Materialism | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 10, 1870

Materialism.

The following communication from Eld. Wardner, S. D. Baptist, was received a few weeks since. Not understanding fully the present state of the question between him and Bro. Cottrell, we forwarded it to Bro. C. He returns it with the subjoined response, both of which we lay before the reader, that we may not even seem to decline a full hearing to either party.—Ed. Review.

Reply to Eld. Cottrell.

Editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald,

Dear Brother:—Within a few days I have ascertained that my sermon on Materialism, and a review by Eld. Cottrell has been published in your paper. But the discussion between us, published in the Sabbath Recorder is left out, contrary to my proposition. He began that discussion by accusing me of “entirely misrepresenting, and hideously caricaturing the teachings of Adventists;” and I was desirous that your readers might see to what extent he proved it. If he felt any assurance that he had sustained his charges, he would no doubt have been more anxious than myself.

Let me here state, that I did not aim at Seventh-day Adventists, more than others, in representing that some taught that the soul was the breath, nor did I suppose that all Adventists held to it. But that it is true of some cannot be gainsaid. I once held a written discussion with one, who deliberately took that position, and quoted Gen. 2: 7, and other passages to prove it; and when driven from this, fell back upon the position that Adam was a soul before the breath of life was breathed into him. And what I said in my discourse upon these two heads was mostly the arguments used in that discussion. An Advent minister took the same position in public debate, less than a year ago, as I am told. A ministering brother wrote me last fall, as follows: “I observe that Eld. Cottrell charges you with misrepresenting them. I have never been acquainted with, or even seen any of them, that I know of, except Eld. Buxton and his wife, but know very well that he preached both publicly and privately, that the soul was nothing but the breath. His wife advanced the same idea to my wife. I verily thought from what I learned from them that it was one of their denominational tenets.” In the standard publications of Adventists, I find such statements as the following: The Greek word pneuma, derived from pneo, to blow, has been chosen by inspiration to represent the Hebrew word ruah. It means wind, air, breath, and a something or principle contained in them which imparts and sustains life. A breathing, breath, inspiration, spirit, i. e., the human soul.” Mr. Loughborough comments on 1 Kings 17: 21, thus, “Elijah prayed that the soul might enter the body; it was that which would impart life to the body. Of course the same soul leaving the body would cause it to die. But we inquire, What caused the death of the child? His sickness was so sore that there was no breath left in him, verse 17, then the soul here spoken of is the breath of life.” Another author says: “The nesme contains the ruah, and both are the spirit or breath of God, and both are in the nostrils of man.” (This represents the Spirit of God to be nothing but atmospheric air.) “Thus the breath that contains the spirit by which all creatures live, is a common principle inhaled and exhaled by the nose.” Yet in the face of all these witnesses, Eld. C. declares, that he has never met the man in his travels, who taught thus, nor found the book that he has published. Well, his limited knowledge does not limit other people’s knowledge.

In my Scripture quotations which he complains of, I was showing the inconsistency of those who contend that the breath is the soul proper, as any one could see who was not disposed to be captious. His fluttering over it so much, indicates that he was hit by it, notwithstanding all his disclaimers.

He complained also because I said Adventists teach that “spirit, intelligence, feeling, are products of physical organization.” This, he says, “We deny.” Yet in the S. R., Oct. 21, he says, “When God gives life to organized dust, thus setting the machinery in motion, intelligence results.” What is this but teaching that intelligence is a product of animated physical organization? And how can the following statements of Adventists be interpreted differently?—“No Scripture or philosophy has ever yet been shown to prove the mind anything more than an attribute of the living, organized dust.” (Age of Gospel Light, p. 16.) “Man is entirely dependent upon his organization for all his thoughts, feelings, sensations, and for all the developments of his soul or life.” (Organization for all his Mental and Moral Powers, by Thomas Reed, pp. 13, 14.) “Man resembles the animals in these particulars: both are material; both are mortal; both have souls; both have spirits; and both alike are entirely dependent upon their organizations for all their mental phenomena.” (Dialogue on Future Punishment, by W. G. Moncrieff, pp. 24, 28.) “We believe that thought is an effect produced by material organization.” (B. vs. T., p. 66.) “Man’s superiority is derived from his superior organization.” (Ib., p. 86.) Yet in the face of these testimonies Bro. C. denies that Adventists ever teach that thought is the result of organization. As well assert that no statements of Adventists can be believed. But I have too much confidence yet in their general integrity, to think they will thus openly belie their honest sentiments. I am glad, however, to see that Bro. C. is ashamed of such doctrine.

In perfect harmony with such teaching, and demonstrating the truth of my charge, Bro. J. H. Waggoner says, “The divinity and pre-existence of our Saviour are most clearly proved by those scriptures which refer to him as the Word: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,’ &c. ‘The Scriptures teach that this exalted One was the identical person that died on the cross.’ ‘How can this be?’ For an answer, we turn to John 1: 14: ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.’ This is plain language and no parable. So in Heb. 10: 5: ‘He was prepared a body.’ Not, as many construe it, a body was prepared for him. The angel also announced to Mary that her Son Jesus should be called the Son of God (Luke 1: 35). Not that the Son of the Highest should dwell in and inhabit that which should be born of her, but her son was the holy, pre-existent One, thus by the agency of the Holy Spirit, made flesh.” Mr. Loughborough says, “We have already shown that Christ had a body composed of substance, flesh and bones; and he is said to be the image of God. Well, says one, we admit his divine nature is in the image of God. If by his divine nature, you mean the part that existed in glory with the Father before the world was, we reply, that which was in the beginning with God (the Word) was made flesh, not came into flesh, or as some state, clothed with a human nature, but made flesh.” Now if this is not materialism, then Webster has given a wrong definition of the word. According to the above teaching, all the divine intelligence, feeling, power, &c., which Christ manifested,

emanated from his flesh alone; that comprising all the divinity there was in him. And since the Bible says that “in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,” how can his brethren have thoughts which are not emanations from their flesh? If Christ had any divine character, it was the product of his flesh! If so, must not the same hold true of his brethren? Bro. C. says that thought is the result of living “organized dust,” and do not a man’s thoughts determine his character?

What did Christ mean when he said, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death”? Did he mean his “flesh,” or its product? An Adventist stated in a public lecture, in an adjoining town, a couple of months ago, that his “soul was five feet eight inches high, and weighed about 160 lbs.”

Bro. C. denies that the Advent theory makes thought the product of physical organization, as leaves, blossoms, fruit, &c., are of a tree or plant. Then let him explain how Christ could think divine thoughts which were not the product of his physical organization, if that was all the divinity there was about him. And if he was made in all things like unto his brethren, how can they have thoughts that are not the product of their physical organizations?

If the exposition given by Mr. Waggoner and Mr. Loughborough be correct concerning the divine incarnation, then it follows, either that Christ, the Word, was not God, as stated, or else there were more than one God, or else the only living and true God, “who only hath immortality,” died, and there was no God in the universe, but a dead one for three days and nights! Then how was he raised to life again? Bro. C. says he sees no difficulty in believing “that God raised him from the dead.” Will he then please explain how God could raise God from the dead, if there were no other than the one transmuted into flesh and was dead? And then tell how he “who only hath immortality,” could become mortal and die, and at the same time be the fountain of immortality and the giver of it to man? If I am to embrace his views upon these points, as he seems confident that I will, I wish to act understandingly.

Again, says Bro. C., “We are conscious that man is capable of choosing, and God in revelation has called upon him to choose. Therefore he is not a tree.” Who said he was? But will Bro. C. tell me what it is of man that chooses, and is responsible and rewardable? Is it his “organized dust,” or his intelligence, the “result” of this machinery set in motion? He says, “When God gives life to organized dust, thus setting the machinery in motion, intelligence results.” (S. R., Oct. 21.) When God gives life to organized dust in the form of a tree, thus setting the machinery in motion, leaves, blossoms, and fruit, are the result. He asserts that “organized dust,” set in motion by life, produces intelligence, and then turns right round and denies that intelligence is the result of organization animated! How can one either understand or misunderstand such a tissue of contradictions?

Again, he claims that the mind is regenerated or changed in this life, and the body at the resurrection; while at the same time he says: “When God gives life to organized dust, thus setting the machinery in motion, intelligence is the result.” If intelligence is the result of this physical machine set in motion, so must be the moral character. Hence his doctrine is, that the product of this depraved machine is first changed, and then, as the result, the machine itself! Like making figs grow on thistles, and then, as the result, turn the thistles into fig trees! Making good fruit grow on corrupt trees, and then, through the fruit, change the trees into good ones, reversing the law of cause and effect, in opposition to the plain statement of Christ.

Bro. C. seems very anxious to prejudice the minds of your readers against me, by classing me with “infidels, scoffers, and sneerers,” because I labored by the reductio ad absurdum process of reasoning to show the absurdity and consequent untenableness of his teachings. Does he mean to class himself with “infidels, scoffers, and sneerers,” whenever he resorts to that method of argumentation, as he is very prone to do? If I have not argued fairly, let him show it or own up, and not attempt to meet argument with such taunts, because he has neither logic nor proof to sustain him.

Yours for truth, N. Wardner. West Hallock, Ill., March 23, 1870.

Response from Bro. Cottrell.

Eld. N. Wardner,

Dear Brother:—Your rejoinder is before me; but it is not what I desired—a vindication of your faith. I was tired of disputing with you about what we believe, and asked you to take a position on the merits of the question of our difference; but you commit yourself to no definite position, but seem anxious to vindicate yourself before the readers of the Review, and so continue the same unpleasant and unprofitable dispute. Wishing to treat you with all fairness, we consent to listen to you again, and make a respectful reply.

In your sermon you represented Adventists as holding that the “soul is nothing but the breath,” and as claiming that this is proved from Gen. 2:7. I denied; but in my first article I admitted that soul in the Bible might sometimes have that meaning. You tell us of somebody that took that position, and you have heard of some one else that preached the same. Some one may have taught so; but, not at all questioning your truthfulness, or that of your informer, it would be greatly preferable to have the precise words of those Adventists in black and white. Furnish them with the names of the authors, and they shall appear in the Review. I have taken lessons in hearsay, and it is not quite satisfactory. You know the people called Campbellites are great sticklers for baptism. Before I ever saw any of them, I heard that they taught that all that was necessary to salvation was to be baptized; but when I heard them, they distinctly declared, that without faith and repentance to precede it, and a Christian walk and character to follow it, baptism was entirely useless.

You have diligently searched the books of Adventists, and what have you found? That in some particular passage soul means the breath of life. But who says that the soul is nothing but the breath? You gave in the Recorder a quotation professedly from Eld. Loughborough. I called your attention to the fact that not a word of it was his own language. You had taken it from two paragraphs, one quoted by Bro. L., from “Bible vs. Tradition,” and the other from Greenfield’s Lexicon. You had divided the two and mismatched the halves, and then gave the mixture as what “Mr. Loughborough says.” Notwithstanding I corrected your error, which I charitably thought was an oversight, you still come up with the same mongrel quotation, as much the language of Noah Webster as of any one man, prefaced as follows: “In the standard publications of Adventists, I find such statements as the following.” Now how does this look? Greenfield, after defining pneuma to mean “wind, air in motion, a breathing, breath, respiration, spirit,” wished to say that he understood by spirit, “the human soul,” such an imaginary soul, I suppose, as Eld. Wardner believes in, and Eld. Loughborough does not suppress it, but lets him speak it out. This you seize and emphasize to prove that Adventists believe that the soul is nothing but the breath. See “Hope of the Gospel,” p. 49.

I do not deny the evident connection existing between thoughts and brains, as you seem to, when I say that thoughts are not the “results of our physical organizations, just as leaves, blossoms, and fruit, are the products of a tree or plant.” Dust has not the power of thought, and when it is perfectly organized in the shape of a man, it is no better in this respect. But God gives to organized dust, life and power of thought. Oh! yes, says Bro. Wardner, “God gives life to organized dust in the form of a tree,” as if there were no difference between animal and vegetable life, and then runs off upon his brilliant ideas about horticulture, growing figs on thistles, &c. In this, brother, it seems to me your thoughts are altogether too vegetable. Botany is doubtless a beautiful science; but some things may be affirmed of the animal kingdom that are not true of the vegetable.

You, dear brother, have had some experience in traversing the subject of the Sabbath; and doubtless have heard men object to the declaration of the Son of God that “The Sabbath was made for man,” by telling you that the world is round, that it turns on its axis, so that the day does not begin in all places at the same moment; and therefore it cannot be true that the Sabbath was made for the universal human race, but only for the Jews; and for them only when they kept within the bounds of Palestine, forbidding them to circumnavigate the globe, as people do now, to find an argument against the Sabbath. Having no Scripture or any better argument with which to oppose the explicit declaration of the Son of God, they resort to reductio ad absurdum to prove that he must have been mistaken.

Now your case is precisely similar. It is not R. F. Cottrell that says that man was made of the dust of the ground. These are the words of divine revelation.

This puts me in mind of an incident: I had a chart with simply the ten commandments upon it, hanging up in a meeting-house. One of the proprietors of the house took it down, carried it to the vestibule, and rudely threw it upon a pile of wood. A good brother of our faith went to him and very kindly whispered, “Did you know what that was? Why, brother H., that was the law of God.” Now, brother Wardner, it is simply the word of God that you have tried with your “reductio ad absurdum process of reasoning,” and found wanting.

And, in your deductions, you come to extreme conclusions. If we say that soul means the breath of life in some particular passage, you come to the conclusion that we hold the soul to be nothing but the breath. And if one says, as did Job, “The spirit of God is in my nostrils,” (chap. 27: 3,) you are ready to reply, “this represents the Spirit of God to be nothing but atmospheric air.” Be favorable to the venerable patriarch. By spirit of God in this place, he doubtless meant, as explained in the margin, “The breath which God gave him,” Gen. 2: 7. Do not be so uncharitable as to say that he held that the term Spirit of God had no other meaning, and was nothing else. As the good man has fallen asleep, I feel it duty to speak thus much in his behalf.

You quote from Bro. Waggoner and Loughborough on the subject of the Word being made flesh, to which you object, not from anything which the Scriptures teach, but by your reductio ad absurdum process. But the words are not theirs; they quote them from the New Testament—it is just what the sacred writers say. You then draw this conclusion: “Now if this is not materialism, then Webster has given a wrong definition of the word.” This brings to mind what once took place in my native town. A man was brought for trial before a church of which he was a member, on a charge of believing the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked. He was requested to state what he did believe. He said he would answer their request by reading three passages of Scripture. He then read three of those strong texts for destruction, with which, you know, the Scriptures abound, and said he believed what they affirmed. A committee retired to consult upon it, and returned with a verdict that it “amounted to annihilation,” and he was accordingly expelled. In like manner, Bro. Wardner has decided that the Scripture declaration that “the Word was made flesh,” &c., amounts to materialism, provided Webster is right.

I do not yet see any absurdity in the Bible propositions, that “Christ died,” and that “God raised him from the dead.” I have been accustomed to hear those accounted orthodox speak of “God the Father” and “God the Son,” and I do not object to the phraseology; for the Bible sustains them in it. And I do not accuse them of having another God besides the Father, when they worship him to whom the Father has said, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,” and of whom he has said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” The Father has decreed “that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father who hath sent him.” John 5: 23. It was he whom both Paul and Peter call “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that

“brought again from the dead the Lord Jesus.” I believe all this, and see no absurdity in it.

Come, brother, believe! It is the easiest thing imaginable, when you learn how. Believe that the divine Son of God was made for a little while lower than the deathless angels for the suffering of death; that he did not desert suffering humanity in the hour of trial, but “poured out his soul unto death,” and suffered in his flesh the penalty which was due to us for our transgressions; and it will remove such a cloud of human inferences, deductions, and assumptions, and let in such a flood of divine light, as will astonish you and cause you to wonder where you have been all your life.

You ask me, “what it is of man that chooses and is responsible and rewardable.” I answer, It is the man. According to our authorities, it ruins a man to dissect him. “If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” Job 34: 14, 15. When man comes to his reward, he comes from the grave. “All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5: 28, 29.

The difficulty which you find for us—“making good fruit grow on corrupt trees”—may be owing to the assumption on your part that that which is material is necessarily corrupt. If so, I would remind you that when God formed man of the dust, he pronounced him “very good,” therefore materiality is not necessarily corrupt. But you admit, with us, that man is fallen and depraved. Now when you will tell us how a depraved immaterial “machine” can change its thoughts, and thus change itself, and how a corrupt immaterial tree can be made to bear good fruit, you will help us out of our difficulty.

In conclusion I will say that when Bro. Wardner will take an affirmative position on the nature of the human soul, I am ready to correspond with him on the subject, and have our correspondence published in both our papers. Till then, with the best wishes for your prosperity in spirit, soul and body, I kindly and respectfully bid you, Farewell. R. F. Cottrell.