NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.
By R. F. Cottrell
DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST. (Continued from Review Vol. xxiv, No. 7) Elder Hull's Third Article.—Part I.
Dear Brother,—Your answer to my letter, published in the Recorder of June 9th, is before me, and the following is my reply. I. You now take exception to my first proposition, which was, that "man is composed of matter and spirit," upon the ground that it is "philosophical or metaphysical," rather than biblical, because the terms "matter" and "spirit" "are not found in the Bible," in the sense in which I use them. "Matter," you say, "is never contrasted with spirit, nor spirit with matter, in the Bible." I certainly sought no advantage by this form of speech, only designing by it to express what Jesus did when he contrasted body and spirit, in Matt. x, 28. I used the term matter to describe a substance or thing, the objective properties of which may be discovered, and more or less accurately described, by the use of one of more of the five senses. I used the term spirit to describe that principle or power in man, which is the seat of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection. With these definitions of the terms matter and spirit, can any one say that they are not contrasted in the Bible? Let us see. Matt. x, 28—"And fear not those who will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." Is there no contrast here? Pray what but contrast is there in these words of Jesus? Men will kill the body, but cannot kill the soul or spirit. If this is not contrast, will you please tell what is? I do not fail to quote other passages because they are not at hand, but because this is sufficient. These are the words of Jesus, and contain a formal statement covering the ground of the question in debate. They are unequivocal and exact, and should end this controversy. II. I do not see what you gain by my statement, that the terms mortal or immortal are not applied in the Scriptures to the spirit of man. Do I by this yield anything as to the capability of the spirit to exist after the death of the body? Surely not. If proving that the spirit does not necessarily cease to exist when the body dies, proves its immortality as a fact, then it certainly is proved by Matt. x, 28, etc. In this connection you say, "And it is not only remarkable, but truly astonishing, that while the terms soul and spirit are found many hundred times in the Bible, the terms immortal, never-dying, deathless, or anything of the kind, are never applied to either of them, if indeed either is immortal." There may be something in all this "remarkable," but I fail to see it; for, whether this or that word or phrase is used, seems of little account, the real question being, what is the sentiment taught? While I rigidly hold to the necessity of "soundness of speech," I would avoid all "strife about words to no profit." See 2 Tim. ii, 14. To the unlearned, there is a seeming wisdom and superior reverence for God in this sort of criticism upon words, and they are often captivated by it, and so become zealous partisans of the words, rather than enlightened disciples of the ideas of God. But the necessity of attending to ideas, rather than words, will, I think, be most clearly seen, when I come to notice what you say under your next head, where you proceed to say, "But let us consider your second proposition, 'that the body is mortal,' but—what? what is the opposite of mortal but immortal?—'the spirit is incapable of physical corruption.' You seem to be aware that respecting the terms immortal and immortality in the Scriptures, we have the advantage, and so you put in 'incapable of physical corruption,' over against mortal; this is ingenious, but what will it avail? What text in the Bible speaks of physical corruption? And if the Bible says nothing about it, how can you prove this proposition by the Scriptures? This, like your terms matter and spirit, is a philosophic term, and like them utterly unknown in the Bible.' This is sufficient to show the drift of your argument; and why certain terms are objected to, is because they are philosophic, and because they are not found in the Scriptures. But is there not a philosophy underlying every truth in the universe, whether revealed in the Bible or taught in nature? And is not God the author and revealer of philosophy? Is not this, then, rather the question, whether our philosophy be sound, or whether it is 'philosophy falsely so called?' Indeed, did not Jesus illustrate the resurrection of the dead from a philosophic standpoint? John xii, 24. Again, your objection to the use of certain terms, because they are not in the Bible, seems to me utterly unsound, unless grounded upon the fact that the ideas expressed by said terms are not taught or recognized there. For instance, how often did Jesus and his apostles, in referring to what was taught in the ancient oracles, only quote the sentiment, and not the exact words. But the unsoundness of your position will, I think, appear even more manifest, when I come to examine your arguments in the light of your seemingly triumphant question, 'What text in the Bible speaks of physical corruption?' I answer, Acts ii, 31—'He, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not left in the grave, nor did his flesh see corruption.' 1 Cor. xv, 42—'So also is the resurrection of the dead; it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.' Verse 50—'Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.' What is this, in point of fact, but physical corruption? Is not the visible substance of the body a physical substance? Webster says, under the word physical, 'A physical body or substance is a material body or substance, in distinction from spirit or metaphysical substance.' His third definition is, "External, perceptible to the senses, as the physical character of a mineral opposed to chemical." Worcester says, in his definition of the word physical, "1 Pertaining to physics, to nature, to natural productions, or to natural philosophy; natural, bodily, corporeal; opposed to moral." If these definitions are true, then when the body dies and decomposes, have you not an instance of physical corruption? If, then, the idea of physical corruption is in the Bible, why object to the term, because it also is not there? I trust this answer will be satisfactory, because it is to the point, and fully justifies me in the distinction I have made between the physical and the spiritual in man, when I said the "spirit is incapable of physical corruption." III. On the meaning of the terms soul and spirit, you say, "I admit with you, that the terms soul and spirit are sometimes used in the same sense; but I know nothing of either of them being used to denote 'man's higher or spirit nature.'" You then proceed further to quote me as follows: "I am also aware, that in many instances, the term soul, as it occurs in the received version, does not mean what it does in popular phrase, and further, that it is often a bad translation of the original Greek word;" upon which you say, "Of the corresponding Hebrew word, Parkhurst says, 'As a noun nephesh hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess, that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning.'" This quotation from Parkhurst you follow by saying, "And I am fully persuaded that neither nephesh nor psuche ever mean in the Scriptures what is called the soul or spirit in popular phrase." Had you consulted Gesenius, instead of Parkhurst, whose lexicon is too imperfect to rely upon, you would at least have been less confident in your assertion. Among the references of Gesenius, to show that nephesh (not nephesh) has the sense of soul in its popular acceptance, is Psa. lxxxvi, 4—"Rejoice the soul (nephesh) of thy servant, for to thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul" (nephesh). Psa. civ, 1—"Bless Jehovah, O my soul" (nephesh). Psa. cxliii, 8—"For I lift up my soul (nephesh) to thee." Psa. lvii, 1—"Be merciful to me, O God, be merciful to me; for my soul (nephesh) trusteth in thee." But to save time hereafter, perhaps it will be better, if possible, to settle this question at this point, by showing that the Hebrew word nephesh, and the Greek word psuche, do often mean what is commonly understood by the term soul, and are therefore the equivalents of spirit in English, or pneuma in Greek. I follow, in my references, Bush on the Soul, published in 1845. Section 5. Gen. xxiii, 8—"If it be your mind (with your mind or soul) that I should bury my dead." Here the reasoning faculty is referred to. Gen. xxxiv, 5—"His soul (nephesh) clave to Dinah." So also verse 8. Here the affections are referred to. Deut. iv, 28—"But if from thence thou shalt seek Jehovah thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart, and with all thy soul." Also, Deut. vi, 5—"And thou shalt love Jehovah thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." These passages are the same in Hebrew and Greek. See also 2 Sam. xvii, 8—"They are chafed in their minds." (Heb. bitter of soul.) Psa. xlii, 1—"So panteth my soul after thee." Also, see xlii, 6—"my soul is cast down." It would be tedious to refer to all the places where both the Hebrew and Greek words positively refer to the higher or religious element in man's nature.122But before I dismiss this subject, it will be proper for me to show, if I can, beyond dispute, that in certain instances the Greek word psuche (soul) does refer to the higher or spirit nature of man; and I will purposely leave out Matt. x, 28, because your reply to my argument on that text requires special notice. But before I proceed to quote any proof texts, I must speak upon a point of vital interest to this question, and that is to define a necessary rule of language for determining the meaning of words and phrases, and that is their dependence upon the connections in which they are used. To avoid the burden of multiplying words, we increase their power. In this way a single word will often have many definitions, and hence the necessity of the above rule. It is in this way that the Greek word psuche (soul) whatever may be its primary sense, is often the synonym of pneuma (spirit,) in its higher significations. Matt. xi, 29—"Ye shall find rest to your souls," (psuchais.) xxiii, 37—"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul (psuche,) and with all thy mind." So Luke x, 27 and xxvi, 38—"My soul (psuche) is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Heb. x, 39—"Of them that believe to the saving of the souls" (psuchas.) So also 1 Pet. i, 9. In the above texts, are not our ideas of the highest elements of human nature fully met? Hence, to deny that psuche is ever equivalent to pneuma—that is, that soul and spirit, in the highest signification of the latter word, are never equivalent—is certainly to commit a grave error. But, as I have promised, I will return to this in another place. But you proceed to ask me why, if I do not know the exact nature of the substance of human spirits, (or indeed of spirits of any class or grade,) I proceed to say it is not matter. Answer—I use the term matter here in its ordinary sense, as "that which makes itself known by means of the bodily senses." With this definition, can I not say that spirits are not matter, just as Jesus said they had not flesh and bones, and yet not contradict myself? I think so. But you proceed to say, "To my mind, as to some others, immateriality is but another name for nonentity. It is the negative of things and beings—of all existence. There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence," &c. Of course you now speak as a philosopher, and it will be in order for me to defend myself against your criticism. Fleming, in his "vocabulary of philosophy," a book written expressly to define philosophy, in terms, says, "immateriality is predicated of the mind, to denote that, as a substance, it is different from matter. Spirituality is the positive expression of the same idea. Simplicity is also used in the same sense. Matter is made up of parts, into which it can be resolved. Wind is simple, and has no parts, and so cannot be dissolved." But that you may test the truth of your position, suppose you settle the question whether light is a material substance. IV. You next proceed to say, that you do not know what substance spirits are composed of, but that they have faces, hands, feet, can talk, look, walk, lie down, rise up, hold a staff in their hand, &c., and even that they are angels or ministering spirits; but of disembodied human spirits, that are capable of making any manifestations, physical or mental, (so you don't refuse to use the word "physical,") you know nothing, "having never read of them in the word of God." That angels assume any form of manifestation that the circumstances of the case require, is plain, and to men in the flesh their appearances may be as above indicated; but do you suppose that in Heaven they walk, lie down, hold a staff in their hands, etc.? But what has this to do with our question? I have not said in what form the spirits of men manifest themselves to us in the flesh. Nor have I said that they manifest themselves to us at all while we are in the flesh. But that we are manifest to them, even while we are in the flesh, seems clear. Heb. xii, 22-24—"But ye are come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels; to the general assembly and church of the first-born, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect; and to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant; and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel." Can it be doubted, that the writer here meant to convey the idea that the above heavenly hosts take cognizance of the saints on earth, and are interested in their struggles for salvation? If so, then to the spirits of just men made perfect, as well as to Jesus the mediator, we are revealed, although neither he nor they may be manifested to us in the flesh.