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 No. 12.) Elder Hull's Fifth Article.
Dear Brother,—In your letter which appeared in the Recorder of Jan. 26th, you call my attention to the relation of thought, or the seat of thought, to matter. As to the philosophy of this question, I lay no claim to perfection of knowledge. Sure it is, that the Bible attributes thought to the spirit of man, and not his body. 1 Cor. i, 11—"For what man knoweth the thoughts of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" This should be sufficient. I think our philosophical difficulties on this subject arise more from what we do not know, than from what we do know. While it may be well settled, that the brain is the organ of thought, who can prove that the brain thinks? The eye is the organ of sight; who will assert that the eye sees? So of the ear; it is the organ of sound; still it hears nothing. A fundamental principle in your theory is, if I understand you, that life is the result of organized matter. To this I take exception, arguing, that the reverse of this is the true position—that is, that matter is both produced and organized by a creative and organic force, which we call life, and that the principle of thought lies back in this life-force, and not in matter. If life is the result of organized matter, then matter must be a vivific force, and pre-exists life; and reasoning back step by step, we find matter eternal, justifying atheism. That, in our present mode of being, the spirit reveals itself through organized matter, is both true and necessary. But it is a glory of the human spirit, that it can operate, exercising its powers according to the conditions of its habitation, whether physical and imperfect, or spiritual and perfect. In the resurrection, the body only is changed; at least, we have no warrant from the Scriptures to assert the resurrection of the spirit, or the enlargement of its powers, per se. That beasts think, seems true; but who can tell how they think? To inquire after the principle of thought in animals, may afford a pleasure to a speculative mind; but to introduce it as a ground of argument in a Bible discussion concerning the nature of man, seems fruitful of no good, seeing it is a mystery which God has not seen fit to reveal. You think my declaration, that man in the resurrection does not have his animal body restored to life, a denial of the resurrection itself. I fail to see this. If I understand Paul, (1 Cor. xv,) he holds that a man who believes in the resurrection of the animal body is a fool! Indeed, his whole argument is to show, that while there is identity as to personality, there is none as to substance. "There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body," is his emphatic declaration, backed by the statement, that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." If it be true, that Christ, after his resurrection, and before his ascension, bore about the same body that was crucified, this does not disprove what I said. You of course are aware of the difficulties surrounding this question. There are those eminent for learning, candor and ability, who suppose that all those raised to life by Christ and his apostles, during their earthly ministries, were still subject to death. Indeed, this would seem to be necessary in order that the full proofs of divinity might be given. But this is altogether another thing from that which occurs at the general resurrection, when the raised are to be introduced to an entirely different mode of being, necessitating a different bodily organization. As with these, so with Christ. While he remained on the earth, he retained his earthly body, even after his resurrection; the necessary inference being, that at the time of his ascension his body underwent the same change that those will who are alive at the last day, who shall be "changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." Your reference to those in Revelation 20th, who are said to have lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, and to the dead that lived not again until the thousand years were finished, is without force, for several reasons, but mainly from the fact that a literal resurrection, in their case, has not been proved. Perhaps the most sober view of that case is, that the Revelator saw what was fitly represented by the idea of a resurrection. To quote a passage as proof of a point in dispute, where there is a fair chance to doubt its applicability, is disingenuous. I still hold to the opinion, that whatever there is about us that is physical, and therefore corruptible, in a physical sense, will fail to re-appear in the resurrection. I hold that accountability can only be affirmed of SPIRIT; therefore MATTER cannot be the subject of moral rewards or punishments. I certainly have no desire to turn you aside from a consideration of Matt. x, 28, nor will I criticize your boastful words, only saying, that you marvelously resemble the Confederates, who stoutly affirm, after nearly every stronghold is taken, their territory cut, carved, and sundered part from part, that they are daily increasing in strength, and that their prospects were never before so bright! When you say the view you have given of this passage would be satisfactory to all, were it not that a crumbling theory is to be sustained, you certainly speak as one a little conceited. You over-estimate your efforts. The theory is not crumbling. Every new development in science, and advance step in a true exegesis of the Scriptures, adds new strength to it. Is not that true, brother? Then why talk of the theory as "crumbling?" I do not say that infidelity is dead—that materialism slumbers. Nay they are boastful! But this I say, that when they enter into a close engagement, spirituality always prevails. And as SPIRIT is purer and stronger than MATTER, it always will prevail! You proceed to say you do not object to the translation of the word soul, but to the interpretation that makes it live after the body is dead—“the idea, that the soul lives when separate from the body.” That question, brother, you must settle with Jesus, inasmuch as he is the one who uttered the sentiment. The truth is, the text is an interpretation and illustration of this “idea,” for the sake of assuring the disciples of this very thing, namely, that although men might kill the body, nevertheless the soul would survive. But your interpretation is lumbered with this absurdity: Christ comforts his disciples with the assurance, that although wicked men, in the service of Satan, can only kill their bodies, he can and will, seeing they peril their bodies in his service, kill their souls! And this is the protection he is to afford his persecuted ones! Mercy! But you proceed and say, that “this idea,” (that the soul lives after the death of the body,) “is not even hinted at in any other passage in the Bible.” You certainly do not want boldness, in whatever other characteristics you may be deficient. And you further say, “And is not intended to be hinted in this.” Pray how do you get so much knowledge? Jesus says this plainly, and you say he did not intend it. Well, I think he did, or he would not have said it! Your exhibition of modesty, under the cover of a “windy” retreat from a discussion of the meaning of the terms kill and destroy, may be skillful, but won’t save your theory. These words, it is true, have shades of meaning in common with each other, under certain circumstances, and under certain circumstances alone. Yet you have gained much of your strength by an adroit but deceptive use of these terms; and until you withdraw this link of your argument, you must stand before the world not as fair disputants, but as wrestlers of words. This charge may seem to be strong; but I sincerely believe it, and think I am able abundantly to support it. But you proceed to “take position” upon the first part of the verse—“And fear not those who will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul”—and say, “You will not dispute that kill, in this clause, means kill.” But you go on and say, "I proceed, then. 1. We are not to fear those who are not able to kill the soul." So you yield the point, do you, that the soul does not necessarily die with the body? I rejoice that a main point in this argument is gained. You then proceed to say, "2. But we are expressly taught to fear God. 3. Therefore God is able to kill the soul." I don't see it. God may indeed be able to kill the soul; but how does it follow, that God can kill the soul, because man cannot, or because we are to fear him rather than man, because man cannot. But you must complete your syllogism, and so you say, "Therefore God will kill the souls of some, i. e., the souls of the wicked." Here another point is gained, namely, not only that men cannot kill the souls of the righteous, but God will not. Therefore, when the bodies of the righteous die, their souls still live, and they must continue to live, for men cannot kill them, and God will not. Amen! But how do you say that God will kill the souls of the wicked, when what Christ says is, that he is "able to destroy both soul and body in hell?" That God is able to do this, I do not deny. But I deny that Jesus says that God will kill the souls of the wicked in hell, and demand your proof that he will. Please don't give us your syllogism, but give us his word. But your argument is further weak, in view of the sentiment you maintain; for even the souls of the wicked only die when killed by God in hell, according to your own showing. Then, when the body of a wicked man dies, his soul still lives, and will live until the body is raised, and then, after being with the soul judged, both soul and body are killed in hell. But, as you have invited me to point out the "very place where your logic leaks," I proceed; not that I have any desire to tantalize you. You say, "Now that which is liable to be killed, or in other words subject to death, is not immortal, but mortal; therefore, the soul of man is mortal." But consider, it is one thing whether a thing is capable of death by violence at the hands of a superior, or whether death is inherent in its constitution. The body may die by a natural process, and then decaying you have mortality, for the proper idea of mortality is not in death simply, but in decay. If it were the appointment of God, that the particles of matter of which the body is composed should remain intact after life is gone, then the body would be immortal, because corruption would not follow. Death and mortality are not therefore convertible terms. To affirm, then, mortality of spirits, as you do, is a palpable error, unless you can show that the law of decay inheres in them. Your vaunted argument, then, is only a hubble, and when pricked, vanishes. The remainder of your argument will be noticed in another article.