V. Priestley on the Condition of Man in Death

1. DEATH IS STATE OF “ABSOLUTE INSENSIBILITY.”

In his Introduction to “The History of Opinions Concerning the State of the Dead,” Priestley declares, concerning the philosophical origin of the “independent soul” theory, that had penetrated the church:
“I think that I have sufficiently proved in my Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit, that, in the Scriptures, the state of death is represented as a state of absolute insensibility, being opposed to life. The doctrine of the distinction between soul and body, as two different substances, the one material and the other immaterial, and so independent of one another, that the latter may even die and perish, and the former, instead of losing anything, be rather a gainer by the catastrophe, was originally a doctrine of the oriental philosophy, which afterwards spread into the Western part of the world.” ^{2626) Priestley, A Hisory of the Corruptions of Christianity, p, 32.}CFF2 216.1

2. FALLACY OF “SEPARATE CONSCIOUS STATE.”

Priestley brands the separate, conscious state of the soul theory as based on a “fabric of superstition.” This is the root of the difficulty. In section 3, “Of the Revival of the Genuine Doctrine of Revelation Concerning the State of the Dead,” he says:
“Several persons in this country have, in every period since the Reformation, appeared in favour of the sleep of the soul, and it always had a considerable number of followers .... But I think the doctrine of an intermediate state can never be effectually extirpated, so long as the belief of a separate soul is retained .... But when, agreeably to the dictates of reason, as well as the testimony of Scripture rightly understood, we shall acquiesce in the opinion that man is an homogeneous being, and that the powers of sensation and thought belong to the brain, ... the whole fabric of superstition, which had been built upon the doctrine of a soul and of its separate conscious state, must fall at once.” ^{2727) Ibid., pp. 139, 140.}CFF2 216.2

Picture 2: Warburton, Priestley, Watts
Left: William Warburton (d.1799), Bishop of Gloucester — Challenges Proponents of Everlasting Punishment.
Center: Dr. Joseph Priestley (d. 1804), eminent Man of Science — Total Insensibility Characterizes Death.
Right: Dr. Isaac Watts (d. 1748), World famous Hymn Writer — Death is Loss of Existence Itself.
Page 216CFF2 216

3. FUTURE LIFE BASED ON RESURRECTION

Priestley then presents what to him is the “only satisfactory evidence” of a future life, namely, the resurrection—first of Christ, then of ourselves—which is the heart of the gospel:
“And this persuasion will give a value to the gospel, which it could not have before, as it will be found to supply the only satisfactory evidence of a future life .... [and] the only method by which it could be brought about, (viz., that of resurrection ...,) ... we must eagerly embrace that gospel, in which alone this important truth is clearly brought to light. It is in the gospel alone that we have an express assurance of a future life, by a person fully authorized to give it, exemplified also in his own person; he having been actually put to death, and raised to life again, for the purpose of giving us that assurance.” ^{2828) Ibid., p. 140.}CFF2 217.1

4. “SOUL-SLEEP” REVIVAL CREDITED TO BIBLE

Priestley’s belief in the unconsciousness of the dead in the “intermediate state,” and the modern revival of this early belief of such writers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Novatian, Arnobius, and Lactantius is set forth thus:
“After the long prevalence of the doctrine of the intermediate state, that of the sleep of the soul has of late years been revived, and gains ground, not so much from considerations of philosophy as from a closer sense of the Scriptures ....CFF2 217.2

“It has not, however, been considered how much the doctrine of the insensible state of the soul in death affects the doctrine of the separate existence of the soul, which it appears to me to do very materially. It certainly takes away all the use of the doctrine, and therefore should leave us more at liberty from any prejudice in the discussion of the question, since nothing is really gained by its being decided either way. Though we should have a soul, yet while it is in a state of utter insensibility, it is, in fact, as much dead as the body itself while it continues in a state of death.” ^{2929) Priestley, Works, vol. 3, pp. 378, 379.}CFF2 218.1

5. TIME WILL REMOVE CURRENT PREJUDICES

Priestley believed that in time truth-loving Christians will put away their prejudices on the soul question:
“Our calling it [death] a state of sleep is only giving another and softer term to the same thing; for our ideas of the state itself are precisely the same, by whatever name we please to call it. I flatter myself, however, that in time Christians will get over this, as well as other prejudices; and, thinking with more respect of matter, as the creation of God may think it capable of being endued with all the powers of which we are conscious, without having recourse to a principle [innate, independent immortality, which, in the most favorable view of the subject, accords but ill with what matter has been conceived to be.” ^{3030) Ibid.}CFF2 218.2

Such were the published views of this celebrated British-American scientist and thinker, who died in hope of a “future state in happy immortality” solely through the resurrection provision.CFF2 218.3