A Very Materialistic Christianity
By R. F. Cottrell
For the N. Y. Independent. "A Very Materialistic Christianity."
MR. EDITOR:—In your paper of Aug. 10, I notice an article with the above heading, in which you attempt the portraiture of a certain people with whom you lately met in a "remote settlement of the West." From some of the features in your description, it seems quite possible the people alluded to may be the people with whom I have the honor of being connected; but, if so, your attempted portraiture is, in some respects, a mere caricature. I therefore ask the privilege of a brief reply, through your columns, that your readers may be better informed respecting us as a people. Your sense of justice cannot deny us the privilege of answering for ourselves, since your opportunities of gaining a knowledge of us have doubtless been quite limited, and the channels of your information may have been corrupted by prejudice. I am truly glad, however, that we have been noticed in the Independent, for the work in which we are engaged was not intended to be done in a corner. You speak of our work, if indeed we are the people, as "a singular movement in the way of proselytism." Proselytism is no reproach, if men are proselyted from error to truth, and from disobedience to duty. This was182the work of the first apostles and has been the work of the true church in every succeeding age. And as for singularity, the preaching of the truth has always seemed more or less singular; and had John the Baptist lived and preached his message in our times, he would probably have acquired the appellation of a "back-woods orator." You are mistaken in regard to the place of the publication of our periodical. Our paper is published at Battle Creek, Michigan, Eld. James White being the President of our publishing association, and not as you have it, in Boston—"the source of so much light to our country." We do not teach that "the soul sleeps with the body in the grave!" We believe, that man is a unit—that soul and body are not separate beings; but that it takes the whole body soul and spirit, if you please, to constitute a living man or soul. The living man became subject to death on account of sin, no part being exempt, and there is no remedy but the resurrection. "If the dead rise not, then they that have fallen asleep in Christ are perished." See 1 Cor. xv, 16–18. You represent us as teaching "that the final Heaven of the saints is to be a sort of Garden of Eden restored; with all its material and voluptuous delights." You must be aware that the Scriptures promise a restitution—a new Heavens and a new earth—and also the resurrection of the body. And where is the evidence that a resurrected, spiritual body is immaterial—that it has not "flesh and bones" as our Lord had after his resurrection? Why should material men sigh for immateriality? Can we not, while we are here in our fleshly bodies, worship God in spirit and in truth? Some such true worshipers were on the earth in the time of our Saviour; for he says, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." We need not become immaterial in order to worship God aright. You continue: "The wicked, they hold, in default of being raised from the dead, are annihilated, their bodies being literally burnt up in the fires of the final conflagration, and becoming ashes under the feet of the righteous; a sort of manure, we suppose, to increase the fertility of the paradisiæal soil, &c. Now since it is Bible language that the wicked shall be burned up root and branch, and be ashes under the feet of God's people, does not your jeering comment savor too much of scoffing at the Scriptures themselves? In all candor I ask you to reflect on this." But if you are not mistaken concerning the people you describe—if they hold that the wicked will be burned up, "in default of being raised from the dead," I assure you we are not the people. We have no fellowship with the denial that "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." We hold that the wicked will be raised from the dead, and will be punished for the deeds done here in the body, and none can more heartily condemn the opposing heresy than we. Your second paragraph I quote entire, as follows: "Saturday as the only lawful Sabbath is a great practical item in their faith. It is the seventh day from creation, and the great crime of the Christian world is the observance of the first day of the week. This is the mark of the beast; this is the Babylon out of which the people are exhorted to escape. As this new religion is wholly materialistic, of course an outward or literal day is more to it than faith, repentance and holiness. Its advocates are too ignorant to entertain the question as to whether Saturday is really the seventh day from creation, or whether those seven days may not have been geological periods. They are innocent of all such investigations." All the world—Jews, Christians and Mohammedans, are agreed in the numbering of the days of the week. The Saviour recognized the day the Jews were observing as the true Sabbath of the commandment which refers us for its origin to the creation; and there has been too much contention since that time concerning the respective claims of the seventh-day and the first, too many religiously observing, during the middle ages, each of these two days—for the true reckoning of the week to be lost. The commandment still says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Are we under no obligations to heed it? You speak of it as "an outward or literal day." Is not the first day as much? In behalf of which so many so-called Sabbath conventions are being called in these days, to promote its better observance, if not to enforce it. This literal day is more, you say, to our "wholly materialistic" religion than faith, repentance and holiness. What is faith, but believing the testimony of God's word? What is repentance, but turning away from sin which is the transgression of the law? And what is holiness, but obedience to the same divine law? We teach that men should repent of their Sabbath-breaking as well as every other sin. And it is in vain to claim holiness of heart, if we are unwilling outwardly to obey the ten commandments. It is a cheap way to dispose of those who plead for reform, to affect to despise them on account of their ignorance. Did you imagine that your suggestion as to whether Saturday is really the seventh day from creation, was something new to us? or that we knew nothing of the "oppositions of science, falsely so called?" We knew that open infidels array the pretended revelations of geology against the records of the Bible. But I would not like to see a Christian encourage infidelity, by engaging in a similar work. The several geological periods of the creation week consisted each of an "evening and a morning," the evening being darkness or night, and the morning, light or day; and upon the fourth day the sun was set to rule these geological periods, dividing the light from the darkness, and it has faithfully performed the task assigned ever since. The preaching of truth, ever since the days of Him who "came not to send peace on earth, but a sword," has divided neighborhoods and families, as you say this Sabbath preaching is doing. But the fault is not in the truth, nor in the faithful preaching of it, but in those who reject and oppose it. Concerning the report that "The noisiest work is generally reserved by these Sabbatarians for the first day of the week," I have heard it reiterated so often for the last forty years that it seems to us too stale for repetition. I have been conversant with Seventh-day Baptists for that length of time, and with Seventh-day Adventists some fifteen years, and have never known the report to be true in one instance. But I have frequently known noisy work postponed to another day, solely out of regard to the feelings of our first-day neighbors, and to avoid all occasion for the repetition of this slanderous report. This courtesy I have never known, on their part, an effort to reciprocate. Be pleased candidly to review our position and yours, with a view to ascertain which are "the most fatal errors which ever corrupted the church and encouraged infidelity"—whether they are with those who contend for a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the word of God, or with those who favor the prevailing customs and traditions, and contend that literal obedience is non-essential—claiming to worship God "in spirit," while his "truth" is ignored, if not repudiated. Olcott, N. Y., Sept. 1, 1865.