it be meant that the opposite doctrine is unscriptural and heathenish, I deny the imputation, and say that the sleep of the soul with the body has been part of the doctrine of the ancient and modern infidelity, beyond a question. Traces of the same notion may be found in the oldest forms of Paganism. It constituted the fundamental principle of the Hylozoic atheism in the time of Homer and Hesiod. It pervaded the Gnostic heresies; was a chief tenet of the ancient Sadducees and irthe successors, in one form or other—the Materialists, the Soul-sleepers, the Necessarians, the French infidels—down to the least and latest, the disappointed and bewildered Millerites and Second-adventists, and all the fag-ends of that delusion.

Now, Mr. Magruder may not be aware of the pedigree of his sentiment on the state of the dead; but, when he comes to study it out, he will find that it owes its paternity to the rankest and baldest atheism; and that its believers have, in every age, been amongst the most determined and malignant enemies of the principles of the Christian faith. The truth is, men who broach such doctrines now-a-days are often ignorant of the history of human opinions, and suppose they have really found out something new, when, in fact, they have only uncovered some old and exploded theory.

Then, as to the case of the boy committing suicide because his mother told him he would see his sister in heaven, it is a curious piece of logic, indeed; just as though a doctrine cannot be true unless it never has, and never can be, perverted by poor weak human nature! On this principle, the boy’s death did not result from false, but from defective teaching. It was true as far as it went, but it did not go far enough, and therefore came short of what the Bible dictated. It taught the child a reunion in heaven, but not the nature of suicide. In ignorance or wilfulness, therefore, the boy launched himself into eternity, and it is for the final Judge to decide the character of that act, under all the circumstances; but the last of all uses which a logical mind, knowing any thing of human nature, or of the general tenor of the Bible, should make of it, is that which is so piously, and I presume sincerely, attempted to be made of it by the writer in question.

SCRUTINY.

* * *