Materialism by N. Wardner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 15, 1870

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 35, Nos. 8 & 9.

Materialism.

By N. Wardner

A Discourse delivered by N. WARDNER, at West Hallock, Ill., Feb. 27, 1869, and requested by a unanimous vote of the congregation for publication in the Sabbath Recorder.

Gen. 2:7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Hebrew scholars tell us that the term which is here rendered “breath of life,” is never used, in Scripture, except with reference to man and God. It is an entirely different word from the one used with reference to breathing animals. These facts indicate that it represents a principle akin to God, and superior to any thing pertaining to dumb beasts.

“But,” says one, “this passage proves that man’s soul is his breath; since it was because the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that he became a living soul.” If such be a necessary conclusion, then the passage may be rendered thus: “The Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living breath.” And it would follow, that all the soul man can boast of is merely atmospheric air, composed of one part oxygen and four parts nitrogen, which may be decomposed and exist in its separate elements, or be united in different proportions, and form different substances. Combine these gases in equal proportions, and they form nitrous acid. Two parts oxygen with one part nitrogen, and you have nitrous oxyd. Five parts oxygen and one of nitrogen, form nitric acid, one of the most powerful poisons known.

Again, if the breath is the soul, then its purity must depend upon the purity of the air a man breathes, and hence upon his locality. If he is where the air is pure, he has a pure, holy soul, and vice versa. Besides, all organized substances respire as well as man, even down to the lowest order of plants; and therefore have souls!

Again, the amount of air consumed by a person of ordinary size, at each respiration, is about twenty cubic inches, or eight hundred cubic feet (of soul) in twenty-four hours. Hence the largeness of a man’s soul depends upon the size of his body. Besides, when his soul enters his lungs, it is atmospheric air; but it goes out carbonic acid gas; and then he is left soulless. Now, if each breath is a soul, and a man has a new one every second, then which one is to be held responsible for his sins of to-day, next year, or through life? Or must all be held accountable—eight hundred cubic feet for every day, and two hundred and ninety-two thousand cubic feet for every year, and so on? “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” says God; i. e., the breath that sinneth shall die! But breath (soul) ceases to be breath after it is breathed out. Is this the death which God here threatens?

Now, if God meant to be understood to mean that the soul was the breath, then the word breath should be used as a translation of the original Hebrew, in order correctly to express its meaning. And this would make the Scriptures read as follows: “The breath of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter.” “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the breath.” “He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their breath.” “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the breath; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and breath in hell.” “O my breath, come not thou into their secret.” “Why art thou thus cast down, O my breath? and why art thou disquieted within me.” “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my breath.” “He that winneth breaths is wise.” “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your breaths.” “My breath is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” “And they returned to Lystra and Iconium and Antioch, confirming the breaths of the disciples.” “I saw the breaths of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” These, and multitudes of other passages that might be quoted, show plainly that the words soul and breath do not mean the same thing.

But, after our materialistic friends fail to sustain themselves in the above position, they generally fall back upon the position, that Adam was a soul before the breath of life was breathed into him. This is yielding the point, that the soul is the breath; for, if Adam was a soul before he had any breath, then his breath was not necessary to its existence; and therefore his body must have been his soul, dead or alive.

Hence, body and soul must be convertible terms; consequently, the term body may be substituted wherever the word soul occurs, and make as good sense. Let us see: “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the body, but rather fear him who is able to destroy both body and body in hell,” &c. Hence, Webster’s definition of soul—“the thinking, reasoning, intellectual principle”—is incorrect, as it would not apply to Adam’s soul, he being a soul before any such principle existed in him. He must have been in the same condition before the breath of life was breathed into him that he was after it had left him. Then how shall we interpret Gen. 35: 18: “And it came to pass, as her soul was departing, (for she died,) that she called his name Ben-oni”? What was that soul that departed? Not her body; for Jacob buried that. Neither could it have been her breath; for that formed no part of her soul according to this position. Again, 1 Kings 17: 21, 22: “O Lord, my God, I beseech thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into the child again, and he revived.” Or, as Elijah probably should have prayed, “O Lord, my God, I pray thee, let this child’s body come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the body of the child came into the child again, and he revived!” Now, if that child’s body was his soul, then how could his soul go out of him and come into him again? It could not have been his breath; for if Adam was a soul without breath, so was that child. But it seems that the child died, because his soul went out of him, and he could not revive until it came into him again. Now why was it? Solomon tells us, that “dust shall return to dust, and the spirit to God who gave it.” Now, if Adam was a soul, or spirit, without life, so are all dead men, and, therefore, when the body returns to dust, the soul returns to dust, being one and the same thing. Then what did the preacher mean by saying, The body shall return to dust, but the spirit to God who gave it? Does not this clearly indicate that they are of distinct natures, origin, and destiny?

But our Advent brethren claim that spirit, intelligence, feeling, &c., are all emanations from the body—results of our physical organizations; just as leaves, blossoms, and fruit, are products of a tree or plant. If this be so, then mind must be matter, and controlled by the laws of matter. Therefore, when the body is in a fit condition, thought and feeling will be a necessary result, and their kind and quality will be as fixed and uniform as the physical conditions of the body which produce them; and they can no more change without a previous change in our bodily conditions, than any other physical product. It is a universal law of matter, that the same cause, acting under the same circumstances, must always produce the same results; and no effect can exceed its cause. Hence, love, hatred, happiness, and suffering, are all material substances, having shape, solidity, and all the other qualities of matter, and are each produced by laws of physical necessity, resulting from peculiar changes in the conditions of the body, and could not be produced without them. Therefore it would be as impossible to love or be happy while our bodies are in one condition, as for an apple tree to produce blackberries; and as impossible for us not to hate or be unhappy while our bodies are in a different condition, as for a stalk of wheat to bear peaches. And it would be equally impossible to direct the mind in any particular train of thought, while the body is in a condition to produce a different train. But we know that we may be thinking intently upon one subject, and then, in the twinkling of an eye, our thoughts will dart off into another train of thought, of an entirely different character. And our feelings often change as suddenly. How many of you had any such thoughts, when you came into this house, as are now occupying your minds? Probably nothing was more foreign to your thoughts, before I commenced speaking, than what you are now thinking of. The expression of every countenance indicates that your minds are all fastened upon one subject, and drinking in the thoughts that I am communicating. How is this? Have all your bodies undergone such a radical change, and have the few words I have uttered produced that change? Some such effect must have occurred, or such a result could not have been produced, if this theory be correct. And after all it would prove that mind has the power to change the body.

Again, how came man to sin in the first place? Was it the result of some organic defect, or change in his body? How could he have sinned without, if his mind was a natural production of his physical organization? If the spirit is dependent on the body for its existence and character, then all responsibility attaches to the body. And since it is a fact, that our bodies are entirely renewed once in seven years, and portions of them every day and hour, which body, or part of our bodies, is to be held responsible for our sins? A man who has lived seventy years, has had his body renewed ten times; and surely one body cannot be held responsible for the sins of another body; and as no part of our bodies exists more than seven years, how can a man be held accountable for what he, or somebody else who looked just like him, did seven years before? Now, since the body is passing away and being renewed every hour, it follows, that the whole body can, at no time, be held accountable for sins committed only the day before. Hence, if all the matter that ever composed our bodies, and which participated in our sins, is to be held accountable at the judgment, then, in the resurrection, all those particles must be collected into one body; and a man who has lived eighty-four years, will be twelve times as large as he is here.

Again, if thought is the result of bodily organization, and sin is the result of physical derangement, then man is not to blame for it, any more than he is for the necessary effect of any other natural cause. Physical depravity must precede mental and moral depravity, as a fountain must exist before a stream can issue from it. And if this be true of man, it must hold equally true of Satan. For, according to this philosophy, there could be no devil without a devil body to produce such a character, in the formation of which he had nothing to do, and hence is not responsible for. Who, then, is to blame for his being a devil? Must it not rest upon his Creator? But if this principle be correct, then it must apply to God, as well as to man and Satan, for man is declared to have been made in his image, and after his likeness; therefore, God’s intelligence must also be produced by his physical organization, the same as ours, and be controlled by the same uniform law of cause and effect. His body being the cause, must therefore have existed first, in order to produce his intelligence; and neither could change in character or activity without a corresponding change in that organization; therefore, every thought, feeling, and act of his, is necessitated by the inexorable laws of nature; and therefore he is not responsible. Here, then, is blind fate sitting as the governor of the universe.

Now, if this be true of God, he could not be the creator of matter, as the Bible represents him to be; for matter first created him, spiritually, intellectually and morally.

Again, if this philosophy be true, then regeneration is impossible without the body being regenerated and purified first, which we all know does not take place in this life. Therefore materialists hold that regeneration does not take place till the general resurrection. If this be true, then all men are “carnal, at enmity with God, sold under sin,” up to that time, and then, without any previous change of character in any of them, a part are raised to life and glory, and a part to shame and everlasting contempt; and yet the Scriptures claim that God is no respecter of persons! This philosophy destroys all freedom of will and choice. Then what an ignorant man Paul must have been to teach that, “while the outer man decayed, the inner man was renewed day by day,” as though the spirit of man could grow more and more pure and godlike, while the body that produced

it is festering with corruption, and turning into a mass of putridity! That the fountain can be growing more and more polluted and poisonous, while the stream that issues from it grows more and more pure and wholesome! It is very evident that Paul had not yet attained to such philosophy.

Again, this theory destroys the divinity of Christ. For, if the intelligence and character which Christ had were the product of his physical organization, then wherein did he differ from mankind in general? The Bible says that he took upon him the nature of man, and became in all respects like unto his brethren. Therefore, if there was any divinity about him, it formed a part of his body. But since he partook of the nature of man, and was in all respects made like unto his brethren, wherein could he have possessed any more divinity than mankind in general?

But John says, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God;” “and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” Now, how could God, or divinity, be produced by a human body? Let our Advent brethren tell us. They tell us that when he died, he died like any other man, i. e., all there was of him died. Then if he was God, as the evangelist says he was, it follows of necessity that God lay dead, near Jerusalem, for three days and three nights, and therefore must have come to life again by the operation of physical laws, and not by miracle! Such is the necessary result of that kind of logic. And is God honored by it, and man benefited? If so, how?