Adventism by R. F. Cottrell

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 26, 1864

Adventism.

By R. F. Cottrell

Letter from R. F. Cottrell, to N. V. Hull.

Eld. N. V. Hull: My dear friend. It is but recently that I received your letter through the Recorder; this will account for my not noticing it before. I will notice some of the important points.

You endeavor to make it appear that the views maintained by us, as a people, respecting the nature and destiny of man, are, in their tendency, atheistic. We believe that man is mortal; and we have very good reason for thus believing; for the Bible thus characterizes him, in plain terms and without reserve. "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" Job iv, 17. "This mortal must put on immortality." 1 Cor. xv, 53. You give what you call the atheist's creed on this subject, as follows; "Man is mortal, soul and body." You then claim that your charge against our theory is "proved beyond a peradventure." In reply I observe,

1. Atheism is "disbelief in God's existence." Till you shall show that our theory tends to disbelief of the existence of God, your charge is not sustained. This you cannot do. The material universe is a proof of God's existence. The existing facts that men and animals live and die, do not disprove it. That sin entered into the world, and death by sin, only goes to prove that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe. You have failed, and must ever fail, to show any tendency to atheism in our theory.

2. But perhaps you will say that we hold a doctrine that is held by atheists; and that therefore your charge is sustained. This seems to be your meaning. But if holding views in common with atheists proves that we are tending to atheism, then others besides ourselves will find themselves tending that way. You believe that man's body is mortal; atheists believe the same; therefore your views are atheistical in their tendency. I do not present this as a fair argument, but only to represent the fairness of yours in its true light.

3. I now present for your consideration the true atheistic creed, attested by the national council of "Infidel France." It is as follows: "There is no God; and death is an eternal sleep." With both parts of this creed, we, S. D. Adventists, take issue. We say there is a God; and death is not an eternal sleep. Is this atheistic? We do hold that man sleeps in death. So does our Bible. The instances are so numerous where death is represented under the similitude of sleep, that I need not quote any of them to a reader of that Book. Both the righteous and the wicked dead are therein represented as asleep. Is this atheistic? But while we admit that death is a sleep, we deny the atheistic assertion, that it is an eternal sleep. It will be broken by the resurrection, for "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." It is well known that we, like the writers of the New Testament, make the resurrection one of our most prominent doctrines. Indeed, no people, since the days of the apostle Paul, have placed a greater value upon the resurrection than we. He made man's future life depend wholly upon the resurrection of the dead. Said he, "If the dead rise not, then Christ is not raised; then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." 1 Cor. xv, 16, 18. He continues, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ," (which would be the case, but for the resurrection,) "we are of all men most miserable." Is it atheistic to place the same value upon the resurrection that Paul did? Again he says, "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." Verse 32. Had Paul believed that he had an immortal soul which could be saved in Heaven without a resurrection of the body, doubtless his sagacity could have discovered some advantage accruing to him from his sacrifices and sufferings in the cause of Christ, should the body never be raised. But he could see none, and, consequently, but for the hope of the resurrection, he would, "after the manner of men," that is, the infidel Epicureans, say, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." (See marginal reading.) Paul's faith in the resurrection was the very thing that kept him from adopting atheistical sentiments. Is it not possible that the same faith may save us from such tendencies?

The second point in your letter which I notice is that which relates to the literal principle of interpretation. He that has truth on his side can afford to be fair. He is willing an opponent's views should be fairly represented. Then he will meet them with manliness and candor. But when a man has no arguments with which to meet an opponent's position fairly stated, he generally builds up a position for his opponent, and then makes an exhibition of his skill in demolishing it. Such, I am sorry to say, has been your course respecting "literalistic interpretation." You are aware that no one takes the ground that every word of Scripture is to be understood in its literal sense. The Bible abounds in parables, symbolic representations and figures of speech. All that any sane man means, when he claims the literal principle of interpretation, is that no mystical or hidden meaning should be attached to the words, but that they should be taken in their most obvious sense, or, in other words, the Bible should be interpreted by the same rules by which you would interpret any other book. You will recollect that I stated the matter in this way, while conversing with you at Alfred Center, in July last, and cautioned you against the very course you have pursued. You were perfectly aware, therefore, while battling against a position that nobody occupies, that you were beating the air.

Now if you have any rule of interpretation different from mine, why did you not present and maintain it? It is evident you have none which you would venture to maintain. I am still confident that there is but one rule of interpretation; and I am not tenacious what it is called whether literal, obvious, natural, or sensible. It is that by which every book, the Bible only excepted, is interpreted by all classes of readers.

The strength of your argument on this point will appear by an application of it to matters of difference between us. Thus; various figures of speech are used in the Bible; therefore when God threatened death to man, in case he should sin, he meant eternal life in misery. But when Jehovah passed sentence upon man, after he had incurred the penalty, he defines death to be returning back to the earth from which he was taken; and after this we read, "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." In a figure of speech life may be put for happiness and death for misery. But does this mean that Adam was happy for nine hundred and thirty years, and then suffered eternal misery? No! life and death are used in their primary or literal sense in these first chapters of Genesis, and in no other sense. The theological sense of which we hear so much at the present day, was not then invented; and better had it been, had it not been invented at all, and had men been left to exercise a little common sense, in the interpretation of what God has revealed to mankind.

When you come to the subject of visions, you en

quire, “How shall I write?” It would have looked much better, had you brought forth some reasons, founded on the inconsistencies of the visions, and thus enlightened your readers, by showing their fallacy, if you could do so. But instead of this, you only attempt to sneer them down, comparing them to Joe Smith’s Mormon Bible, and reiterating your former opprobrious epithet of “vagaries” and adding to that the contemptuous term of “twaddle.” Had you brought forth some strong argument against their truthfulness, I should have had something to which to reply; but as it is, I am only reminded of the very just observation of another; namely, it is very difficult to answer a sneer. If the visions are false, they carry their own condemnation with them. Will you show your readers why they are false, or will you be content with the cheaper course of merely answering them with a sneer?

My mind runs back to the days of the infant Saviour, and I fancy I see good old Simeon take the babe in his arms, and, in all simplicity of faith, bless God for the fulfillment of his promise to Israel and to himself; and I also see Anna the prophetess, one whom the proud doctors might call a “simple woman,” coming in stooping with age, and speaking of the infant “to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” I fancy I can see that grave doctor of the law sitting by, and as he witnesses what is passing, his lip curls with scorn as he remarks: The old lady is “a sort of clairvoyant, so that to herself her visions possess a sort of reality. How far, in the judgment of charity, she may be indulged in her delusion, I will not pretend to say.” “But when the utterances of this simple woman, are made the exponents of the words of Jeremiah and Daniel, then what? Scarcely could presumption and blindness go farther! But how convenient. First frame a new and peculiar theory, or take an old and exploded theory of scripture interpretation, and then, to save yourselves from the force of well-directed criticism, which would demolish your pen at a single blow, get insured by the heaven-born (?) utterances of a prophetess, who shall come in the sacred name of inspiration, and thus scouting all learning and discarding all wisdom, put the sanction and seal of Heaven itself upon the new invention.

“But pray how are we ever to settle disputes in theology in this way? We meet at great disadvantage. Let us bring to the discussion all the learning of past ages, and patient investigation of the present, but of what avail? You know you are right,” &c.

To this the humble believer in God’s word might reply: God has promised certain things, through his ancient servants, the prophets. He is now fulfilling those promises. And while he is fulfilling his precious promises, he gives to some a measure of that same spirit with which the prophets were inspired, and they speak forth the praises of God, for the fulfillment of his word. This is not intended to settle disputes in theology between doctors and lawyers, or between Jews and Samaritans; but to aid humble inquirers and believers in the word of promise, to an establishment in the faith that the great Author of the promises lives and is faithful to his word.

While the unbelieving Jews could, to justify their unbelief in Jesus, say, “We know that God spake to Moses, but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is,” Jesus could reply: If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me.”

Now, my dear friend, nothing has happened in these days, in the development of spirit manifestations, whether true or false, that was not foretold by prophets and apostles. They “wrote” of them; both of the true, and of the false. Do you believe their writings? How is it that you class together things that are directly opposed to each other? You sneer alike at the false and the true. Do you tell the people that modern spiritualism is a fulfillment of the predictions of scripture—that these spirits are the “spirits of devils working miracles,” that are deceiving the world and preparing them to be gathered to the battle of the great day? Do you raise the warning voice against it proving from the Scriptures what it is? No! as long as you hold its fundamental doctrine, the immortality of the soul, you can do no better than to meet it with an incredulous sneer.

It is no wonder to us that “the world should be wheedled” by spiritualism, when the great mass of religious teachers are so far from meeting it with scripture argument, that they build the track upon which its car is running. Where is the feeling of responsibility which ought to rest upon the professed teachers of God’s word, to meet, with scriptural arguments, this sweeping delusion, which bids fair to cause the world to reject the Bible; and that too, at a time when they are looking for the conversion of the world to the truths of Christianity? Do they think that spiritualism is harmless? Why this apathy? Are they inclined to believe it, because it accords so well with their theory of the state of the dead? Why so mute in respect to this monster of iniquity, while at the same time, they are all stirred up to oppose Adventism and brand it as infidelity? Is spiritualism no evil and Adventism a great evil? You say, “Your labor to produce in the public mind the conviction that the end of the world is nigh, even at the doors, in only limited for evil, by the ill success attending it.” What terrible consequence would follow, should men in general believe that the Lord was soon coming? Would it lead them to irreligion and rejection of the Bible? No! the word promises his return; and his children wait its fulfillment, while scoffers are saying, “Where is the promise of his coming?” What evil has the Advent doctrine wrought in us who believe it? Does it cause us to transgress God’s commandments? This is what spiritualism is doing for its votaries: and where is the remedy? Who are they that raise the voice of warning but these same Adventists, that would, in your view of it, if they could, ruin the world?

Oh, that God would help you to open your eyes and see; to discern where infidelity is; and that you might feel the responsibility which rests upon you, as a teacher, to expose infidelity and defend the truth.

I did not intend to say half so much; but “our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged,” and it is hard to find a stepping place. Be assured that I have “set down nothing in malice,” but that all has been prompted by feelings of the most sincere friendship. I do view your position as dangerous; and God knows my heart when I say, I would rejoice in your salvation. I can say of S. D. Baptists as Paul said of his kindred according to the flesh: “My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” And bear with me, if I go a little further, and say, “I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” I believe the doctrine that we as a people are teaching; and I believe that nothing but a firm belief that the Lord is at hand and that the very foundation of spiritualism is a lie, will be able to save us, in the great crisis that, as all can see, is just before us. Then, while I speak with plainness, believe me as ever, your friend,

R. F. COTTERELL.