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. xxv, No. 25.) Elder Hull's Sixth Article.
Dear Brother,—In resuming my reply to your article published in the Recorder of Jan. 26th, I commence by noticing your strictures on the term immortality. You say, "The Bible is silent concerning the immortality of the soul in its present state, or until it shall put on immortality at the resurrection of the just." Dear brother, will you have the kindness to quote the passage which says, "The soul puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just." Now mark what I say, and let all our readers mark it: There is neither word nor hint in the Bible, of the soul's putting on immortality at the resurrection. You affect dismay at the misuse of the Bible by religious partisans; but of all the bold and unwarrantable statements made by men earnest to establish a point, I know of none exceeding this. Had you said the body puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, it would have been well. But your theory required an addition to the simple Scripture statement, and for its sake you made the addition! All that I have attempted concerning the idea of the soul's immortality, is to prove that the soul does not necessarily die with the body. You now say, should I prove this, still I have not proved the immortality of the wicked. I have not come to that yet. When we come to the question of the destiny of the wicked, we shall likely have something to say about the phrase "second death," etc. But as to the existence of the soul after the death of the body, I maintain I have proved it by the saying of Jesus—a saying so positive and so exact, that to dispute it is to oppose! But you make strange concerning the existence of human spirits separate from their bodies, as if the "idea" was not contained in the Bible. But notice: 1. The Pharisees of Jesus' time believed in the existence of spirits, Acts xxiii, 8—"For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge both." 2. In this matter, Paul said he agreed with the Pharisees. 3. The disciples of Jesus believed in the existence of spirits, Mark vi, 49—"But they seeing him walking on the sea thought it was a spirit, and cried out." 4. Jesus believed in the existence of spirits. Luke xxiv, 36—"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." 5. Stephen believed his spirit would exist after the death of the body. Acts vii, 59—"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And in this he followed the example of his Master, who, when dying, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit."—Luke xxiii, 46. Indeed, nobody, at least no sect, in Christ's time, but the haughty infidel Sadducees, denied the separate existence of human spirits. Now, in the light of the above, said I not well, "The Bible especially the New Testament, would be without meaning, were we to remove this doctrine from it?" It is possible that Greenfield, in making Aphtharton, Rom. i, 23, say that God is incorruptible, or undecaying, as to the essence of his nature, is right; but the difficulty I have with you is, that you quote Greenfield as sustaining you in your theory that the soul or spirit of man decays with the body, because Aphtharton, when applied to decayable substances, means corruptible, perishable, etc., in a physical sense, whereas he holds no such doctrine; at any rate, if he does, I am not aware of it. And now, that our readers may not be misled, will you please quote Greenfield, or any other accepted lexicographer, where Aphtharton, when applied to the spirit of man, is made to mean corruptible, in a physical sense? I certainly know of no such use of the term. But light may be reflected upon this question, by taking the words corrupt and corrupted, and noticing a few instances where they occur in the Scriptures, from which the physical sense is excluded. Ex. xxxii, 7—"And Jehovah said to Moses, Go, get thee down, for thy people, whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves." 1 Cor. xv, 33—"Evil intercourse corrupteth good customs." 2 Cor. xi, 3—"But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. vi, 5—"Idle employments of men of corrupt minds." Also, 2 Tim. iii, 8; Eph. iv, 29—"Let no corrupt words issue from your mouth." But these instances are enough to show that these words are often used in the Bible, not in a physical, but in a moral sense. That mortality is affirmed of the bodies of men, whether good or bad, is true; that is, of men in the flesh. But mortality is not affirmed, either of the souls or bodies of men, in the future state. On what you say of the word destruction, I will only add to what I said in my former article, a quotation from Olshausen, whose learning you will hardly call in question. On 2 Thess. i, 9, he says: "OLETHROO-AIOONIOS, everlasting destruction. . . . This is the only passage in Paul's epistles in which everlasting damnation is openly declared." I refer you hopefully to his entire note. I have a little more to say on your theory of definitions, or the application of words to spiritual subjects; and let this cover what you say on the word destroy. You seem wholly to overlook the fact, that all words, whether they relate to God, Heaven, or hell, or anything touching the future of man, are in their primary significations earthly and physical—that all language seems awakened into being by, and is patterned after, "things visible." And further, as in the beginning man knew but little, words were few and simple; but as men advanced in knowledge, words took on a deeper meaning; and, as necessity required, new words were coined. Such is the history of language, in the Bible as well as in the world of science and letters. Because, then, the words first used to describe God were simple and physical, adapted only to the childhood state of man, shall we refuse the light since shed upon that question, and still clothe him in the rags of that poverty-stricken state? Is he indeed a being possessed of the body and passions of a man? Your system rejects the doctrine that God is pure spirit! And so of your Heaven, the primary meaning of which is wholly physical; and all this comes from the unscholarly and absurd habit of attributing physical properties to spirit. Your illustration drawn from horse-flesh and horse-life may do very well for one occupying your standpoint, but wholly fails when viewed from mine. 1. Your order in the creation of the horse is imaginary. No such account is given in the Bible. 2. The horse is not made in the image of God, and here is the rub! In so far as the animal substance and life of both horse and man are concerned, I suppose them subject to about the same laws. But in neither of these does the image of God lie. Concerning your proposition, "that man is mortal," I again say, that the Bible says that man's body is mortal. This I believe. You say man's spirit, or soul, is mortal. This the Bible does not say. I believe the Bible, but disbelieve you. I do not seek to evade the doctrine, that the "dead know not anything." What I deny is, that the spirit dies with the body. If the Bible says that the spirit dies with the body, why can you not quote the passage in which it is found? That men in the grave do not "remember anything done under the sun," I heartily believe, for that is what both reason and Scripture teach. That in certain instances the words life and spirit may have the same meaning, may be true, but not usually. I will give an instance or two, John, iii, 6—"That which is born of the spirit is spirit." 1 Cor. ii, 11—"For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man that is in him?" It would be impossible to put the word life in the place of the word spirit, and make sense in these passages,34as in many others. Consciousness is nowhere affirmed of life; it is the spirit that knows and wills. You say that Matt. x, 28, was written to assure the disciples that men could not deprive them of their future existence. But is that the plain teaching of that text? Is there any evidence that the disciples needed any such assurance as that? But upon the supposition that that is what the Saviour meant, how did he teach them this? Why, by telling them, that although men might kill the body, they could not kill the soul. So, then, the assurance Christ gives, that there is a hereafter for man, is that the soul does not die with the body. Well, then, let it be so! I close this article with a consideration of your argument upon "immortality an object of hope, and to be sought after." Rom. ii, 7—"To those who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life." You may be surprised when I tell you, I consider this your strong text. In listening to conversations upon this subject, I have always noticed that this text was quoted with an air of triumph. I must then approach your citadel with care. And, 1st. If I understand you, you make immortality and eternal life one and the same thing. But this would be plainly tautological. You must then say, that glory and honor and immortality are one with eternal life. If so, then immortality and eternal life certainly are not equivalent. 2d. No other writer than Paul exhorts us to seek after immortality, and he only in this text. 3d. But the immortality promised to the saints, and spoken of in 1 Corinthians, is applied to the body in the resurrection state, and does not refer to the spirit. 4th. But this same writer, Philippians iii, 11, speaks of striving to attain unto the resurrection of the dead; and in Acts xxvi, 7, he calls the resurrection, the "hope" of Israel, because founded in a "promise" of God. 5th. But the resurrection per se takes effect upon the wicked as well as the just. But certainly Paul did not seek to attain unto the resurrection of the wicked. It follows, then, that he strove to attain that resurrection which is the portion of the just; the desirableness of which is found not simply in being raised, but in circumstances attending it. Such, then, I understand to be the immortality sought after; not existence, but a blessed, a happy existence. The existence comes without our seeking; but the blessed existence is to be sought after as a thing of hope. I am aware that you will say, that immortality means incorruption. But you will bear in mind the fact, that the primary sense of all language is physical and earthly. Even God, and, as I have said, Heaven and hell, are thus described. But words take on other significations, being modified by their surroundings. Such is the universal law of language. When, then, I look at the word immortality, in the text under consideration, and take it in the light of its surroundings, I am satisfied that what Paul means is, "Seek for a blessed future, such as is the inheritance of the saints." To interpret him as saying, "Seek for a future eternal existence," is, I think, to fall far below the mark.