From the Washington Union.
ARE THE DEAD CONSCIOUS?
Mr. Editor: Your correspondent, "Scrutiny," in the Union of the 30th ult., takes the affirmative of the above proposition, and, in reply to a communication addressed by the undersigned to the National Intelligencer, presents arguments and Scripture texts which he supposes to favour his position. ‘Tis but fair, therefore, to allow me some space in your columns for a replication.
I submit, with all deference, that the texts cited, when fairly interpreted, do not sustain his conclusion. Let us examine them. Luke 16: 19: The rich man and Lazarus. Now, this was confessedly a parable, and we have the orthodox authority of Dr. Adam Clarke (Com. On Matthew 5: 26) that, "by the general consent of all, (except the basely interested,) no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine." Besides, the scene described is physical and personal, and not one in which phantom souls and airy, disembodied spirits figure. It was Lazarus (not his soul) which was carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom. It was the rich man (not his spirit) that died and was buried. He lifts up his eyes; he wishes his tongue to be cooled, for he is tormented in flame, &c. Can a "disembodied spirit" be tormented in flame? Has it a tongue that can be cooled with water? It is Christ who testifies, "a spirit hath not flesh and bones;" but here are spirits (according to your correspondent) who have both.
The state of the dead was not the subject of the discourse in Luke 16. The parable was spoken to convince the Jews that "if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one ‘rose from the dead.’" See 31st verse. An intermediate disembodied state is plainly and necessarily excluded by the very drapery of the figure.
The Thief on the Cross, Luke 23: 43, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise," is cited. Its pertinency and authority as proof is effectually annulled by either one of the three following considerations:
The words quoted, which are supposed to favour the current opinion, are spoken in reply to the petition of the thief—"Lord, remember me when thou COMEST (not goest) into thy kingdom." The reply is responsive to this question. It is, "On this day (of which you speak—the day of my coming) thou shalt be with me in Paradise." The Greek adverb is "seemeron," which Donnegan’s Lexicon defines to mean "on this day"—in the sense of this or that very day—the day of which you speak; and this is a better rendering than the "today" of King James’s version. Thus understood, the promise of Jesus to the thief is, that he shall be with him in Paradise on the day of his coming, and not at death, when he certainly did not "come into his kingdom."
Again: Where was Paradise? Your correspondent will probably answer, "In heaven, of course." But where is the proof of this? Milton, in "Paradise Lost," and Moore, in "Lalla Rookh," will sustain his assertion; but the Bible utterly repudiates it. Paradise or Eden was certainly located in Assyria. It was bounded on one side by the river Euphrates, and on another by the Tigris—Genesis 2: 4. It was on the earth, and not in or above the heavens. Adam and Eve were in Paradise, undeniably. Were they then in heaven? When Christ "comes in his kingdom" he will restore the righteous to Paradise—thus fulfilling the promise in Revelation 2: 7—"To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." The Paradise promised to the thief, then, was on earth, where only the BIBLE testifies it ever existed.
The undisputed facts connected with the transaction prove conclusively that Christ was not himself in heaven on the day of his death, for it is three days afterward that he says to Mary, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father"—John 20: 17. Now, if three days after his death he had not ascended to his Father, how can it be that he was on the day of his death with the thief in heaven?
So much for your correspondent’s confident assertion that this text clearly proves his position! We see that, when fairly interpreted in the light of Scripture facts, it is directly opposed to his theory. The same conclusion awaits a fair exegetical examination of his other quotations. St. Paul’s "desire to depart and be with Christ" is admitted by Dr. McKnight, in the notes to his version of the Epistles, (see in loco,) to be a defective rendering of the Greek word translated "depart," which he says is better rendered "return," which would give us Paul’s earnest "desire for the returning and being with Christ"—of course on earth, and not in heaven. So, too, his citation of Matthew 22: 31-32, where Christ confutes the Sadducees who denied the resurrection, is most unfortunate for him. See the passage, 23rd to 46th verses. The subject of controversy was not the state of the dead, but the truth of the resurrection. The Saviour’s language in verse 31 is: "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." What is the import of this but as if He had said in so many words, "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are dead, but God is not the God of the dead; yet, as He is their God, they must come to life by a resurrection, that this Scripture may be fulfilled, and He may be proved to be their God." As the quotation from the law of Moses was to prove the resurrection, or to show "that the dead are raised," unless you give the above construction to the passage, it is wholly inconclusive and irrelevant. Your correspondent says it was used to prove that Abraham, &c., were still alive; but would that have proved the doctrine of the resurrection—the point in dispute? Let candor dictate the answer.
Having thus disposed of the formidable array of authorities which "Scrutiny" has presented so complacently, I fear to extend this article to a greater length by any reference to Scripture texts, additional to those cited in my communication to the Intelligencer of the 18th of July, to which the reader is referred. I will content myself, for the present, with asking attention to the palpably inconsistent and irrational, not to say absurd, consequences to which his position that "the dead are conscious" must conduct him.
As, on this theory, the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished at death, there is neither necessity nor propriety in a future resurrection-day. If the righteous are in heaven, with God, "in whose presence there is fulness of joy, at whose right hand there are pleasures evermore," there can be neither sense nor reason in reuniting them by a resurrection with the body. They cannot be more than "full of joy"—cannot enjoy more or higher pleasures than those "evermore;" and so the resurrection-day is at least a useless arrangement.
On the same hypothesis, a future judgment-day, in which all shall give an account of the deeds done in the body, is also vain, if not absurd; for if the fate of the dead is determined at death, as it must be if rewarded or punished at that time, what need of another judgment? Will you try them over again? Will you reward and punish first, and then institute a tribunal for inquiry into merits or vices, on account of which they have already been visited—for hundreds of years, it may be—with a just retribution? What would your correspondent think of the wisdom or righteousness of a human law which first rewarded the good and punished the evil, and long afterwards gravely summoned the parties before the judge to be tried for offences of which the good had already been acquitted, and the guilty already convicted and punished? And yet this is the folly his theory fastens on "the Judge of all the earth."
To this hypothesis of your correspondent—"a dogma," I repeat, "which can claim no higher origin than the weak and beggarly philosophy of the Greeks and Romans," mere heathen mythologists, without the light of Revelation, and so necessarily ignorant of the truth as to man’s constitution and destiny—to these vain traditions about immortal souls and disembodied spirits, in regard to which the Bible is as silent as the grave, we may refer the occasion of all the pernicious delusions, the infidelity and superstition which preeminently distinguish the present age—an age, as has been well said, at once the most sceptical and the most credulous the world has ever witnessed—almost entirely deaf to the voice of truth, but of most easy faith as to the most arrant impostures and the most childish and absurd inventions. Witness the vagaries of Swedenborg—the invocation of saints—prayers and masses for the dead—the adoration of the Virgin Mary and the pretended saints of the calendar, and their shrines and images—the dreadful pictures of distempered imaginations, representing the horrible agonies of the damned in hell, long before the judgment is pronounced on them—and last, and not least, the false and pernicious rapports of pretended spirits of the dead, who are, however, not dead, after all, but manifest their vitality by tapping tables and skulking under the wainscoting and in the walls of our houses, sending us messages from the so-called spirit world!
Think you, Mr. Editor, that such palpable delusions as these could gain currency in the world—amongst those, too, reputed to be wise and conscientious—if they really understood and believed the wholesome truth, so plainly revealed in the blessed Bible in such express declarations as these? —"Man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man yieldeth his breath, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and 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"—Job 14: 10-13.
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, &c."—Daniel 12: 2.
"In death, O God, there is no remembrance of thee. In the grave who shall give thee thanks?"—Psalm 6: 5.
"The living know that they shall die, BUT THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANY THING; * . . . .also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished, neither have they any more a portion for ever in ANY THING that is done under the sun"—Ecclesiastes 9: 4-7.
"Wilt thou show wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in the land of forgetfulness"—Psalm 88.
"The dead praise not the Lord, nor any that go down into silence"
—Psalm 115.
"The Lord pitieth them that fear him, for he knoweth our frame—he remembereth we are dust"—Psalm 103: 13.
"Dust thou (not thy body) art, and unto dust shalt thou return"
—Genesis 3: 19.
"The hour is coming in the which all that are in their graves (not in heaven or hell) shall hear his voice, and shall come forth," &c. Jesus in John 5: 28.
With this sample of Scripture texts in disproof of "Scrutiny’s" orthodox though unscriptural position, which might be accumulated to almost any extent, I am content to refer the controversy, for the present, to the candid judgment of the reared. In the face of such plain testimony as that cited above, especially Job 14, Daniel 12: 2, and John 5: 28, your readers will be able to appreciate the worth of his assertion that "not a single text in the Bible can be adduced to show that the soul sleeps with the body in the grave."
A. B. MAGRUDER.
Charlottesville, Va.
* If your correspondent "Scrutiny" can convince Hon. Mr. Talmadge, President of the Spiritual Republic, or his Honour Judge Edmonds, of the truth of this plain declaration of Holy Writ, he might save them some trouble.
* * *
