NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN
By N. V. Hull
From the Sabbath Recorder. NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST. Elder Hull's Eighth Article.
Dear Brother,—I still argue, that when you say the soul puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, you not only go beyond the record, but, further, that you employ sophistry in your argument. You confess that I have proved by direct Scripture testimony, that the body is mortal. Now, that the resurrection of this mortal body is the question under consideration in the argument of the Apostle, is, I think, put beyond the possibility of cavil. See the 44th verse—a verse thrown in expressly as a definition—"It is sown an animal body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body." Again, verse 50—"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God; nor doth corruption inherit incorruption." Now do not "flesh and blood," in this verse, mean what "body" does in the 44th? And is it not this flesh and blood of which corruption is affirmed? If so, then corruptible, in the 54th verse, refers to flesh and blood as being decayable, and incorruption to the new or spiritual body given the saints at the resurrection. How plain and direct is all this! But now look at your argument. 1. "Man is a soul." 2. "When he received the breath of life, he became a living soul." 3. "The Scriptures call him 'mortal man.'" 4. "Then the living soul is mortal." Let us now look at this, part by part. 1. Man is a soul. Here you use the word soul in one of its meanings, as if this were its only meaning. Besides, you use it not in the sense in which it is used in Matt. x. 28, nor as used in this discussion; for here it has the sense of spirit. But had you employed the word as in Ps. lxxxiv, 2, "My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth, for the courts of Jehovah," would it have suited your purpose? 2. "When he received the breath of life, he became a living soul." That is, he ceased to be a thing, and became a person—a creature of life. Here you use the word soul, as before, in the sense of person, which has nothing to do with our discussion. 3. "The Scriptures call him mortal man." That this term mortal refers to the body, I have proved by overwhelming testimony. 4. "Then the living soul is mortal." Yes, this living person, or being, is subject to death. "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."—Gen. iii, 19. Now, this discussion is not about this dust that was taken from the ground and returned to it again, but of that of which Stephen spoke in Acts vii, 59, when he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Have I not, then, reason to charge you with sophistry? SOPHISM, says Webster, "is specious but fallacious argument—a subtlety in reasoning—an argument that is not supported by sound reasoning, or in which the inference is not justly deduced from the premises." Perhaps, however, this is the method by which you propose to keep me from "reasoning in a circle." I call your attention to one or two more points in that paragraph. You say, "I have proved the entire man mortal." Show me the passage which says the spirit of man is mortal, and I will publicly retract all I have said in this discussion proving that man's spirit survives the death of the body. Your assertion, that man's spirit puts on immortality at the resurrection of the just, I have attended to in my previous article, showing that it is the body, not the soul, that puts on immortality at that time. You are particularly severe upon me for saying, "All 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 say, "Indeed! That is attempting very little." I am relieved, however, by your covert concession, that this is easily done; and also by your admission, that I have done it, by saying that I would have attempted more "had the proof been at hand," and by your further confession, that I would not undertake anything for which there was not proof. It will greatly please me to have an opportunity to return the compliment. You do not meet my argument upon Acts xxiii, 8, etc., proving the separate existence of human spirits. 1. I make this statement: The Pharisees did believe in this doctrine. 2. With reference to this, as well as the existence of angels and the resurrection of the dead, Paul announced himself a Pharisee. 3. Therefore this is a Scripture doctrine. That angels are not meant by "spirits" in the text, is manifest. Olshausen says upon this verse, "In verse nine, pneuma, as used by the Pharisees, is plainly to be understood of a departed soul, because it is distinguished from angelos. If hearing something from the Spirit of God were meant, the article could not be dispensed with before pneuma, nor could elalese be applied in this manner to the spirit." Josephus says, (Ant., book 18, sec. 3,) "They also," the Pharisees, "believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life." The same author says, in the next section, "But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies." Is not that your faith also? If so, then, in respect to this article of their faith, you are a Sadducee! But Paul says that in this matter he was a Pharisee. So you and Paul differ there, do you not? You of course think you are right. I doubt it. Now, when Jesus said, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," he said it with reference to the doctrine believed by the Pharisees concerning the existence and nature of the spirits of departed men, i. e., dead men; otherwise his language would have been unintelligible. You attempt to free yourself from this text, by saying that "man's spirit is not a being, but an endowment." Had you reflected sufficiently, you would not, I am sure, have made such an assertion. If by being you mean personality, the Scriptures are certainly against you. Paul says, Rom. vii, 22, "I have pleasure in the law of God, as to the inward man." 2 Cor. iv, 16, "For this cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." To the same effect is Eph. iii, 16; Col. iii, 10; 2 Pet. iii, 4, and various other passages. Nothing can be plainer, than that personality is here affirmed of the spirit of man. Besides, the spirit of man is not, strictly speaking, an "endowment" of man; but the powers of the spirit, whatever they may be, are its endowments. You might as well say that the body is an endowment of man. The truth rather is, that the body has its endowments, as has also the spirit. Webster says, definition third, "Endowment is that which is bestowed on the person or mind by the Creator. . . . Natural activity of the limbs is an endowment of the body; natural vigor of intellect is an endowment of the mind." You see, then, that mind is one thing, and endowment is quite another. The passage in Acts xxiii, 8, is a complete answer to your statement, that the Scriptures do not teach the separate existence of the spirit from the body, which is what is meant by "disembodied" spirits. If the existence of the spirit, in this sense, is not taught in the Scriptures, then nothing is! I still hold to my former statement as to the meaning of phtharton, and further affirm, that it is never used by any Lexicographer of the spirit of man. Besides, to say that Paul, in Rom. i, 28, affirms this of the spirit of man, or of the "whole man," is to make the Apostle stultify himself; for in Rom. viii, 11, he expressly asserts178this mortality to be of the body. So, vi, 12, "Let not sin reign in your mortal body." In 2 Cor. iv, 11, Paul says, "That the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in your mortal flesh." Ought not these quotations to settle this matter? If you accept, as you say you do, my "lecture on the philosophy of language and the diversified use of words," please apply the principle to your theory of interpretation, and we will have no further controversy. To what you say of man's mortality, and his want of knowledge in death, etc., etc., I need add nothing further, as you have advanced no new thought. I join with you in a hearty acceptance of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and rejoice in the light it sheds upon the question of the future of man. But your argument, as to what it proves concerning your theory of the nature of man, is so fully answered in another place in this discussion, that I will pass it without further notice. What I have said on the matter of "seeking for immortality," I still stand to, and am the more, if possible, convinced of its correctness, from the fact that it remains perfectly unshaken after your assault. Your main point, that eternal life consists in our having incorruptible bodies in the future state, is too puerile to affect any well-instructed mind. That our spiritual bodies will endlessly exist, I doubt not; but that this is what is meant by "eternal life," as taught in the New Testament, is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. To reduce the whole gospel transaction, as wrapped in the mission and ministry of Jesus, to the work of securing man an eternal existence, is really too shocking. The means and the end bear no proper relation to each other. Approaching the close of your letter, you say "And now, what progress can we report in this discussion on the nature of man? You have proved, by unquestionable authority, that the body is mortal. I have proved, by testimony equally clear and unquestionable, that the entire man is mortal." Dear brother, how can you make such a statement as this? I have proved my statement, in just so many words. Have you done that? Is not yours an inference, while mine is the exact statement of Scripture? I despair, when I find a man so often charging others with preaching their philosophy in place of a "thus saith the Lord," who shall then coolly give utterance to such statements. Every reader, who has followed us in this discussion, knows that you have not produced one passage which says, "The whole man is mortal." That you have again and again asserted this, all know. Your method of proof is to select such passages as may in phraseology nearest approach your point, and place them in a circular form, and then complete the circle by a bold assertion, and call that "proof." Pray, brother, don't do so! How much progress we may be making in this discussion, I can not say. It was with great reluctance that I engaged in it. I have little taste for controversy. My labors are important and abundant, in a direction much more congenial to my tastes. I entered the discussion from a sense of duty. I felt also my weakness, and naturally shrunk from such a responsibility. But I am glad I entered the field, as I trust I have both received and imparted knowledge. The readers of both the papers in which the discussion has thus far been published, have had an opportunity to read both sides, and are better informed of the sentiments in controversy. I sincerely hope the effect of the controversy may not be to alienation, but to a union in the truth. It may be best, as you delicately hint, to proceed to the second question, "the destiny of man;" but please do not claim a victory before we enter the arena! I remain sincerely yours,
N. V. HULL.