Discussion at Rochester Colony, Mich.
By M. E. Connell
In the midst of a course of lectures in this place, Eld. R. Faurot, a Disciple preacher and author, sailing under the title of “V. D. M.,” came to fill an appointment, with the intention (as he said) of holding a series of meetings. He claimed half of the time, or he would commence opposition meetings near by. He pressed his claim, and a vote of the people was obtained in favor of his occupying a portion of the time. Learning that Eld. F. had once challenged one of our preachers in this place, and because previous arrangements forbade his accepting it, Eld. F. and his people had boasted over it for several months, we decided to accept the proposition and make the best of the necessities pressed upon us. The discussion was held in the Methodist church, and the attendance was large throughout. To give anything like a full report would seem unnecessary, as most of the arguments have so often appeared in the Review; but I will glean from my notes some brief items that may be of interest to the reader. The first question was the following:— “Are the ten commandments, given on Mt. Sinai, now binding?” On the affirmative we argued and proved, 1. That the ten commandments are a whole, distinct, and complete law. 2. That the law “done away,” was another law of a different nature and title, given in a different manner, recorded and kept in a place by itself. 3. The ten commandments are quoted and enforced by Christ and the apostles, on the same authority that gave them at Sinai. 4. That this law grows out of the relations existing between man and his Maker, and man and his fellow-man, and hence must continue as long as these relations exist. 5. That the reasons of the law apply to all mankind, and therefore are of universal obligation. 6. That the very order of the decalogue is recognized in the New Testament. In reply Eld. Faurot attempted to prove that the ten commandments were not a complete law; that they were not given to the Gentiles; that they were absolutely repealed, and finished up, by praising the gospel with a tolerably well written composition, both grammatical and poetical. For the sake of distinctness I will give a few points in dialogue form. Eld. Faurot. If Moses were here I would not listen to him. We must hear only Christ. The authority of Moses has entirely ceased, and we are to close our ears in that direction. Reply. The law in question was not given by Moses’ authority. Has the authority of the great Creator ceased? But why does he ignore Moses? Did not Jesus in the parable teach, “Let them hear Moses and the prophets?” Luke 16:29. In thus ignoring Moses’ teachings, he is not only against the teachings of the New Testament, but he is also against the chief Man and father of his own denomination. Alexander Campbell, in his work on baptism, p. 108, says:— “No man can come to Christ, unless God induces him to come by the former intimations given by Moses and the prophets. ‘If they hear not them,’ they never will, they never can, come to Christ.” Eld. Faurot. To-morrow evening, I shall show that the nine commandments are re-enacted in the New Testament. But the fourth, not being re-enacted, cannot now be in force. Reply. Last evening, my friend Faurot engaged to show that nine of the ten commandments were still in force. Now if he succeeds in this (as I have no doubt he will), I ought to receive it kindly, for he will have established nine-tenths of my proposition. I bid you a hearty God speed, my brother; and while you are searching up the nine, I will have an easy time finding the fourth, and in this way we shall get the whole truth. Let it be borne in mind that all I have to do, is to find the fourth commandment recognized in the New Testament as definitely as any one of the other nine which I may choose to select. Now let him find the first and second, and see if we do not find the fourth as plainly referred to. Here then came the “tug of war.” For his first commandment, he brought Rev. 19:10: “Worship God.” And for his re-enacted second commandment, Matt. 15:9: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Thus not only was he driven to the necessity of offering for proof, far-fetched inferences, but he quotes from Christ’s teaching before his crucifixion, thus getting the commandments re-enacted, before they were abolished. For the Sabbath commandment, we showed that Christ expressly recognized it in his teachings. Matt. 12:12: “Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day.” He taught his disciples to pray not to violate it. Matt. 24:20: “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.” Jesus taught that we must keep every one of the commandments. Matt. 5:19; 19:17. He also said, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Matt. 2:27. He kept the Sabbath. Luke 4:16, 31; 13:10. The disciples kept the fourth commandment. Luke 23:56. The Sabbath was Paul’s regular preaching day. Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4, 11. The seventh day is distinctly mentioned and called the Sabbath fifty-nine times in the New Testament. No other commandment is referred to half as many times. Thus it is clearly manifest that all ten of God’s commandments are still binding upon mankind. Faurot affirms.
Cornell denies. It was argued, on the affirmative, that the kingdom was set up at Pentecost; that the church of Christ and kingdom of Christ were identical; that it was to be set up in the last days of those governments, and hence before A. D. 71. 1. That when that kingdom is set up, Christ will reign on David’s throne, without end. He will never vacate it. Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:33. 2. The Two Thrones.
“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21. In A. D. 96, then Christ occupied his Father’s throne, hence the reigning on his own throne was future at that time. 4. Christ is now a Priest-King after the order of Melchisedec, whose lineage could not be traced. But this could not be on David’s throne; for when he takes that throne he does it as David’s son according to the flesh. (Rom. 1:3 2; 2 Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 132:11. 5. The throne now occupied by Christ, never was in any sense David’s, but is the throne of the universe, and is in Heaven. But David never was there. Acts 2:34. 6. David’s throne was to be overturned during the Jewish captivity and dispersion, even unto Christ’s second coming. Eze. 21:26, 27. The throne Christ now occupies, will be delivered up. 1 Cor. 15:23, 24, 28. This cannot be David’s throne on which he is to reign endlessly. Luke 1:33. 8. The kingdom according to Dan. 2:44 and connection, is to be set up “in the days of these kings,” the divisions of the Roman Empire, and could not therefore be till after A. D. 356, when the first of these divisions commenced. 9. When it is set up in fact, God’s will shall be done on earth as in Heaven. Matt. 6:10. 12. It was still a matter of promise when James wrote his letter. James 2:5. 13. When Christ takes David’s throne, the saints will also reign, Matt. 19:28; and this will be when he comes and gathers all nations. Matt. 25:31–34. 14. It will occur under the sounding of the seventh angel. Rev. 11:15–18. 15. When the kingdom is established in fact, the least saint in it will be greater than John the Baptist, and none ever born of woman were greater than he. Matt. 11:11. This cannot apply to the church kingdom; for it cannot be that the most ignorant and weak one ever converted and in the church, was greater than John, Abraham, David, and many others. According to his position the most miserable Hottentot that could believe in Christ and join the church, would be greater than any of the ancient worthies, the father of the faithful not excepted. Eld. Faurot. The time will come when there will be no throne but God’s. Christ and the holy Spirit will be swallowed up and cease to have a distinct existence! Reply. This flatly contradicts the Scriptures which declare that Christ’s reign is “everlasting,” “without end,” &c. Eld. Faurot. The kingdom was set up at Pentecost, and in Rev. 19:11–16; Dan. 7:9, 10, we have the coronation of Christ described. Reply. These Scriptures refer to the Judgment scene; for the Judgment is mentioned in both places, and the whole connection positively forbids its application to Pentecost. Eld. Faurot. The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, and he opened the door of the kingdom or church at Pentecost. There never was any church till Pentecost. The future tense is never used after that time in reference to kingdom, &c. Reply. But there was a church in the wilderness with Israel. Acts 7:38. Was not that before Pentecost? Also he is mistaken about the future tense not being used after Pentecost. 2 Tim. 4:1. “Who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” And James, long after Pentecost, speaks of the kingdom as a matter of promise, of which he and his brethren were only heirs; so the actual inheritance must of course be future. But the kingdom or church taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles at Christ’s first advent (Matt. 21:43) could not have been the kingdom of David; for that had been in ruins more than five hundred years. See Eze. 21:26, 27. The apostles preached the gospel of the kingdom, or spoke the things “pertaining to the kingdom.” And the believers entered into the kingdom by faith, hope, and promise; but they no more had it in reality than they were saved in reality. See Rom. 8:24, 25. But Peter had the keys of the kingdom, and saw it, &c. Yes, he beheld a miniature view of the power and coming of Christ and his kingdom. Compare Mark 9:1–3 with Matt. 16:28 and 2 Pet. 1:16. He saw a vision of the future glory of the kingdom when it shall be set up. But was there any such scene as Peter describes manifest on the day of Pentecost? We know there was not. Then it must be future. If he believes that Peter has the keys of the kingdom, he must think him a competent witness. Will he abide by his testimony, that the coming and kingdom of Christ is yet future? Eld. Faurot. In Matt. 25:34, we learn that the kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world or age. This shows that it began with this age. Reply. Another serious mistake. For it was already prepared when Christ spake those words, not would be prepared in the future at Pentecost. But the “world” in that text is not “age.” It is not αἰών, “age,” but κόσμος, “the habitable earth.” Hence the kingdom to be inhabited is not ἐκκλησία, “church,” but κόσμος, or earth as prepared at the beginning. But why continue to struggle to save the life of his proposition? The scripture referred to in the proposition declares that when the “everlasting kingdom” is set up, the kingdoms of this world will be dashed to pieces and pass away like the chaff of the threshing floor, &c., as declared in Ps. 2:7–9. Did Christ dash the nations to pieces at Pentecost? When his kingdom is established, “all people, nations, and languages, serve and obey him.” Dan. 7:14. Has this been so since Pentecost? After the first evening on the kingdom question, Eld. F. told his brethren he had lost his question, and he would have to give it up unless he could fill up his time with poetry and exhortation. His last speeches were mere poetic effusions in protracted meeting style. No candid person, either professor or non-professor, of all the multitude pretended to claim that he had sustained his proposition. The most prominent of his own brethren freely admitted that he had failed. One of their preachers stated in this place that the kingdom question was the foundation of their system; that if that was overthrown, their whole system was a failure. This statement was in the presence of credible witnesses. I have heard them admit as much in several different States. It is a subject of remark here that the disciples were never known to be so quiet in this place before. Boasting is excluded for the time-being at least. Are the Dead Unconscious?
Cornell affirms.
Faurot denies. “Unconscious. 1. Having no mental perception. 2. Not knowing, not perceiving.” “Conscious. 1. Possessing the faculty of knowing one’s own thoughts, or mental operations. 2. Knowing from memory.”—Webster. All we have to do, then, to establish this proposition is to show that those who are dead have no thoughts, mental operations, or memory, in the state of death. The task is an easy one. The dead are “asleep,” and sound sleep is a state of unconsciousness. “In death there is no remembrance of thee.” Ps. 6:5. The dead are in the “land of forgetfulness.” Ps. 88:12. “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Ps. 115:17. “For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything.” Eccl. 9:5. “Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished.” Verse 6. On the text, “There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest,” Eccl. 9:10, Luther comments as follows: “Another proof that the dead are insensible. Solomon thinks, therefore, that the dead are altogether asleep, and think of nothing. They lie, not reckoning days or years, but when awakened, will seem to themselves to have slept scarcely a moment.”—Bayle’s Hist. and Crit. Dict. And Dr. Adam Clarke describes the state of the dead as, “a place where death rules, over which he projects his shadow, intercepting every light of every kind of life.—Christian Theology, p. 370. Dr. Priestly, in Religious Encyc. p. 784, remarks, “If we search the Scriptures for passages expressive of the state of man at death, we find such declarations as expressly exclude any trace of sense, thought, or enjoyment.” Eld. Faurot. What sort of a witness is Solomon? Did he always do just right? We are not to look to such a man for light on such a question as the one before us. Reply. Solomon’s testimony is so square against him, he sees no other chance of escape but to try to impeach the witness. But David’s testimony is just as pointed. Why not reject him? He did not always do just right. We must mark this Faurot vs. the Bible. No. 1. Eld. Faurot. The spirit of man is a distinct conscious entity and we know it does not die, for it “returns to God who gave it.” Eccl. 12:7. Reply. He now indorses Solomon, because he thinks he favors his side of the question. Thus we have Faurot vs. Faurot, No. 1. But if the spirit is a distinct entity which cannot die, the question in debate does not relate to it. The question relates to that which is “dead.” Again, he has not given any proof that the spirit is a conscious entity. If it is conscious after it returns, it must have been conscious before it came from God in the first place. Can he remember where he was or what he was doing before he came into this body? Faurot. I will now prove that the heart of man never dies. Ps. 22:26: “The meek shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the Lord that seek him; your heart shall live forever.” Reply. When will the heart of the meek live forever? The text says when they are “satisfied.” Now let David tell when that is. Ps. 17:15: “I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.” Of course those who shall be made immortal in the resurrection will have immortal hearts. But is the heart of man immortal in this life? Speaking of Nabal in 1 Sam. 25:37, “His heart died within him, and he became as a stone,”138There was one man’s heart that did not live forever, surely! Was he conscious when he became as a stone? But suppose we should admit that the heart of man does not die, what would it prove? The question has reference to the dead, not to that which cannot die! But why this change of position? Does he find he is routed on his “spirit” argument, and think it best to try it on the heart? Here we have Faurot vs. Faurot No. 2. Faurot. Solomon’s testimony relates entirely to things in this life—that which is “done under the sun,” hence it can prove nothing in this question. Reply. What work men will make when trying to follow the serpent windings of error! After quoting Solomon to prove the spirit conscious after death, he now denies that Solomon refers to the dead. This is Faurot vs. Faurot No. 3. But does not Solomon speak of the dead? Let us look again. “THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANYTHING.” Here is Faurot vs. Bible No. 2. But if, as he says, this witness has said nothing to the point, why has he labored so hard to impeach him? Faurot vs. Faurot No. 4. Faurot. He has been laboring to show that immortality is not given until the resurrection. Of course it is not. The term immortal does not apply to the conscious part of man. Reply. This is giving up the entire ground of all he has said, for he has constantly affirmed that the conscious part of man could not taste of death. That which is exempt from death is immortal. This makes Faurot vs. Faurot No. 5. Faurot. The dead are pronounced “blessed” or happy, but an unconscious thing could not receive a blessing. Reply. “Jesus took bread, and blessed it,” &c. Matt. 26:26. “Blessed are your eyes,” &c. Matt. 13:16. Are these things conscious entities that cannot die? Faurot vs. Bible No. 3. Faurot. The righteous at death “rest from their labors.” Hence they must be conscious. Reply. Where do the dead go to rest? “They shall go down to the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust.” Job 17:16. Is that which dwells in the dust of death conscious? Now we have Faurot vs. the Bible No. 4. Faurot. The moment they die, they go down to sheol or hades, which is a place of consciousness. The rich man and Abraham were talking in hades, &c. Reply. Now he has the conscious part of man go down at death, whereas before he had it return to God who gave it. Is God’s dwelling-place down in the darkness and corruption of hades? This makes Faurot vs. Faurot No. 6. Faurot. I have not denied that the divinity of Christ died. I believe in a divine sacrifice. Reply. If the divine part of Christ died, is there any part of man that will escape death? Man is exposed to death, soul and body, hence Christ must die, soul and body, to redeem him. But was the soul of our divine Lord made an offering? “Thou shalt make his soul an offering,” &c. “Poured out his soul unto death.” Isa. 53:10, 11. “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” Matt. 26:38. “His soul was not left in hell (hades or grave), neither his flesh did see corruption.” Acts 2:31. This should silence all talk of man’s having a soul or conscious part that must die. Faurot. When the gentleman brought forward his council of doctors, my heart grew sad. It is a sign that he has a desperate case on hand. Reply. His heart grew sad when he saw the doctors all agreeing on his case. Many a dying man’s heart has grown sad when he saw the doctors pronouncing against him, besides my friend. I do not wonder at his distressed feelings. It is generally so when there is no hope. At last Eld. Faurot makes the soul the conscious part, and affirms that it must die, but that it goes into hades, a place of consciousness. Reply. 1. The spirit. 2. The heart, and 3. The soul, is that which cannot die. But here he fails again. Ps. 78:50. “He spared not their soul from death.” This is Faurot vs. the Bible No. 5. The question is now narrowed down to a point. Whatever it is of man that does not die, goes down to sheol. What kind of a place is sheol? This word is translated grave thirty-one times. Korah and his company went down into sheol alive and bodily. Num. 16:30, 33. Jacob’s gray hairs were going down into sheol. Gen. 42:38. Sheol is a place of corruption and worms. Job 17:14. All this proves that sheol is the grave. But whatever it may be, and wherever it may be located, the Scriptures declare it a place of unconsciousness. Proof. Ps. 6:5. “In death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave, [sheol] who shall give thee thanks?” Eccl. 9:10. “There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, [sheol] whither thou goest.” All of which prove that the “dead” are “unconscious,” and the proposition is fully sustained.