p. 69 | Rejoinder by Eld. R. F. Cottrell

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

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

Rejoinder by Eld. R. F. Cottrell.

By Roswell Fenner Cottrell

REMARKS.

The above “Sermon”—such is its dignified title—was published in the Sabbath Recorder, some months since. I made a reply in which I complained that our views were misrepresented by the author, and in which I showed that the term soul in the Bible is varied in signification, so that no one definition of the term would make sense in every passage where it occurs. The Recorder, with its usual courtesy, published my reply; since which, a correspondence between Eld. Wardner and myself has been carried on through the Recorder, he claiming that we hold the views combated in his sermon, and I denying, till I concluded to decline any farther dispute on that question, holding that in a fair discussion every one has the right to state his own views, and that the truth in relation to the real question at issue should be the subject of discussion.

He has challenged the publication of his sermon, and the correspondence following, in the Review, expressing dissatisfaction that I did not procure its publication in this paper. I have, therefore, obtained permission to publish the sermon with a reply, giving Eld. W. the privilege of a rejoinder; intending briefly to review his arguments and speak to the real point of difference between us.

REPLY.

In the first place, the sermon is simply a negative discourse, the author taking no position, affirming no proposition concerning the nature of man, but merely raising objections to the views, as he understands them, of the “Advent brethren.” In this his efforts resemble those of the infidel against the Scriptures, who, having no system of truth to build up, contents himself with trying to tear down the Christian’s system of faith and hope, and thus leave him shelterless and forlorn as himself.

If Eld. W. has a position, we are left to infer it; and since the doctrine he combats is denominated by him “Materialism,” we infer that he holds the popular idea that the real man is an immaterial being, and exists independent of the body which is his temporary habitation. But since he does not affirm, we are liable to mistake, and, therefore, shall attempt no direct assault against an immaterial and undefined position. In contrast with this I will state my position; and I cannot find language more clearly to express it, than that of the text of the sermon:—“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.” This expresses my faith precisely. It tells us of what material man was made, and how he was made alive and thus became a living soul. I believe it just as it reads. Is this materialism?

1. In reply to the first paragraph of the sermon, I reply, that the same Hebrew word rendered “breath of life” in the text is also used in Gen. 7: 21, 22, which reads as follows: “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”

2. “But,” says one, “this passage proves that man’s soul is his breath.” I am not that “one,” and I have never met with him in my travels, nor found the book that he has published. The text says plainly that it was the man, not the breath, that became a living soul. Any one that can read the text ought to know better than to take such a position. I disown and reject it once for all. Hence all that follows about atmospheric air, oxygen, nitrogen, nitric acid, and carbonic acid gas, is all gas, as the popular expression is, and, being nothing to the purpose, deserves no reply.

3. Next Eld. W. attempts to stultify us by reading what he claims are our definitions of soul in the place of the term in various passages of Scripture. But in this he not only stultifies himself in his chosen definition—“the thinking, reasoning, intellectual principle”—but virtually attacks the Bible itself with his sarcasm, making its Author stultify himself. The Lord forgive him; for he did not mean it.

To prove that he confounds and defeats himself, the reader has only to read his definition into the very passages which he quotes in order to confound us. He may then add the following texts and as many more as he please. “He keepeth back his thinking principle from the pit.” “His reasoning principle abhorreth dainty meat.” “Yea, his intellectual principle draweth near unto the grave.” “Whose feet they hurt with fetters, his thinking principle came into iron.” “If he steal to satisfy his reasoning principle when he is hungry.” “No intellectual principle of you shall eat blood.” “And every living thinking principle died in the sea.” Thus he stultifies himself, offering us nonsense instead of argument.

But this sneering, scoffing course is a virtual attack upon the word of God. The term soul, as used in the Bible, has a variety of significations. In the text of the discourse it undoubtedly means the person or being that was made of dust. C. Beecher, a believer in the natural immortality of the soul, says, “It is generally conceded that by the expression, ‘God breathed into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul,’ no more is meant than that God caused him to breathe, and he became a living animal. ‘Living soul’ is applied to him in common with birds, beasts, and reptiles, in the same chapter.”—Redeemer and Redeemed, pp. 170, 171.

A living person, or animal, is a living soul. But this is not always the meaning of soul, and probably not its primary meaning. In the first instances of its use in the Bible it signifies life, a principle which God alone can communicate; and this mysterious principle, though communicated through the agency of the breath, is not to be confounded with it. The first instance of the use of the term ne-phesh, soul, is in Gen. 1: 20: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, [Heb. soul,] and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” Again, it is said, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [Heb. a living soul,] I have given every green herb for meat.” But terms are varied in their signification by a varied use. It would certainly be absurd to claim that n’sham-mah, breath of life, is the ne-phesh chay-iah, living soul, that man became on receiving it. Yet this n’sham-mah is rendered souls in Isa. 57: 16: “For the spirit [roo-agh] should fail before me, and the souls [n’sham-mah] which I have made.”

As life and breath are so closely related to each other, there probably are texts where the Hebrew term for soul may well be rendered breath. Indeed, the original terms for both soul and spirit have been, by our translators, rendered breath. They have given life, person, body, mind, heart, will, pleasure, lust, &c., as the translation of the Hebrew soul. They give us “dead body” where the Hebrew reading is “dead soul.”

Now to array the Bible against itself, by taking a term as used in a certain sense in a particular passage, and applying this sense to the term in other passages where it would make nonsense, as our brother has done, is not a becoming work for a believer in the Bible, as a divine revelation, to engage in. We are not so much surprised that infidels should take this course; but a believer should show the harmony of the Scriptures, and not make them clash with each other, as Eld. W. has done. But he did not intend it. He had his eye upon “materialism,” and was trying to demolish that, when he run the Bible into the ground. I have reason to have confidence in him, as a man of Christian integrity. Though reared in the observance of the first day, when he was convinced that the Sunday Sabbath was a fable, he left it and embraced the Sabbath of the Lord. And when he sees that the natural immortality of the soul is also a fable of like origin, I trust he will discard it. The time will come when he will see it as we do now; and then he will wonder that a zeal to sustain a fabulous theory, destitute of support, either from revelation or from science, but contradictory of both, should ever have led him into a course of argument derogatory to the Scriptures given by inspiration of God.

4. An appeal to the Scriptures. Good. “How shall we interpret” the departing of Rachel’s soul and the coming of the child’s soul into him again? With the facts already stated these are not difficult of interpretation. Soul means life; it also means a person or being. It was the life which God communicated to man with the breath; and it was the man that became a living soul on receiving it. The soul that departed from Rachel was not her person, but her life; for the record says, “She died.” It was the life that left the child, and which Elijah prayed might come into him again; for the child was there upon Elijah’s bed, and when his soul came unto him, “he revived.” Life came to Adam with his breath. And when the child’s “sickness was so sore that there was no breath in him,” life departed, he died. “The body without the spirit [breath] is dead,” whether it be man or beast; for “they all have one breath [roo-agh, spirit].”

Eld. W. says that Jacob buried Rachel’s body; but the Scripture says, “Rachel died and was buried.” The Scriptures always apply the nouns and pronouns representing persons to the body. They never speak of the body as the “mortal remains” of an absent person.

There is nothing difficult in Eccl. 12: 7. God by his almighty power communicated life to man in connection with what is called in Scripture “the breath of the spirit of life.” At death this spirit or life is taken back by Him who gave it, and the dust returns to the earth as it was. This is the unmaking of a man—the reverse of the process by which he was made a living soul. All is easy, if we will accept of it as it is. The term soul is not in this text. It is simply roo-agh, (breath of life,) and not ne-phesh (soul). And in chap. 3: 19, Solomon says of man and beast, “They have all one [roo-agh] breath.”

5. Eld. W. says, “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.” This we deny. We do not make this claim. He makes it for us. We are not so foolhardy, however, as to assert, in the face of science and experimental facts, that there is no connection between thought and brain, but that the mind is independent of the body, so that a pressure on the brain cannot interrupt the thoughts. “In death there is no remembrance,” says inspiration; and as far as experience and observation can go, they corroborate the declaration. But we do not believe that intelligence is a result of physical organization. Adam was perfectly organized before he was animated, and there he might

have remained as dead and thoughtless as a clod, had not God given him life and power of thought. Life, with all its manifestations, is a gift directly from God. No man knows the mystery of life—how thoughts are produced—though he may discover the telegraphic wires, the nerves, which serve as conductors; but every one that has any thoughts worth thinking, knows that they are not produced “just as leaves, blossoms, and fruit, are products of a tree or plant.” This would place man in the vegetable kingdom, and not the animal—make him a plant and not a man. But after manufacturing our premises for us, just to suit himself, he draws for us the very sage conclusion that “mind must be matter,” and all mental phenomena, “material substances, having shape, solidity, and all the other qualities of matter.” We deny the premises. He alone is responsible for this material nonsense.

6. But what changed the current of thought in Eld. Wardner’s hearers? I suppose the change was produced by certain undulations of the atmosphere set in motion by the vocal organs of the speaker which falling upon the tympanum, produced the sensation which we call articulate sounds, which are by common consent signs of ideas. This gave the hearer something to think of. To illustrate it: My cow or hens start off in a direction I do not wish them to go. I call them, and they turn about and come back. They were going out to gather food for themselves, but when they heard my voice, they preferred to turn back, and see what I had in my basket. Now this is just as mysterious as the latter. If it proves that his hearers had immaterial, immortal souls, it proves the same thing for the lower animals; and that which proves too much, proves nothing at all.

7. Volition and accountability. If man is a tree, doubtless sin grew upon his branches like fire-blight upon a plum tree, and he is not to blame for it. But 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. It is in fable only that trees elect a king. But if he is material, how can he be accountable for thoughts, desires and deeds? If Eld. W. will tell us just how an immaterial being—i. e., a being made of nothing and that is nothing after being made—can have the freedom of choice and be made accountable for his actions, I will engage to tell him how a being of flesh and blood, bones and brain, can exercise the same freedom of will and be justly accountable for his actions. I am willing to believe the word of God and my own consciousness upon the subject. And until he can give a reason why immaterial beings are accountable, he can give no reason why material are not. Let him impart the secret, and tell us the how and the why.

My friend seems to think it impossible for God to make a physical being whose organ of thought is a material brain, and yet make him accountable by giving him freedom of volition. For, he argues, his character is of necessity dependent upon his organization, and if he is wicked, it is the “result of the depravity of that organization,” and therefore the blame, if there is any, must attach to his Maker.

Did he ever think of applying this argument to men with immaterial brains? If there are such men, God has constituted them just such beings as they are; and, since revelation has not informed us on the point, by what means does he know that their thoughts, feelings and actions, are not necessitated by their individual organizations? He can give no reason why God cannot give the power and liberty of choice to creatures formed of dust, as well as to those formed of gas, ether, electricity, or—nothing, the thing that he abolished when he made the worlds, because he preferred to it a material creation. Even a horse can choose which road to take; and sometimes his choice strongly conflicts with that of his master. Our friend’s argument begs the whole question. Let him first prove the existence of immaterial men, and then give the proof, either from revelation or well-known facts, that such beings, and such only, can have and exercise freedom of will, and therefore be accountable for the course they pursue. If indeed his argument is founded in truth, an infidel fatalist can justly claim that no creature is accountable to the Creator.

This argument is air-built—it has no foundation on which to stand. On the one hand it has no Scripture declaration on which to rest, and on the other, it has no established fact to support it. To make my meaning clear, let me, by contrast, show how an argument should be founded. Thus: “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” “In death there is no remembrance” of God. This is one good solid pedestal on which a colossal argument might rest. Believers in the Scriptures cannot object to this foundation. But unbelievers may; therefore to meet their case, we will mention a well-established fact, proving that the brain is the organ of the mind. It is this: Press the skull upon the brain, or let it be extremely congested with inflammation, or fever, and the person is unconscious to all that passes till the obstructing cause is removed. While the brain is thus held from performing its function, your immaterial man, which is said to be independent of the body, does not know that he has any existence or ever had. This fact is attested by thousands; and forms another fact to our argument. Two facts are sufficient for an upright argument. It will stand. And it will be found that all “oppositions of science” brought to bear against it, are “falsely so called.”

Men, imagining themselves to be immaterial immortals, may affect to despise, and may traduce a material brain; but they would know less than they do, if they had none, despite their fancied immortality. The greatest wonder is that they cannot see that, for an argument to stand, it must have something to stand on; and that their theory of man is without foundation in natural science; and contradicted by the word of God.

8. One thing at a time. When we get the subject of human nature cleared up, it will be soon enough to inquire concerning the divine. Christ, as the seed of Abraham, was made like unto his brethren. He was made a little while lower than the angels for the express purpose of suffering death. But the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon the question under discussion, therefore it would be a digression to discuss it in this connection. R. F. COTTRELL.