Materialism by N. Wardner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 19, 1870

Materialism.

By N. Wardner

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ADVENT REVIEW—Dear Bro.: As I am on the defensive, in the discussion with Bro. Cottrell, the last reply belongs to me; and there are some statements, in his last, which call for comment, and some for correction.

He accuses me of saying in my discourse that Adventists teach that “the soul is nothing but the breath.” Does he yet need to be told that there is no such statement in my sermon, nor in any of my articles except as quoted from others?

My language was as follows: “But says one, this passage (text) 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.” Bro. C. in his extreme anxiety to make out that I have misrepresented Adventists, misrepresents me. And this is not the first time he has done it upon this very point.

He also brings a grave charge against me of misrepresenting Mr. Loughborough, and says, “Notwithstanding I corrected your error, you still come up with the same mongrel quotation, as much the language of Noah Webster as any one man, prefaced as follows; ‘In the standard publications of Adventists, I find such statements as the following:’” But he does not do me the justice to quote my reply to his so-called correction in the Recorder. Here it is: “Bro. C. insinuates that I misrepresented Mr. Loughborough, because I took the statements he quoted in proof of his position, to be a true expression of his own sentiment. Let all who have that work turn to page 49 and read the whole section and see if there is any chance to question that he quoted these authors because he thought their statements established his sentiments better than he could do it by his own statement alone. There is nothing to indicate the slightest discrepancy between their views and his upon the subject under consideration. And Bro. C. is not able to show any. On the next two pages Mr. L. gives an exposition of 1 Kings 17: 22, in perfect harmony with the statements of those authors as quoted. He says, ‘The soul spoken of is the breath of life.’ On page 63, he says, ‘We have found no record that God gave any spirit to man, except the breath of life.’ ‘The same original term that is rendered spirit, Ecc. 12: 7, (ruah, breath, spirit, &c.) is used in Gen. 2: 7.’ This is all his own language, and much more that I might quote of similar import. Yet Bro. C. without attempting to show that I was, in any sense mistaken, insinuates again that I misrepresented by saying that I found such statements in the standard publications of Adventists. Let him show, if he can, that there is any discrepancy of sentiment between the teachings of Mr. L. and those quotations.

Again says Bro. C., “Dust has not the power of thought, and when it is perfectly organized into the shape of a man, it is no better in this respect. But God gives to organized dust, life and power of thought.” Does he mean by this that the power of thought is something communicated by Jehovah and is not the result of living organized dust? If so, it is all the concession I ask of him on that point, at present. If this is not what he means, then I did not misrepresent him as holding that thought is the product of matter. Thought is either the product of matter, or it is not. If it is, then it must be matter, and subject to the laws of matter. If not subject to the laws of matter, then it is above matter, and hence not dependent upon it for existence. But if it is the product of animate matter, then let him explain how it, the effect, can change or be changed to the greatest extremes in opposites, and that in the twinkling of an eye, without being preceded by any corresponding change in the body; contrary to all known laws of matter.

Again, how does he reconcile his statement with his teaching in regard to the divinity of Christ, that it became simply, “flesh.” If all the divinity he had, was merely his flesh, and that flesh had no power of thought or life, then here was a divinity without divine intelligence, a helpless clod of flesh! But if “God gives to organized dust, life and power of thought,” then the “life and power of thought” was given to Christ from a source outside of and above his divinity, ('flesh') and hence not dependent upon it. Then how could he be God, the self-existent one, “who only hath immortality?”

An attempt to explain such difficulties and contradictions, in a religious creed, gravely pressed upon the public, as the only sense of scripture, by effort at witty sarcasms, is not calculated to produce conviction of its truth in the minds of thinking men, or of the candor of its defender.

Again Bro. C. claims that I am warring with the Bible because I do not accept his theory that the eternal God who only hath immortality was transmuted into a clod of mortality; since John says “The Word was made flesh.” Will he stand by his own test. Let us see. Here comes a Roman Catholic and says, “The bread and wine in the sacrament is the veritable flesh and blood of Christ.” No, no, says Bro. C. that is absurd. Then says the Catholic, your controversy is with Christ and not with me; for he says positively, of the bread and wine, “This is my body,” “This is my blood.” “This is plain language and no fable!” Joseph, interpreting Pharaoh's dream, said, “The seven fat kine are seven years.” Therefore a cow is a year and a year is a cow, according to Bro. C.'s rule of interpretation. If he attempts to explain it otherwise he wars with a plain positive statement of scripture. Again the scriptures say, “The horn of the Lord shall be exalted.” “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust.” Does Bro. C. claim that the Lord has literal horns, feathers, and wings? If not, then he contradicts the Bible; for that says so. Now, I doubt not Bro. C. would object to interpreting these passages literally, as strongly as I would, and would complain that I “grossly misrepresented and caricatured his sentiments” were I to represent him as holding such notions. Yet, the Bible declares these things as positively as it does that God “was made flesh.”

Bro. C. winds up by exhorting me to believe, by which I infer that he wishes me to believe as he does. I am anxious to believe whatever is true; but believe that truth is never absurd, nor does it ever contradict any other truth, or sound reason. I have pressed these fundamental points of difference with a desire that we might come nearer to a common understanding. And he has been constantly evading and trying to turn attention away from them. I was truly in hopes, at the beginning, that he would be able to show that I had misrepresented the views of Adventists. It would have given me pleasure to be able to acknowledge that I had been mistaken; but I regret instead of being able to see it so, my worst impressions have been confirmed. Yet I am not without some hope that a free and friendly interchange of views and criticisms upon points of difference, may have the effect to bring us nearer to a common faith.

If I have used language in this discussion that seemed severe or unkind, I hope it will be overlooked; and I wish to assure Bro. C. that I entertain no other than the kindest feelings toward him; and will now in turn, bid him adieu, unless he has more to say upon these points.

Yours for truth. N. WARDNER.