Eld. Cottrell's Third Reply.—Part I.
Dear Brother,—In your third article, which is on my table, you have defined the term spirit, as used in your first proposition. This is what I before desired you to do. You say, "I used the term spirit to describe that principle or power in man which is the seat of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection." I shall not dispute that man is capable of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection; neither shall I claim that these are material objects, discernible by the five senses. There is no dispute here; the thoughts and passions of man, or those of the inferior animals, cannot be weighed upon the merchant's scale, or be measured by the yard-stick, or in the gallon measure, or bushel. They are manifested by action, both by man and beast; and I do not know that they are capable of physical corruption. I think they are not. This does not prove either man or beast to be immortal. But it is the seat of thoughts and passions concerning which we inquire. I think they have their seat in a living being, and that a dead being is destitute of them. You speak of a "principle or power in man" as the "seat of thought, emotion," &c. Is a principle or power a living being? Is there a living man in man? What do you think of the principle or power in beasts which is the seat of their thoughts and affections? The question is, Has God revealed in his word that the principle or power of thought in man is a living being in him, or somewhere about him, that can live just as well where he is not as where he is? Your main proof is, Matt. x, 28—"Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul." I have claimed that this language is not strictly literal. You admit as much. Speaking of 1 Thess. v, 23, you say, "Paul in this case is using exact language, and therefore employs the term soul to distinguish the mere animal life of man." If the Saviour uses it in some other way, he does not use exact language; yet you now say of these words of Jesus, "They are unequivocal and exact, and should end this controversy." And you also claim, that they "contain a formal statement covering the ground of the question in debate." Not so. There is no formal statement here, that the soul lives while the body is dead. This would be a fair inference, however, if this was all the teaching we had on the subject. But were it proved that the soul did not die with the body, it would remain to be proved that it would continue to live to eternity, and thus vastly the greater part of the ground in debate would remain to be covered. To account for the silence of the Bible concerning the immortality of the soul, you say, "Whether this or that word or phrase is used, seems of little account, the real question being, What is the sentiment taught?" You speak also of the "necessity of attending to ideas, rather than words." Now how will you discover the ideas taught in the Scriptures, but by the words that are used? Should a man make such answer to your demand for the proof of the change of the Sabbath, you would probably ask him to show you the words which convey the ideas. Show me your ideas without your words, and I will show you my ideas by my words. If you can do so, the moderators in this debate, the editors, will doubtless be thankful for fewer words and more ideas. I do not claim that any particular term, as immortal, deathless, or never-dying, should be applied to qualify soul or spirit, in order to prove its immortality; but I said, 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. In reply to this, instead of giving me a long lecture about words and ideas and rules of language, you should have been giving the language of Scripture that conveys the idea, if any such language can be found. But if, as I said, not anything of the kind is there to be found, I shall still think it remarkable, upon your hypothesis, though you "fail to see it." A change of the Sabbath cannot be proved by the Bible, for the simple reason that the Bible says nothing about it; so it is with the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul; the Bible says nothing about it, but promises a future immortality to the righteous, to be put on at the resurrection, and threatens a second death to the wicked. I do not deny that the body is corruptible. I have proved that man the entire being, is corruptible. Rom. i, 23. You may call it physical corruption, if you like; in philosophical language, I admit it. But how will you prove from the Bible that a part of man is "incapable of physical corruption," while the Bible says nothing about it? A doctrine that cannot be expressed in Bible language, is not a Bible doctrine. Express it then in Bible language, and I will believe it. But you cannot do this; so you frame a proposition that you think will appear self-evident, and need no proof. I have admitted that the terms soul and spirit sometimes are used to mean the same thing. They sometimes signify the animal life—the primary meaning of soul—and sometimes they are used to signify the mind, the thoughts, and the affections. I did not need a whole column in the Recorder to convince me of that, after I had admitted it. And now I will make further admissions; for I wish to take no advantage more than the truth gives me, but desire the reader to understand me, and be benefited. I admit, then, that thoughts and affections are not matter, and are not subject to physical corruption. I have never witnessed them in a state of putrefaction in a physical sense, though there can be no doubt that many of them are corrupt in a moral sense. So you see I have admitted your second proposition. The thoughts and affections of even a beast are not matter, and therefore are "incapable of physical corruption." But with this version of your second proposition, your first will not agree without remodeling. It is not good sense to say that man is composed of matter, and thoughts, and affections. A strange composition that, and "badly mixed." We will straighten it. Man was formed of the dust of the ground; and, being made alive by the power of God he has thoughts and affections. But man is mortal; he dieth. "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."—Ps. cxlvi, 4. When the man, the seat of thoughts and affections, dies, all these thoughts, affections, and emotions, perish, though "incapable of physical corruption." "Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished." Eccl. ix, 6. I leave this for the present, by saying, that though I have admitted that thoughts and affections are incapable of physical corruption, yet it cannot be proved by the Bible, for the simple reason, that it affirms nothing concerning it. It is a judgment made from our own observation—it is our own philosophy or wisdom—revelation has said nothing about it. And now if you can prove from the Scriptures that, besides the man—the material organization—and besides the thoughts which are not material things, there is an immaterial man in man, that does all the thinking, you are requested to do so. It must be something more than a "principal or power in man," it must be a living being besides the man. I quoted Parkhurst to show that one Hebrew scholar, at least, could find no instance where nephesh certainly meant what is popularly called the soul. Gesenius and others may think otherwise; but the primary uses of the term, as found in Gen. i, and ii, are not referred to as instances. There it only means animal life and living being or creature, whether man or beast; and the wonder still remains, that, in the account of the creation of man, nothing is said of the popular soul, or immaterial man, while all that is said, relates to the man that was formed of the dust of the ground. Gen. i, 20, 24, 30; ii, 7. You labor to show that the Greek word psuche (soul), does, in some instances, refer to "the higher or spirit nature of man." This is simply assuming or taking for granted the very thing to be proved. When you will prove from the Scriptures that man has two natures, and that one of them is higher than the other, I will admit that some terms in the Scriptures refer to his higher nature. Will you present the proof? I remarked, that I had never read of disembodied human spirits in the Bible, to which you reply: "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." You then quote Heb. xii, 22-24, the text which speaks of the spirits of just men made perfect without bodies. But stop! it does not read so; it says nothing about spirits of men without bodies. Oh, certainly! It lacks the very thing, my brother, without which it cannot help your cause in the least. If you say those spirits of men are now in Heaven, I reply their bodies are there also. Enoch and Elijah were translated—taken to Heaven without death; and when our risen Saviour ascended up on high, he led a multitude of captives. Eph. iv, 8, margin. These released captives were doubtless those saints which came out of their graves after Christ's resurrection. Matt. xxvii, 50-53. They were not disembodied spirits; the bodies, we are expressly told, came out of their graves, and were seen123of many. So those spirits that are made perfect and immortal have bodies. But if you say, that they are men on earth made perfect in holiness, and only written or enrolled in Heaven, I shall have no difficulty in convincing you, that they have bodies as well as spirits. Or, if you choose the position that this text speaks prospectively—that it is in prospect and by faith that we "are come" to these things—that Whiting did not miss the sense in translating it, "You are coming to mount Zion," &c.—that that state of perfection of the spirits of just men is to be when the "general assembly" shall have been gathered together from the four winds, at the coming of Christ and the resurrection, and made immortal—I will not object, but will aid you by referring to what Paul says of the ancients, who had "died in faith" and "received not the [fulfillment of the] promise; God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Heb. xi, 13, 39, 40. Apply the text where you choose, there are no disembodied spirits revealed in it, nor in any other text in the whole Bible. You quoted it to prove that we are manifest to the spirits of the dead, "even while we are in the flesh." I will refer you to a text which states the reason of my dissent. Speaking of the dead man, Job says, "His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them."—Job xiv, 21.