NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
By N. V. Hull
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.
(Continued from Review Vol. xxiv, No. 16.) Elder Hull's Fourth Article.
Dear Brother,—Perpetual and exacting labors have caused upon my part a long intermission in our correspondence. In this article I hope to be reasonably concise and perspicuous, thereby freeing you from the duty of reproving me in the interest of the editor who prints our productions. 1. I repeat, "I used the term spirit to describe that principle or power in man, which is the seat of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection." Please do not confound the seat of thought, emotion, &c., with thought, emotion, &c., making them identical; and then your criticisms may be more logical. 2. My opinion is, that all animal passions and emotions die with the animal itself, whether man or horse, and that this death is perpetual in both. I think that man, therefore, will not be raised with animal passions and emotions. 3. I reluctantly return to Matthew x, 28, because I think your objections to the translation of the passage are unreasonable. The historic evidence in favor of our translation is so overwhelming, that I see not how any man who has given the subject an unselfish examination, can doubt. Tyndal in 1534, as well as Wickliff in 1580, Cranmer in 1539, Genevan in 1557, two at Rheims in 1582, and every recent translation, so far as I have seen, without exception, emphatically justifies the authorized version of 1611. Now, with the weight of this testimony before us, who can doubt? But if you yield the translation, you give up your doctrine; for the text is so pointed, that except subjected to the most merciless torture and violent wrestling, it forever settles the question, that though the body may die, nevertheless the soul lives. Indeed, it would seem impossible to state the doctrine in stronger terms. But observe further, as I have said above, when the body dies, the animal life and all animal propensities forever cease with it, of necessity, unless indeed you maintain that the animal body, with its functions, is to be restored in the resurrection. To say, then, that our animal life is to return to God until the resurrection, is a palpable inconsistency. But there is no contradiction in supposing that the spirit of man returns to God, awaiting the advent of the spiritual body as its eternal abode. When, therefore, Stephen committed his spirit to God, it was not his animal life, for that was never to be returned to him. 4. You represent me as saying, that the Bible is silent concerning the immortality of the soul, but you mistake me. I do not suppose the Bible silent on this subject. The Bible, especially the New Testament, would be without meaning, were we to remove this doctrine from it. What I say is, that the term immortality is not in the Scriptures applied to the soul, but that the idea is abundantly found there. This is what I meant by saying that we should attend to the ideas presented, although a particular word may not be found there. And now as you have made yourself merry over what you seem to think my awkwardness on this point; let me ask you, if the continued existence of the soul after the death of the body be taught, does not the idea of immortality appear, although the particular word is not found? 5. You say, "I do not deny that the body is corruptible. I have proved that man, the entire being, is corruptible—Rom. i, 23." Your reasoning here is sophistical. Whoever turns to this text, and reads it in connection with its context, will see that the apostle represents the moral state of the heathen world, in showing that they had likened God to corrupt and sinful men. If the idea of physical corruption at all inheres in the text, it is in a secondary sense, for that which constituted the essence of idolatry was, that it ascribed to God the sinful passions of men. 6. Your criticism on the use of philosophical terms, is weak if not puerile. Is not the question of the nature of man a philosophical one? May I not use philosophical terms in discussing it, provided I do not oppose to the teaching of the Bible, philosophy falsely so called. But why reprove me, when you yourself do the same thing; for a little further on, you say that the thoughts and affections are "corrupt in a moral sense." 7. As I do not use the terms soul or spirit in the sense of thoughts, affections, &c., but only as their seat or source, I will not reply to your misconceptions on this point. 8. As you do not take issue with me as to my criticisms on the Hebrew and Greek terms under examination in my last article, I will take no notice of your very-well-conducted retreat from their evidently unwelcome presence. 9. Your attempted definition of the word destroy, staggers me, as it looks like an attempt to mislead untaught men. Besides, your reference to Webster would deceive one not having the means of knowing just what he does say. Had you said such was his fifth definition, you would have put the reader on his guard. Webster assigns nine separate definitions to the word, the fifth of which you give; but, judging from your language, one would suppose that was all. But to show how weak is your effort to make the word destroy the synonym of kill, I ask the reader to consult both Webster and Worcester, and look at Rom. xiv, 15—"Destroy not with thy food him for whom Christ died." Verse 20—"For food destroy not the work of God." 1 Cor. viii, 11—"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish [be destroyed], for whom Christ died." In these passages, does the word destroy mean kill? That in many instances it means to kill in the ordinary sense of that term, I readily admit. I also admit, that temporal death as a judgment for particular offences, is often by God inflicted on the wicked. But this is far from proving that death, in this sense, is inflicted upon the wicked in the future state. I know the phrase "second death" may have reference to the punishment of the wicked in the future state; but I deny that it necessarily means the cessation of conscious being. If you can prove that it does, your cause will be gained. But this, perhaps, will more properly be introduced in another place. 10. I am not dull enough to suppose that when Paul spoke of an outward and an inward man, he meant two corporeal beings. That the outward man is corporeal, is easy enough to be seen; but precisely what may be the essence of the inward man, who can tell? Still Paul calls it the inward man, and I do not feel called upon to attempt an improvement upon his language. Besides, this form of expression is in keeping with the opinion of the Jews at that time, except the sect of the Sadducees, and would therefore be well-understood by them. It certainly was in conformity with the sentiments of the Pharisees, of whom Paul was one. Did not Paul evidently mean, by the "inward man," what in another place he calls "the spirit of man?" 11. I now come to your "three propositions," which, you say, if sustained, are "perfectly destructive of my theory." Your first proposition is, "Man was formed of the dust of the ground." The second one is, "Man is mortal." And the third, "that man in death has no knowledge." (1.) "Man is formed of the dust of the ground." Your "proof" is, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." On this text you say, that before the breath of life was breathed into him he was a man. In a certain qualified sense, he was; that is, dust was formed into the shape and substance of the human body. Up to this point, then, man is dust, and nothing more. Now, only that which was dust could return to dust. This dust so organized, is often in the Scriptures called man. But this is not exact or scientific language, but optical and accommodative, which you know is the common form of Scripture expression, as when it says the sun rises and sets. But suppose I should assert, that on this subject the true Bible doctrine was, that the sun did really rise and set, and so quote Scripture to prove it, would you accept my doctrine? Surely not. Let us go on then. The term man, then, is applied to this thing (not being, for it has not life) which God has made. This thing, then, is organized dust, but not living matter. In this state, it is incapable of thought, emotion, or feeling. For want of organization? No; for in this regard it is complete. Now God breathes into it the breath of life, and it becomes a living being—a living man.90Observe, then, God adds to this man of dust life; and this life is not dust. In the death of the body, God takes away the life which he added to the dust. The body is now dead, and dissolves into its original elements—dust to dust. Now, brother, when you make the term man, as you do in this discussion, cover not only the body, but also what God added to it, and then say that this man in death returns to dust, including the added essence, do you not palpably err? (2.) Your second proposition is, "Man is mortal." Who disputes it? But I will examine your first proof text, Job iv, 17—"Shall mortal man be more just than God?" On this you say, "Here man as a whole is called mortal." If by the "whole" man you mean the perfect organization, which God formed out of the dust of the ground, I agree with you. But if you include that which God added, when he breathed into man the breath of life, I deny it, and call for proof. Numerous, indeed, are the passages in which mortality is affirmed of that which was made of the dust. See Rom. vi, 12, and viii, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 35; 2 Cor. iv, 11, &c. Now, if you can show that that which God breathed into man, as formed of the dust, was also mortal, you will gain your point. Give us the text! (3.) But you proceed to say, "My third proposition is, 'Man in death has no knowledge.'" Proof—"For the living know that they must die, but the dead know not anything." Very well, who asserts that dead men have knowledge? Surely I do not. Let me ask you, Was this passage, Eccl. ix, 5, and Psa. vi, 5, "For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave, who shall give thee thanks," written to meet the question we are debating? You will not assert it! Why, then, should you quote it for that purpose? It is useless to quote such texts in this controversy, because they do not reach the case. What is wanted, is to show that the spirits of the departed know nothing. Now, brother, don't talk any more about dead men's carcasses in the grave! The dust formed into man knew nothing, until God breathed into it the breath of life. So, therefore, when the breath of life is taken from it again, it knows nothing. The dust returns to dust. Very truly yours,
N. V. HULL