Discussion at Lancaster, N. Y.—No. 3.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
On the question of the immortality of man by nature, the arguments were such as are commonly used. It is not necessary to notice more than two or three points. To explain away the force of the text, “The dead know not anything,” Eld. Burns claimed that it was limited by the context to the affairs of this world. He said that they know nothing of, and take no part in, anything “that is done under the sun.” But when he came to the scene of the transfiguration, he claimed that it was not a supernatural vision, but a reality, and he had the immortal spirit of Moses in actual conversation with Jesus in the presence of his disciples, thus taking a conspicuous part in that which was being done here under the sun—speaking of the death of Jesus that was about to take place at Jerusalem. From the text, “The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal,” the Elder constructed this syllogism: “1. The things that are seen, that is, things that are cognizable to the senses, are temporal; but things that are not seen, that is, are not cognizable to the senses, are eternal. 2. But the spirit of man is not cognizable to the senses. 3. Therefore it is eternal or immortal.” We might carry the argument further, and say, “The spirit of the beast” is not cognizable to the senses, and therefore, if it be claimed that the spirit of the beast is material, and the spirit of man is immaterial, we reply, That is a point to be proved; and since one, or both, is not cognizable to the senses, it is a difficult point to prove without a revelation; and if we appeal to the revelation, it is made more difficult still; for that affirms of man and beast, “They have all one breath;” Hebrew, spirit. Eccl. 3: 19. But the whole argument rests upon a perversion of the text. There is no allusion in the text to things immaterial or things not cognizable to the senses. The future inheritance of the Christian is not now seen. The things of the present world are temporal—they continue but for a short time, and then pass away. Not so with the things of the future world. They are enduring as eternity. There is no intimation here or anywhere in the Scriptures, that the future world, or “the building of God” which is to take the place of “our earthly house of this tabernacle,” is immaterial—that when we come to those things they will be invisible and intangible. On the contrary, it is said, “Thine EYES SHALL SEE the King in his beauty; THEY SHALL BEHOLD the land that is very far off.” Isa. 33: 17. But the proof that Eld. Burns put forth with the most triumphant emphasis he seems to find in 1 Pet. 3: 3, 4: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Here the Elder displayed himself. An appeal to the Greek, while it would tend to befog the subject and bewilder the hearers by taking their minds away from an idea plainly expressed in the English, would, at the same time, impress them with the profundity of his erudition, and the safety of leaning on so learned a guide. Here he professed to find the thing so greatly desired, namely, the text that affirms the immortality of the spirit of man. Said he, “It reads plainly and positively aphthartos pneumatos, IMMORTAL SPIRIT.” Aged men drew out their pencils and wiped their glasses to note that text which they had sought in vain to find. For my part, I was deeply impressed with the thought that the man was a mere pretender to a knowledge of the Greek, and affirmed that which he knew not, or that knowing better, he was willing to mislead the people. And by taking my Greek Testament and reading it as it is, I was only confirmed in this view. The text contains no allusion to the spirit of man as a component part of his being. That is entirely foreign to the subject. Bro. R. set the subject before the people in its true light, which is this: A meek and quiet disposition of mind is an immortal ornament, one of great value in the sight of God. This ornament will not decay, but, like charity, or love, it will never fail; its possessor will be immortalized. And this incorruptible spirit or disposition of mind is not something that all have by nature, but women professing godliness are exhorted to put it on and wear it as an ornament of the highest value. Can women, of their own will and choice, adorn themselves with an immortal soul? If so, they have it not by nature; and consequently those who do not obey the exhortation (and it is too evident that some do not) are destitute of an immortal spirit. How perfectly silly to appeal to this text to prove that man is immortal by nature! Men of good sense would never resort to such proofs, but for pressing want of better. In his concluding speech, Eld. Burns killed a large portion of his time, amused himself, and disgusted his hearers, in what he called showing up the beauties of our theory. He bored his hearers with a slow and tedious reading of some twenty texts in the Old and New Testaments containing the word spirit, reading in breath and wind in the place of spirit. Some of the young were excited to laughter on the start, but the fun was all over long, long before the Elder had got through with his laborious and thankless task. But Bro. Reynolds had given no definition whatever of the word spirit. He had only read it as it occurs in the sacred text. So that the laugh which the Elder attempted to raise was solely against the Bible itself. On our part, the discussion was carried on with a gravity becoming a minister of the gospel, and corresponding to the sacred subjects of divine revelation, with very little exception. Two or three utterances I would have had different. But I believe that the most candid among the Disciples were displeased and disgusted with the levity, pomposity, personalities, and want of dignity commensurate to sacred subjects, of their champion. I am satisfied that the truth has lost nothing by the discussion, but, on the contrary, there is good reason to hope that good will result from it.