Adventism by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Michigan · Aug 4, 1863

Adventism.

By Editor

THE following letter reached the Recorder office during the editor's absence at the West, on which account it failed to receive the early attention due to it. The spirit manifested by the writer entitles him to consideration, and we therefore comply with his request to "insert only this letter." We think he is mistaken in supposing that the main difference between himself and Eld. Hull relates to the literal or spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures. If we understand Eld. Hull, he advocates adherence to the scriptures in preference to any modern visions, and such an interpretation of the Scriptures as makes them consistent with themselves, and with the instincts of human nature.

LETTER TO ELD. N. V. HULL.

Dear Sir:—Permit me the privilege of addressing a few words to you on the subject of your letter to Benjamin Clark, published in the Recorder of April 16th.

I have nothing to object to your frank manner of expressing your views in regard to Adventism. Plain and open dealing is the best. But I am truly sorry that you are not in sympathy with a movement which I verily believe is from heaven. I fear you have not given the subject the careful examination which you ought; and that your mind has been imbued with that prejudice which your article seems so well calculated to infuse into others.

It is much easier to call our theory "atheistic," than it is to take your Bible and prove it to be so.

We believe, as I suppose you do, that that which is composed of matter is material; that our bodies are material, because composed of matter. But we do not perceive why it is that our philosophy concerning matter is more "grossly material" than yours. You admit that your body is material. We do not for that reason charge you with being grossly material. God has created matter. Shall we try to degrade it by some opprobrious epithet? The Scriptures contrast corruptible with incorruptible, and vile with glorious bodies; but they nowhere contrast materiality with immateriality, or intimate that a thing is any the worse, from the fact of its being composed of matter.

We believe, with you, that there is a mysterious connection between mind and matter. We do not pretend to comprehend or explain it. I suppose you do not. It is well known, and generally admitted, that the mind is affected by the state of the body, especially by that of the brain, the seat of the nervous system. In harmony with this the Bible informs us that "the dead know not anything."

You say, "Having laid down this platform, they must adopt principles of interpretation in agreement with it." You are slightly mistaken in this. We did not get our platform first, and then find ourselves compelled to adopt some strange principles of interpretation to suit it, as those do who have a hereditary faith, which unfortunately is not found in the Bible. The literal principle of interpretation leads us to our platform; and though this platform is unpopular, we are satisfied that every plank of it is sound. No principle of interpretation is safe but the literal. You that claim the privilege of mystical or spiritual interpretation for yourselves, will not concede it to others. If they differ from you—and the mystical principle gives them a perfect right to do so—you will tell them they are fanciful. If they are fanciful, so are you; for your rule, if it may be called a rule, is the same as theirs. But it is absurd to call the license, which spiritualizers usurp, a rule. There is no principle of interpretation but the literal. All else is whimsical, and not entitled to the appellation of a rule.

In every point where you have express revelation on your side, you will allow an opponent no license to spiritualize. You will not allow him to spiritualize the plain and positive declaration, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," so as to make it mean an indefinite day, or the rest from sin which believers enjoy. Neither should you spiritualize the equally unambiguous declaration, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die," unless, indeed, some other passage teaches what you and I have so often read in the Elementary Spelling Book: "Our souls are immortal; they will never die."

You are aware that in whatever we differ in interpretation, it is in that we take the literal, and you some other interpretation; as your brother, Eld. Griswold, admitted, some time since, that we were doubtless right, unless the words of Scripture had some other than the literal sense. Admit that they have some hidden meaning, and one has as good a right to tell what that meaning is as another, and confusion is the result, as we see it at this day.

Now, who are prepared, by their principles of interpretation, to receive vagaries—literalists or spiritualists? Yet, after alluding to our principles of interpretation, you say, "It is no wonder to me, then, that they receive the vagaries of Ellen G. White as oracular." Does our literal, matter-of-fact way of thinking, which gives to the objects of our faith and hope so much of reality and tangibility, naturally prepare our minds to receive every wild freak or whim of some idle dreamer? You cannot but see the absurdity of this. Have you read the visions which you thus stigmatize? If you have, I do not see how you can thus characterize them; if you have not, you have no right thus to speak. If the visions of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel are mere vagaries, then the testimony that teaches that those sublime, interesting and fearful events, connected with the great day of the Lord, predicted by all the ancient prophets, will certainly and speedily be realized, is likewise whimsical. These visions consist of plain truths expressed in plain intelligible language. I doubt whether anything can be found in them so vague and undefinable as the "spiritual instincts of the Christian system." Still, I would not reject them, should some trifling defects in their language be discovered.

I have no idea that the advent doctrine has finished its work for the Seventh-day Baptists. Many, I trust, will yet be benefited by the third angel's message; and I would hope that you might be one of that number.

But you seem, at present, to regard the progress of this message as an evil, and suggest as a remedy "an active, fearless and intelligent ministry." You are aware that every step in reform, from the days of Luther to the present, has been opposed by an active, fearless, and (self-esteemed) intelligent ministry. You have found the opposing influence of such a ministry one of the greatest obstacles in the way of the advance of the Sabbath truth. And now, since God has called a people more fully to proclaim this truth, in the course of the fulfillment of the advent messages, laid down in his word, will you be found active and fearless in your opposition to it? Be careful that you do not occupy a position which you condemn in others, and thus oppose the progress of the Sabbath truth, a truth which you profess to love. Can you not see that the people that God is making instrumental in the spread of this truth are in the light? Can you not see that the prophetic word of God demands just such a work as is now being done? "Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets: Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in nowise believe, though a man declare it unto you."

I remain, as ever, your sincere friend and well-wisher,

R. F. COTTRELL.