COMMUNICATION FROM ELD. S. A. TAFT by S. A. Taft

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 30, 1858

COMMUNICATION FROM ELD. S. A. TAFT.

By S. A. Taft

Bro. Smith: Suffer a word of explanation. In the Herald, Aug. 26th, reference is had to my visit at Lapeer not long since—and the "chagrin" or mortification of some Baptists living up there, touching my course, while in that village. The precise language is, "Alas for them! what must have been their chagrin to learn that Prof. Taft held to the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath, and man's entire mortality." The communication, I believe, is from Bro. Cornell. I do not accuse Bro. C. of misrepresentation. I do not think he intended anything of the kind; and yet the matter is hardly represented in its true light.

My visit to Lapeer was to preach the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ. It had been arranged and contemplated long before the tent was struck in that place. I did not go there to take up on any controverted question whatever, but simply to preach Jesus, and as far as a short stay would permit, to make the acquaintance of the people. I therefore, on Sunday or First-day, preached twice, as stated by Bro. C., in the Court-house; but not a word was said about the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath, or any other Sabbath. Not a word was said about man's "entire" or partial "mortality." Indeed the question of man's nature did not come into the discussion at all—his relations did. How Bro. Cornell or any one else in Lapeer should have known my views upon those subjects, I know not—I told no one—no one asked me. As to my advice about a "war," I cannot say, I think though at that time no war had been waged—no public attack, to my knowledge, had then been made upon brethren Cornell and Lawrence. My advice, then, would have been superfluous; however, I would say to both parties, better let one another alone. It is a free country—how long it will remain such I cannot tell—not long I fear unless there is a change soon; and I go in for free speech. Because Bro. Cornell has struck his tent down beside me and gone to advocating his views, that is no reason why I should rail out against him. Brethren, treat one another as men and brethren. Truth gains nothing by such ebullitions of feeling. Oh, for the love and courtesy of the true, genuine sons of God.

As to man's nature, I premise, that my views and Bro. Cornell's are not at all alike. I believe and maintain—I have always done so—that man is a trinity in unity—soul, body and spirit. These three are one—not one in substance, but three. One in that sense that they are inseparably identified in the man. In the absence of either, there cannot be a perfect man. The body is the human organism. It is made up of solids and fluids, taken from the earth. It is of the earth, earthy. The spirit is the vital power that animates the human organism. It was breathed from God, and is endowed with the power of animation, assimilation and reparation. This agency in nature is fast becoming the Spiritualist's God. It is his Lord Jehovah. Spiritualists are doing for the Life Principle, what the French infidel did for Reason—deifying it. What that principle is in its ultimate essence, no human being can tell. In presence, however, is most manifest. The soul is the seat of the affections—volition, sensibility and will. Intelligence is here, not as the result of organization, but by virtue of the soul's creation, it was made to think, to feel, to act, and to will. These phenomena are manifested through the body. The body animated by the spirit is the instrument. The soul is the intelligent agent. These three united make the man. Each was the subject of God's volition; their union in one was the same, and their continuance is dependent upon the same Almighty Will. These distinctions in man's nature are clearly recognized in the word of God. "The word of God is quick, powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit—the joints and marrow (body,) and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Heb. iv, 12. "Fear not him who is able to kill the body and after that has no more that he can do; but fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Luke xii, 4. Matt. x, 28. "So then with the mind, I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Rom. vii, 25. "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. v, 23. "For as the body without the spirit is dead; so faith without works is dead also." James ii, 26. Many other testimonies might be adduced; but these are directly to the point, and must suffice. Man, then, has a soul or mind, a body, and a spirit that animates that body. He is entirely the subject of God's creative power. He is not self-existent, but dependent. To talk therefore of man's necessary inherent immortality, is to remove him alike from being a subject of God's creation and from his control. Immortality cannot necessarily inhere, in only one being. There can be but one such being in the universe.

God only hath immortality. To suppose the contrary is to make us all Gods. Men are crazy on this immortality question—at one time confounding it with the doctrine of a future life—at another making it a necessary element of man's nature. The question of man's mortality or immortality, depends entirely upon the will of Him who made him, and must eternally so depend. God will never put a creature of his beyond his control. With him are the issues of life and death; and there they will forever remain. Immortality is purely a question of revelation. Reference then must be had to the word of God. This, and this alone must settle the question. The testimony of all the spirits in pandemonium or any other good or bad place, cannot answer the question—their testimony is not admissible. How can they testify on a question of such a nature. To attempt it is blank presumption.

The co-extensive conviction of the race also, is no valid ground of belief. It may be presumptive evidence, that God has at some time spoken upon this subject. It is of no avail, however, in the absence of a divine warrant. We must have the word of God. The same is true also of the desires

and aspirations of the soul itself, and these are very great. What though from a careful analysis of the powers and faculties of the soul, we find it adapted to endless progression. Still the question recurs, will it progress? God alone can answer. The make of the soul itself then, argues nothing conclusive upon the subject. We turn then to the Bible, and what is the result? Man's mortality stands out on every page. Death is determined upon all men; and so inexorable is the demand, that only two of all the millions of our race have escaped. "SIN entered into the world,"—awful fact, and death to sin. SIN—DEATH—"and so death," mortality "passed upon ALL MEN; for that ALL have sinned." Rom. v, 12. Man must die. Death is a penalty, a curse, and not a blessing. Its infliction consists in the expulsion of the vital power from the animated organization. This is true every where. Death is not alone the separation of soul and body, as is too often represented, but the forcible driving out of the life power from the body animated. This done, and the body is necessarily subjected to the laws of chemical action. Decomposition and decay is the result. This cannot be, just so long as the vital power animates the body. The presence of this power forbids the approach of all chemical affinities.

All the particles of the body, have been taken, by the life power, up out of their natural domain, and subjected to new laws and principles of action. Expel the vital principle, and the laws of chemical action at once assert their prerogatives, and set to work to tear down that beautiful structure reared by the spirit power for the benefit of the soul. The body goes back to its mother earth. Dust returns to dust again; the spirit to God who gave it. But the soul—that soul in which inheres the godlike faculties of judgment, reason, intelligence, memory, understanding and will—that soul in which is alone the consciousness of personal identity—the remembrance of all that has passed, whether it is good or bad—where is it? Man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? That is the question. All are agreed as to the whereabouts of the body and the spirit; but the soul—where is that? To suppose that it is reduced to the same condition of the body alike the subject of chemical action, is to make them one in substance—than which nothing can be more distinct. Difference in phenomena argues a difference in substance. The phenomena of the soul are, thought, volition, sensibility, &c.; the phenomena of the body, that of all other material substances, impenetrability, extension, figure, divisibility &c. They are totally unlike; differing not in degree alone, but absolutely in kind. Therefore the substances are unlike, wholly and totally unlike, yet existing together, and in some instances in the closest juxtaposition as in the case of the soul and body. Death in this case compels a divorce of natures wedded for an eternal union. O, my soul, would to God this had never been. The future would be one of gloom and terror but for the doctrine of a glorious resurrection in Jesus Christ. Jesus has been through the dreadful valley, and now all along its dreary length light shines. There is now an effulgence above the brightness of the sun at midday. Life and immortality have been brought to light. Praise the Lord. But says one, you have not told us where the unclothed soul is. Where is it during the long interim between death and the resurrection? One word about this long interim. To the soul in its disembodied state, no such interim exists. It is an interim only to the living. We alone are conscious of dates, because we alone are in immediate contact with those circumstances that mark off intervals of time. In my humble judgment, to Abel the first man upon whom the penalty of death was inflicted, the interim between that eventful hour and his release by the power of God in the resurrection will have been but an instant—a thing of yesterday. To the above question three answers have been given. One says in heaven or hell; a second says in the grave; and still a third says in certain celestial spheres, or degrees of progression. Here is where I think men seek to be wise above what is written. The precise condition or circumstances of the soul in this intermediate, the Bible has nowhere told us. We should therefore be contented to know little. Nothing can be more certain, however, from the very nature of the casualty to which the soul has been subjected by death, than that it is in a state of violence. Dr. Chalmers says, "The fact of the resurrection proves that with man at least, the state of a disembodied spirit (soul) is a state of unnatural violence." An animated body is a necessary condition of the soul's activities and energies. The Christian Quarterly Review for 1855, page 407, a Baptist paper, says: "Of the condition of departed spirits (souls) we can form no idea. The Bible gives us no information as to the mode of their existence, and of their felicity. All that we know of the spirit (soul) is derived from consciousness and from its manifestation through and in connection with the body. At death the body is laid aside, and there is to be at the close of the present dispensation, a resurrection of the body. In the spirit (soul) he be, in the meanwhile wholly without a body! If so, it is impossible for us to form any idea of its condition."

That is my faith of an intermediate state. We know nothing at all about it; and therefore upon that question I am uniformly silent, saying nothing where I know so little. The Bible passes over this subject altogether. It uniformly passes directly from death to the resurrection; and therefore I have a great deal to say about the resurrection. It is a glorious truth. It opens the gate-way to endless bliss—bliss to all who believe on our Lord Jesus Christ, and perdition to all the finally impenitent. O let me enjoy the benefits of that grace that comes by faith on our Lord Jesus Christ! So much then for man's nature and the question of man's mortality. My faith is, that man has no necessary inherent immortality. His present life is forfeited and he must die. His future life depends entirely upon his relations to our Lord Jesus Christ. In Christ is eternal life. And he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son, hath not life. 1 John v, 12. Reader, if you will have life, you must have Jesus Christ. My own views of that future death I shall never give. I have none. If you would know it, I can only refer you to God. I have no right to answer the question, What is the ultimate destiny of the wicked? I refer the inquirer to God.

As to the perpetuity of the Sabbath, I have only to repeat what I have already said. Nor a word was said upon the subject: still, Bro. Smith, with your consent, I will say a word. This question of the Sabbath involves two distinct propositions:—(1) The obligation to sabbatize;—(2) The time when. Both are of divine appointment, with this difference: the obligation is moral, founded in the very nature of man's relations to God—the time is positive, founded alone on the divine will. The obligation is perpetual, binding alike upon universal intelligence. Not only all men, but all the angels of God, and devils as well, are under obligation to sabbatize. To sabbatize, is not alone to remember holy-day; it is to pay devout homage and worship to Almighty God. It is to come before the Lord in the manner, and at the time prescribed by himself. It is to rest with a heart lifted to God in devout gratitude for all his mercies and benefits. For this universal worship of God there must be a time. It would not do to impose the obligation, and then leave each to the selection of his own time. That would introduce endless confusion. It would practically nullify the obligation. Hence, if God imposed the obligation, he must specify the time when it will be proper for his creatures to meet the responsibility. This he has done, and this he must continue to do.

In the beginning it pleased God to make choice of his own rest-day. This stood at the close of the first week of time. He blessed it and sanctified it, that is, set it apart to holy purposes. It henceforth became the Sabbath, that is, the time when it would be proper for men to sabbatize; and must continue until God sees fit to make choice of another time. The Sabbath institution, and the time for sabbatizing are one, and inseparable. Hence the command, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," is the command to sabbatize. It is the worded form of the obligation imposed by the relations of the creature to the Creator. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; that is, that time was set apart for man's benefit. It is his time to sabbatize, and do all other works of necessity and mercy. As to whether God has ever seen fit to make choice of any other time than the first mentioned or not, is a question. He has a right to do so, if he sees fit. And to do so would in no way interfere with the fourth commandment. The obligation could be as well met on any other day than the seventh, if God so determined. The fourth commandment has in it two elements:—(1) It imposes the obligation to sabbatize—to do all implied in that great work, and to do it in a proper manner;—(2) It designates the time appropriated to that work, and assigns a reason why that time was preferred to every other; because it was the Lord's rest-day. For that reason he blessed and hallowed it. Has God made choice of another day? The answer to this question can be sought only in the word of God. It is merely a matter of revelation. If preference has been given to another time, we may expect to find the world duly advertised of the fact. God's will in the latter case should be as explicit as in the former; else there will be confusion. What are the facts? To me there is no evidence of a change by divine appointment, and therefore the perpetuity of the original institution. That the early eastern christian churches all observed the original time for sabbatizing is a matter of positive church history: Neander says: [Church History, Vol. 1, page 296:] "Though they admitted, with the rest—the festival of Sunday, yet they retained also that of the Sabbath. Not so with the early Western Gentile churches; between the two there was a striking difference. Whether this arose at, or not until after the apostles' time is a matter of doubt. The presumption is, however, that in all the earlier christian churches, uniformity pretty generally prevailed."

I might pursue this subject to much greater length, but I forbear. I have already occupied more space than I ought. My views and Bro. Cornell's in many respects are not at all alike. I don't go his doctrine of man's nature at all, and how what I said in Lapeer could be, in any way construed into a confirmation of what was presented in the tent, I cannot tell. The notes numbered 1, 2, 3, &c., are all correct. "Denied that Jesus Christ has two distinct natures, human and divine," demands a passing notice. I deny the conjunction of nature theory, and maintain the doctrine of one personality and one nature in two states, that is, I believe that the actual pre-existent divine nature of the blessed Jesus was really made humanity. The Word was made flesh, really in everything except his personal identity and original consciousness, converted into humanity, to the intent that he as the God-man, might suffer the penalty affixed to the law of God. It was the original pre-existent Christ that suffered and died for man the creature's sin, and not a substituted humanity. That Christ that had glory with the Father before the world was; that was tempted in all points like as I am, yet without sin, is my Saviour. He is my all and in all. I know no other. May he quickly come to be admired in all his saints. Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. But I must stop. Brethren, I love the Lord, Amen. My soul replies, Amen.

Yours for the truth. S. A. Taft.

Oxford, Sept. 15th, 1858.