NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST. (Continued from Review No. 18, Vol. xxvii.) Elder Hull's Tenth Article.
Dear Brother,—When I wrote my last article on the nature of man, I did not expect to return to that theme again. Nor even now do I propose to offer an added argument, but only to reply briefly to your criticism upon my form of argument. You charge me with an inconsistency in requiring First-day observers to defend their practice by the Bible, and then, in the defense of my doctrine in the matter of our discussion, I introduce other and foreign testimony. Are you not in error upon this matter? I hold that, could First-day keepers show from any source, that the observance of Sunday was favored by Christ and his apostles, as a Christian institution, I should be obliged to conduct myself accordingly. To do otherwise, would be unreasonable and a wickedness. The only question is, Was this really the position of Christ and his apostles? The competency of a witness introduced to prove a question is of course a vital point. If, then, I have introduced an incompetent witness on any point, that is in so far fatal to my cause. This I have not intended to do. Let us see. I said, "That the Sadducees denied the existence of human spirits after the death of the body, is as much a matter of historic notoriety, as the existence of the sect itself; and, as a necessary thought, they denied also the resurrection." Now, taking that sentence down to the word "itself," is is not true, every word of it? I mean, is it not a historic truth? As to my deduction, that the denial of the resurrection was a "necessary thought," taken in connection with the above, you will think of that as you please, but certainly they thought so, and I think they were more logical than you! Again, is it not a historic fact, that the Pharisees believed in the existence of human spirits after the death of the body, and that the resurrection restored the body? Now, I do not affirm that their beliefs were true because they held them. The truth of them must be ascertained from some other source, and that source is the Scriptures. In so far, then, as I have referred to historic testimony, am I not on Protestant ground? But I wish to call your attention still further to a point I have already mentioned, which is, that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body. The idea that the spirit died with the body and was raised with it, surely they never entertained. Am I right thus far? The controversy that raged in the time of Christ and his apostles, turned upon the resurrection of the body. This proved, all was proved; this lost, all was lost. Your doctrine, that the spirit dies with the body, is fatal to the future existence of man. The survival of the spirit, though the body dies and returns to dust, is a glorious prophecy of immortality! Yours in hope of eternal life.
N. V. HULL. Eld. Cottrell's Tenth Reply.
Dear Brother,—Though disappointed that you did not proceed to the other part of our subject, yet if our readers are as forgetful of my true position as you seem to be, I am glad you have written as you have. I repeat, then, and I hope it will be remembered to the close of this discussion, that I do not hold "the idea that the spirit dies with the body, and is raised with it." Those Pharisees that derived their faith from divine revelation, I am confident, held no such idea; for the idea is not to be found in the Bible. But spirit and soul are sometimes used to signify, as you have well defined, the "vital essence," or principle of life. This leaves man at death, and is restored at the resurrection—it "returns to God who gave it"—the spirit of the vilest sinner, as well as that of the most pious saint—and will not be again received by man till God wills. It is not a living creature, and it does not die. But "man dieth and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, ('the breath of the spirit of life,') and where is he?" Human wisdom has tried in vain to solve this problem. Nothing but the resurrection powers of God can bring back the man, who, as far as human knowledge can reach, is wasted away and irrecoverably lost. It is true, that "the controversy that raged in the time of Christ and his apostles, turned upon the resurrection"—you say, "of the body;" they said, "of the dead." They had not your theory to sustain; hence they were free to say, David is both dead and buried. Acts ii, 29. It was not necessary for them to say, David's body. They knew of no David where his body was not. But of the resurrection you continue very truly: "This proved, all was proved; this lost, all was lost." Yes they taught that "if the dead rise not, . . . then they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 1 Cor. xv, 16–18. Spiritualism in vain asserts the contrary. Christ and his apostles made "the Scriptures" and "the power of God," instead of "the survival of the spirit," the "glorious prophecy of immortality." Matt. xxii, 29; Mark xii, 24. You seem to doubt this prophecy and this power, since you deem that actual death would be "fatal to the future existence of man." The Sadducees, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the "power of God," fell into the same error. But the Pharisees had more faith. It was not "a thing incredible" with them, "that God should raise the dead." I can say with Paul, "I am a Pharisee," so far as this question is concerned; and my hope is identical with his—the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Acts xxiii, 6. Is it not simply a want of confidence in the promise and power of God, that makes you incline to the side of the Sadducees, and "think they were more logical" than I? Historic testimony is as good on one subject as on another. I have impeached your best witness, by showing that he falsely represented the Pharisees as believing in the transmigration of souls, instead of a resurrection of the dead; and that he himself, though claiming to be a Pharisee, did not believe in a bodily resurrection at all, and makes no allusion to it in his account of the Pharisees. It may be a matter of "historic notoriety," that the Sadducees "denied the existence of human spirits after the death of the body;" and also that the apostles observed the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath; but when we come to the only reliable source of truth, the inspired testimony, we find neither of these subjects therein discussed. Inspiration equally ignores them both. There was no issue between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the nature of death, or on the existence of human spirits in a disembodied and conscious state. There seems to be a perfect agreement between them as to man's state in death; the only disagreement, so far as man is the subject of dispute, was on the resurrection of the dead. And when Christ refuted the non-resurrection doctrine of the Sadducees, he did not base his argument on the conscious existence of the human spirit after the death of the body, but upon "the power of God"—a power that "raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them." John v, 21. He did not undertake to prove that the dead will be raised, and bring out the conclusion, that they are now alive, and consequently need no resurrection; but from sound premises he comes to a logical conclusion. Thus: 1. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 2. But Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead; yet he says he is their God. 3. Therefore they shall live again. They live in the purpose of God; because they "shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." John xi, 24. In hope of the promise.
R. F. COTTRELL.