Eld. Cottrell's Reply by R. F. Cottrell

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 10, 1864

Eld. Cottrell's Reply.

By R. F. Cottrell

ELD. N. V. HULL:

Dear Brother,—It is with no desire to strive for the mastery, that I enter with you upon the discussion of the important question of the nature and destiny of man, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures; but with a sincere desire and prayer to God, that truth may be crowned the victor, and that souls may be benefited as the result.

It was well, perhaps, for you, in your first article, to lay down your programme, and speak briefly to your several propositions. But as the question relates—1st. To man's nature; and, 2d. To his destiny—I propose that we attend to it in order, and settle the question respecting the nature of man first. Then we shall be prepared to understand those texts which speak of his destiny. When we shall have ascertained whether man is mortal or immortal in his nature, we shall be prepared to decide whether the everlasting punishment which is to be the portion of the wicked, will be everlasting misery in the presence of the Lord, or everlasting destruction from his presence; whether eternal damnation, or condemnation, is a condemnation to eternal torture, without a possibility of the death of the sinner, or a condemnation to eternal death, without the hope of a resurrection, and hence is properly contrasted with life, as you have shown it is in the Scriptures.

As you lead out in this discussion, I am regarded as in the negative; but I shall not, for this reason, feel bound to deny every thing which you assert. On the contrary, I shall esteem it a privilege to agree with you as far as I can. I freely admit, then, that the body is mortal, and that the bodies of the saints will become immortal at the resurrection of the just. And I shall not undertake to prove, that that which has no physical properties is capable of physical corruption. I also admit, that there will be degrees in future rewards and punishments, corresponding to the deeds done in the body. So we may dismiss three of your five propositions from the controversy, and thus narrow it down unless you mean something more by them than I have admitted. If you do, you will make it known. And if you will erase from your fourth proposition the word misery, and insert in its stead deprivation, which is another word denoting punishment, we will have no controversy respecting it.

Now as to your first proposition, "That man is composed of matter and spirit," the issue between us is not whether man has a spirit or not, but what the nature of his spirit is—whether it is capable of a separate conscious existence—and, if it is, whether it is immortal. It will not do for you to assume, without evidence, the very point to be proved. You must produce the Bible evidence of the nature of the spirit of man. I admit that man has a body, soul, and spirit. (1 Thess. v, 23.) Now the question is whether each of these is, of itself alone, a conscious being, so that one man is capable of being resolved into three men, or whether two of these parts are capable of such separate conscious existence, or only one. If only one is independent of the others in its conscious existence and immortality, tell us which it is, and we will mark the other two "mortal," and leave them out of this controversy. The body you have proved is mortal. Which is immortal, the soul or spirit?

We speak of the osseous, the muscular, the venous, and the nervous systems, as all belonging to man; but no one imagines that either of these systems, separated from the others, can perform its functions. All are unitedly required, and the principle of life besides, to constitute one living, active being.

As proof that man is composed of matter and spirit, you quote Matt. x, 28.—"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." This text does not mention the spirit of man; and other texts make as much distinction between the soul and spirit as this does between soul and body. (1 Thess. v, 23; Heb. iv, 12.) The last text referred to says, "Dividing asunder of soul and spirit." When this is done, according to your own theory, the soul is dead unless the soul too is spirit; and in that case there would be two living conscious spirits, or two men. This is what your argument for "duality" would lead to; but since it leads to such an absurdity, making man not only a double, but triple entity, it must be rejected as fallacious. I confess there is a plausibility in it, when considering this text (Matt. x, 28) alone; but if it proves that the soul can exist without the body, it also is proved that the soul is mortal. We are not to fear any one that cannot kill it; but we should certainly fear God; and here is the clearest intimation, not only that he is able, but that he will kill or utterly "destroy both soul and body in hell." If to "kill the body" is to be understood literally, then the killing of the soul, in the same sentence, is also to be understood literally. To say that God is able to kill the soul, but will not, is to say that our Saviour used a false motive to encourage his disciples, which is blasphemous. Which will you do, dear brother, give up the idea that this text proves the soul to be a living being separate from the body, or admit that God can and will kill and utterly destroy the souls of the wicked?

The word rendered "soul" in this text, is forty times rendered "life" in the New Testament. In verse 39 of the same chapter, and speaking of the same subject, namely, the giving up our lives for the truth, it is rendered life. "He that findeth his life (soul) shall lose it; and he that loseth his life (soul) for my sake shall find it." John xii, 25.—"He that hateth his life (soul) in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal." The idea, and the only rational one, that can be drawn from these texts, is this: Our being, our soul, our life, is in the hand of God; and though you kill the body, though they take our life "in this world," they cannot utterly destroy us, for God will give us life everlasting in the world to come. But if we compromise truth and duty to save our lives in this world, we shall lose our whole life and being in the world to come.

You cite 2 Cor. iv, 16. There is no proof that the "inward man" is the soul or spirit. It is figurative language, and doubtless refers to the new man that is put on at conversion—Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith—"the hope of glory." This does not wane, but is renewed day by day. See Col. iii, 9, 10; Eph. iv, 22-24; iii, 16, 17; Col. i, 27.

You quote John iii, 6, and say "That which is born of the spirit, in regeneration, is not flesh, but spirit." Does this prove that flesh only, and not flesh and spirit, is the "man that is born of woman?" and that he has no spirit till it is born at conversion? If so, it militates against your proposition, that man, by nature, is composed of matter and spirit. Moreover, if flesh only is born at one time, and spirit only at another, what is it that is born "again?" This text cannot help you prove that the man that must be born again is two men. I do not wish to lead off to any unnecessary issue respecting the second birth, but will suggest, for the benefit of the reader, that "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," or a "natural body;" but when the saints are born from the dead, being "quickened by the spirit," which dwells in them, and have "put on incorruption," (which must take place before they can "enter into the kingdom of God,") they will be "spirit," or a "spiritual body." See Rev. i, 5; Rom. viii, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 44-54. "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." But a spiritual body is not the absence of any body whatever.

You quote 1 Cor. ii, 11, to prove that intelligence is affirmed of the spirit of man. It speaks of "the spirit of man which is in him." It devolves upon you to prove that it is an intelligent being when it is out of him. You are aware that the term spirit is used in various ways, and is varied in sense. The Greek word pneuma

is rendered ghost, spirit, wind, life, and breath, in the New Testament; and in some instances it might properly be rendered mind, or the intellectual principle. It doubtless has this signification here; and also in 1 Thess. v, 23. Robinson so defines it, and under this definition quotes the latter passage, calling it "a periphrasis for the whole man." Paul prayed for his brethren, that their whole being, not only the body, but the life and mind—their vital and intellectual endowments—might be preserved blameless to the coming of the Lord.

In your next, it will be well to define the term spirit. Please tell what you mean, when you say that man is composed of matter and spirit; and then point out the terms in the Scriptures which correspond to your definition. If you think the texts you have quoted, prove that the spirit of man has a conscious existence after the body is dead, (which I utterly fail to see,) please quote the texts to show that they cannot cease to live. This is to be a Bible discussion. It will not do to assume the very points to be proved. It will not do to give to terms a meaning that is not sustained by Scripture. It will not do to say that soul or spirit means something distinct from our organized beings, of which we can take no cognizance by our senses, and our minds cannot grasp, and then assume that it is immortal, not because the Bible says so, but because it is out of the reach of our comprehension or conception. Please find the proof that man is composed of something that is not matter, and then prove by the Bible, that although that something has somehow come into existence, that it is impossible in any way for it to go out of existence. It is too much to assume that God has created something entirely distinct from the physical universe, and then assert that he cannot destroy it, not because he has said so, but because it is immaterial and cannot rot. He that put things in motion, whether things visible or invisible, can cause that motion to cease. I wait for proof. R. F. Cottrell.

(To be Continued.)