Eld. Cottrell's Third Reply—Part II.
By R. F. Cottrell
I come now to the fifth division of your article, and find you again in your strongest fort—your exposition of Matt. x, 28—and strongly entrenched with human opinions. I was aware that Dr. Clarke, Mr. Barnes, and a host of others holding your theory, would give a similar exposition of this text. Concerning the testimony of Dr. Clarke, you ask me, if it is "good in one instance, why not in the other;" and you draw this conclusion: "If he is right in the first case, he is also in the latter." This will not hold. I believe he was right in some of his opinions. Am I therefore bound to receive them all? If so, I might consider his commentaries infallible, and of equal authority with the sacred text itself. I do not rely on his testimony. But my quotation from him is entitled to more weight in this discussion than that which you quote; because the former does not favor his cherished theory, the latter does. I have no objection to the long list of Scripture quotations you have given, showing the manner in which the terms soul and spirit are used in the Bible. I do not know but that they are all correctly quoted. But they do not touch the question at issue. I do not dispute that the Greek and Hebrew terms rendered soul and spirit are sometimes used to signify the mind and affections. But the question is, Is there a man within a man that does all the thinking, or does he do it himself? The various ways in which soul and spirit are used, do not touch this question. You speak of the "highest signification" of spirit. Does this mean the farthest removed from anything revealed in the Scriptures? You refer to an "unguarded expression" of yours in which you used the words destroy and kill in the same sense. In our unguarded moments when we are forgetful of our theories, we are apt to use words in their common acceptation and true sense. Destroy is defined by Webster, "to kill; to slay; to extirpate; applied to men and other animals." And he illustrates this definition by the following: "Ye shall destroy all this people." Num. xxxii. "All the wicked will he destroy." Ps. cxiv. In speaking of the outward and inward man, Paul's language is either literal or figurative. If literal, there are two literal men in one man, each of which, according to your proposition, is composed of matter and spirit. But you will not have this view. The only alternative is to agree with me, that it is figurative. I referred you to a number of passages, not because they all meant the same thing, but to illustrate Paul's manner of using figures—that when he says, old man, new man, outward man, inward man, he does not mean literally a man. When he says, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man," I understand him, that his best judgment and affections approve of and love that law. No necessity of resolving Paul into two men. "The inward man is renewed day by day." Does an immortal soul, incapable of physical corruption, need literally renewing every day? Oh, no; it is the affections of the soul, the faith, the hope, the love, that are re-animated daily, and not the essence of the soul itself. Very well. My view of man permits him to have affections, and unless you can prove that in order to have these, he must have such a soul as you contend for, the text proves nothing for you; and when you prove that, you will prove that brutes have immortal souls, for they have affections. If you admit that the affections of the man are the "inward man," we are agreed. If not, your man that is incapable of physical corruption needs literally renewing day by day, while the physical man, it is said, is only renewed once in seven years. The context proves my position to be correct. Paul was looking, by faith and hope, away from the present affliction, by which he was liable to perish, to that eternal weight of glory which was in the unseen future. "For," says he, (we have an immortal soul? No; but) "our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen." I shall not leave the question before us, to discuss that of the second birth. If you carefully reflect upon the hints I have given, you may be benefited, though you are "a teacher in Israel." But if you cannot regard them with sobriety, I cannot help it. It was sufficient for me to show that the text did not support your theory. This I think I did in my first reply. If you are not satisfied with it, I will try to sift it a little closer hereafter. I have put forth three propositions, which, if sustained, are perfectly destructive of your theory of man's nature. I have sustained them, not by allusions from which we might infer the doctrine, but by positive declarations of Scripture, as clear and explicit as the propositions themselves. They are affirmed in the Scriptures as fully as I can affirm them. You try to evade the force of these testimonies by saying they refer to the body—the body was formed of dust, the body is mortal. But the testimonies say, that man was formed of dust, and "man will return again to dust." No part of man is excepted. Your argument, reduced to a syllogism stands thus: 1. Man is mortal. 2. The body is mortal. 3. Therefore some part of man is immortal. Your conclusion is not in the premises; and, very unfortunately for your theory, it is nowhere revealed in the Scriptures. Your effort reminds me of those who would make the Sabbath a Jewish institution. The argument stands thus: 1. "The Sabbath was made for man." 2. But God said to Israel, "The Lord hath given you the Sabbath." 3. Therefore the Sabbath was instituted exclusively for the Jews. If one of these arguments is sound, doubtless both are. You give the right exposition of Eccl. xii, 7—that the spirit that returns to God who gave it, is "that which God breathed into man, when he became a living soul." I will sustain it by some scriptures. Job xxvii, 3—"All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." Margin, "That is, the breath which God gave him." Gen. ii, 7. Job xxiv, 14, 15—"If he 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." Ps. civ, 29—"Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust." James ii, 26—"The body without the spirit [margin, breath] is dead." You say, "But that which God breathed into man, when he became a living soul, was not 'dust,' and therefore cannot return to dust, but on the death of the body, returns to God." I reply, That which God breathed into man was not man, but simply the breath of life; and this is common to man and beast. See Gen. vii, 21, 22. "As the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, [spirit;] so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, [in death;] for all is vanity. All go unto one place, [when they die;] all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Eccl. iii, 19, 20. Man was made of dust, and man returns to dust. Do you believe it? When Jesus died, he committed his life to God, and it was restored the third day—"God raised him from the dead." When Stephen died, he committed his life to Him who will restore it at his coming. I have quoted no text to "disprove the words of Jesus" in Matt. x, 28. And I deny that this text contains an "exact and formal statement, as to the nature of man." It was not given to teach the nature of man; but to encourage Christians to part with their present life, if need be, by the hope of a life "in the world to come." I have not arrayed "Job against Jesus," but, like a consistent believer, have labored to show the harmony of the whole Bible. When I recommended a thorough and impartial investigation of the whole tenor of Bible teaching, you exclaimed, "How like the talk of the Spiritualist!" My brother, do Spiritualists contend for the whole Bible? Had I been urging my exposition of a single text, which was not given to teach man's nature, but by way of exhortation, against the great number which speak to the point and expressly declare the contrary, I should not have wondered at your exclamation. I shall not fall back upon the ancient heathen for "consistent views of the nature of man." If Job was stupid, so am I; for I believe his testimony. To offset against the testimony, "The dead know not anything," you quote, "We are but of yesterday, and know nothing." This you claim is "as pertinent to the subject" as that. Think a little. When a living man is told that he has lived but a little while, and knows nothing, all understand, it is comparatively nothing; all that it teaches of human nature is, "Live and learn." But when we are told that "the living know" one thing, "but" that "the dead know not anything," it is a positive declaration of man's nature—of his state in death. Are you willing to admit that the dead know comparatively nothing—that they know less than the living? Not at all. Nothing is left, then, but a positive denial of the text. If your interpretation of Matt. x, 28, is sustained, this text, and Ps. vi, 5—"In death there is no remembrance of thee"—and other texts, fall. But let soul, in Matt. x, 28, mean life; as it certainly does in other passages I have quoted, which speak of the very same subject; and understand it in an accommodated sense agreeing with these passages; and all is harmony. "He that loveth his soul for my sake shall find it."—Verse 39. "He that loveth his soul shall lose it; and he that hateth his soul in this world, shall keep it unto life [zoe] eternal."—John xii, 25. This course violates no text, nor any principle of interpretation, and leads to the inevitable conclusion, that the immaterial, immortal soul of popular theology, is merely a creature of the imagination—a thing not revealed in the word of God. With best wishes and the kindest feelings, I am, as ever, yours,
R. F. COTTRELL.