p. 242 | LIFE: WHAT IS IT? by John Harvey Kellogg

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, April 15, 1880

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 16

LIFE: WHAT IS IT?

By John Harvey Kellogg

[The following article has been sent to the Sabbath Recorder.]

A REPLY.

EDITOR SABBATH RECORDER, Dear Brother: My attention has been called to the first of a series of critical articles from the pen of Eld. N. Wardner, which appears in your issue of April 8. As a little work of mine seems to be the chief object of criticism, and as both yourself and Eld. Wardner in referring to the matter seem to invite a friendly discussion of the points in question, I take the liberty to offer a few words in reply. In replying to Eld. Wardner’s criticisms I have two objects in view: 1. To explain a little more clearly some points which he seems to have misunderstood, and, 2. To attempt to show that a rational and logical solution can be found for the logical and Scriptural difficulties which he seems to discover in the views in question. At the outset I wish to say that I make no pretensions to profound learning in either theology or science, and as my profession has engrossed my attention in another direction, I have had no experience in theological controversy; hence I cannot but feel some embarrassment in placing myself in a position in which it may be necessary for me to call in question the conclusions of one so eminent and learned as is the author of the articles which I propose to notice in reply. Eld. Wardner says, “Come, let us reason together, and see if our differences cannot be overcome.” An earnest wish that the result desired by Eld. W. may be secured prompts me to accept his invitation. And I trust that whatever is said on this subject may be less of the nature of a controversy than of a friendly reasoning together in search of truth.

I trust I am prepared to be influenced by evidence on all points of belief, and hope the readers of the Sabbath Recorder are willing to place themselves in the same unprejudiced attitude.

I wish it to be understood at the outset that I shall not feel myself bound to defend positions for which others than myself are personally responsible; and would add that I am alone responsible for the views expressed in my work on the “Soul and the Resurrection.” I am not aware that the work has been indorsed by our General Conference, or by any other body. I would also mention that both series of articles, Eld. Wardner’s and my own, will appear in the REVIEW AND HERALD.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:7.

“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Gen. 3:19.

The above texts, more explicitly than any others in the Bible, describe the nature of man. The language employed is clear and unequivocal, and upon it we base our belief regarding man’s nature. The criticisms offered by Eld. Wardner, as we understand them, are as follows:—

1. That in claiming that matter is the basis of all existence, we have claimed too much, since, as he thinks, this would involve the conclusion that God is a material being, and must have been produced by matter instead of being himself the Creator of matter; and that we have been guilty of inconsistency in claiming that matter is the basis of existence, and life the result of organization, and at the same time admitting that life was originated by the Creator.

2. That in considering mind as the function of the brain, we are involved in difficulty, since we “cannot conceive that there was ever a divine thought until after matter existed and formed itself into a brain.”

3. That according to our theory “all moral character is the product of matter, which makes matter the only responsible part of man.”

These several points we will notice in their order, asking the reader to give the matter close attention so as to discover the real points at issue.

1. We have never claimed that anything was ever “produced by matter;” much less that God himself was an emanation from matter. We have taken particular pains to enunciate our views respecting the “potency of matter” in the work in question. The difficulty which Eld. Wardner seems to find with our view on this point is due to his applying to it, as a test, an attempt to make it account for the origin of God. Now we would humbly submit that this is too much to expect of any human philosophy. The origin of God is a mystery that is equally inscrutable from all standpoints of observation, and inexplicable by all human theories. If those who object to our view do not accept this, let them attempt to account for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient Great First Cause, by their own theory. For instance, let us see how the theory advanced by Eld. Wardner will work as a solution to this “mystery of the ages.” He says, “If life cannot exist without organization, then God could not; and hence did not exist till he had a material organization, nor did any force exist to produce such an organization. Then how came he to exist?” We confess we cannot explain how God came to exist. It is beyond our comprehension. Eld. W. clearly seems to hold that without force God could not exist, and immediately proceeds as follows: “But if, on the contrary, life and force existed before matter, as it [they] must if God created all things, then they existed by law, independent of matter, and as eternal and perpetual as he is.” In the last statement it is very clearly declared that force is as eternal as God. It is evident, then, that the same objection urged, by inference, against our view, is valid against this, since if this theory be true, God is not the Creator of all things, force being as eternal as he himself.

If then Eld. Wardner’s theory accounts for the origin of God at all, it is by supposing that force is the basis of his existence. In either case, he is upon a horn of the same dilemma in which he has seemingly involved us; since his view is either impotent to explain the origin of God, or must explain it by the supposition of the existence of something prior to his own existence, which is inconsistent with the idea that God is the First Cause, the Creator of all things.

Again, no attempt is made to show the incorrectness of the statement that force and matter are inseparable, one of the recognized truths of science, a truth which lies at the very foundation of all the physical sciences, and which is sustained by evidence which cannot be rejected without rejecting all that is recognized as science in chemistry and physics. Indeed, not only is there no evidence that force and matter are separable, but such a separation is as absolutely inconceivable as would be the separation of roundness from a round object, or sweetness from sugar, or properties of any sort from objects possessing those properties. If this be true, then, and we have yet to look for evidence to the contrary, and if, as Eld. W. states, force is as eternal as God, being essential to his existence, where can there be found any way of escape from the conclusion that matter is equally remote in its origin, and equally important as an element of existence? We fail to see any greater inconsistency in one view than the other; both involve the same difficulty, which, as before intimated, arises not from defects in either theory, but from the utter futility of all human attempts to explain a mystery which is beyond the power of man to fathom. We are willing to leave the question of the origin of God where inspiration leaves it. As to the origin of matter, the Bible leaves us equally in the dark. Nowhere in the Scriptures is it asserted that matter was created. The record of creation informs us that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” It does not, however, state that matter was at the same time created, or, in other words, that the heaven and the earth were created out of nothing. We are aware that commentators and others give this interpretation to the text, but that it is not a necessary interpretation is very evident from the fact that the very same Hebrew word here rendered create is employed in other texts in a manner which shows that this is not its necessary significance. For example, in Gen. 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image.” The same act is thus described in Gen. 2:7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” In Isa. 65:17, we read, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth.” In all of these instances the material employed in the creation existed before the thing which was formed or created; and we are at liberty to believe that the same was also true of the creation of the world. Creation does not necessarily mean to form from nothing; it means simply to bring into existence what did not exist previously. For example, an artist may be the creator of a picture, although the paint, canvas, and all the materials used in the production of the picture, may have existed in some form for ages. We can only say about the origin of matter as about the origin of God, We know nothing about it. It is a mystery inscrutable, which the Almighty has not seen fit to reveal to us.

2. In making his second criticism, Eld. W. quotes us as saying on pages 51 and 52 of the book which he is reviewing, as follows: “We must consider the mind, then, as the function of the brain, the result of its action, and so independent of matter. Thought is cell action.” Thinking it impossible that we could have made such a statement, even by a slip of the pen, we turned to the pages referred to, and found that what we did say is the following: “We must consider the mind, then, as the function of the brain, the result of its action, and so inseparably connected with matter.” p. 50. “Thought is simply cell action.” p. 52. No doubt the error in quotation was unintentional; but we wish to call attention to it so that we may not be held responsible for the inconsistency involved in the passage as quoted by Eld. W. The only objection offered to our view respecting the nature of mind is that, according to Eld. W., we “cannot conceive that there was ever a divine thought till after matter existed and formed itself into brain cells.” As before remarked, we have taken particular pains to declare our disbelief of the power of matter to produce anything, at least to organize itself. This objection, like the preceding, is of no force except as a means of showing our inability to fathom the mystery of the origin of God and matter.

We might object with equal force to Eld. Wardner’s view that, according to it, there never was a divine thought till after force existed. And until it has been shown that matter and force are two distinct and separable entities, his theory, as much as ours, makes matter co-existent with God. We cannot see that anything can be gained for either side by arguments of this sort, since they involve questions of which we cannot even speculate, and which from their infinite and occult nature must ever remain inscrutable mysteries.

The quotation from Dr. Allman contains nothing but an assertion of the private opinions of that gentleman on the subject of the nature of the mind. He seems to admit, however, that the view which he himself holds involves belief in the existence of something which “the mind is incapable of conceiving.” This something, he intimates, is “a substance different from matter.” This is certainly a very poor subterfuge. A theory which is obliged to hide behind an “inconceivable” cannot be very well fortified with reasonable evidence. But should we grant him his inconceivable “substance different from matter”—in the forms in which we usually meet it,—our position still remains untouched, since even an inconceivable substance, if really substance, must still be matter. We care not how sublimated, attenuated, or infinitely etherialized it may be, or how different from the ordinary forms of matter, if it is only substance, it is matter, and our reasoning holds good. We might occupy almost any amount of space with quotations to support the theory of mind which we hold, which is in no particular peculiar to us, but as no arguments have been adduced to invalidate the evidence upon which the theory is based, we leave this question for the present.

3. Eld. Wardner says that according to our theory “all moral character is the product of matter, which makes matter the only responsible part of man.” From which he draws the conclusion that a man’s character can never change until his brain changes, so as to produce different thoughts, etc. He then proceeds to involve us in a seeming difficulty by showing that as the matter of the body is constantly changing, new matter taking the place of the old, it will be impossible to secure justice in the Judgment, since the matter which sinned may not receive punishment, and other matter may be punished for sins which it did not commit. As we are unwilling to believe our reviewer would willingly pervert our meaning or represent us as holding a theory quite foreign to our real views, we are compelled to believe that he has failed to read the book which he is reviewing with sufficient care to discover our position. Or, it may be that we have not written with sufficient clearness to be well understood. However this may be, we must utterly disavow ever advocating any theory according to which “all moral character is the product of matter.” We do not believe anything of the sort. As remarked before, matter does not produce anything. We believe human life and thought, in all their phases and with all their modifications, to be the result of organization, which is the product, not of matter, but of Almighty power. The doctrine of spontaneous generation does not rest upon a scientific basis, and is in direct opposition to the Scriptures. We have never either believed or advocated it.

Matter and organization are as essentially different as are a house and the material out of which it is built, or a tree and the clay out of which it grows. The properties of organization do not belong to matter, any more than the grace and beauty of a statue belong to the rough block of marble in the quarry. Notwithstanding his intimation to the contrary, we feel sure that Eld. Wardner would agree with us that it would be impossible to convert an uncouth Hottentot, or a rude Chinaman into a refined, cultivated Christian, capable of manifesting all the graces of holiness and the fruits of the Spirit, in a few minutes or a few days. There must be time allowed for a change of character. Paul recognized this when he said, “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” Bad thoughts and habits leave their impress upon the brain, which can only be effaced by a change in its organization. Every person has scars of this sort which he would gladly be rid of, and which often require a great length of time for their removal.

With reference to the apparent absurdity in which we are involved, we are puzzled to know how we could ever have been so thoroughly misunderstood. We have, in the little book reviewed by Eld. W., labored at considerable length to show that individuality does not consist in matter, but in organization, and that identity of matter is of no consequence in the establishment of human identity, either during life or at the resurrection. If this brief explanation is not sufficient to relieve us in the minds of all, of holding a view so palpably absurd, we will return to this point again.

Eld. W. says, “If man is only organized matter, when he is disorganized all character and responsibility must go out of existence. When he ceases to have a conscious being, he ceases to have a character, and is neither rewardable nor punishable, as there is nothing to reward or punish.” Certainly, we agree with this, and so do the Scriptures. Paul says, 1 Cor. 15:17, 18, “And if Christ be not raised, . . . then they also which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” The Scriptures clearly teach that rewards and punishments wholly depend upon the resurrection, upon the restoration of a material, organized body. As we may hereafter have an opportunity of showing, there is no activity, no consciousness, no responsibility during death, though in a certain sense, the character

may survive so long as the memory of the individual’s life is preserved.

After offering the above criticisms, to which we have endeavored to reply as briefly as the subject would admit, Eld. W. advances his own views of the nature of man, which we may be excused for noticing, since the arguments adduced are evidently for the purpose of strengthening the preceding criticisms. Eld. W. bases his views upon the following texts: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion. . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:26, 27. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Gen. 2:7. He remarks with reference to these passages, “The first described his higher nature.” “The second described his relation to earth as a cultivator of the soil.” As he elsewhere intimates, his idea evidently is that man has two distinct lives; a spiritual life and a physical or organized life. This is the view which he apparently bases upon these texts; but is there afforded in the language quoted a logical basis for such a theory? It seems to us that no such basis can be found. We cannot discover any ground for the assertion that the first text is a description of man’s higher nature. In fact, Eld. W. has not yet shown us that man has a double nature, a higher and a lower. The scientist sees in man only a wonderful organism, a unit, not a duality, capable of performing certain functions which distinguish him as the highest of all animate forms with which we have any acquaintance. But what is the meaning of the text, “God said, Let us make man in our image”? What is an image? Webster says it is “an imitation, representation, or similitude of any person or thing, drawn, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made perceptible to the sight.” By no legitimate means can the word be made applicable to an immaterial or invisible conception. There may be intellectual similarity, but there cannot be an intellectual image, as an image is, according to Webster, “a visible presentation.” Again, we have the most indubitable evidence that man’s physical nature (we do not recognize any other) is referred to in the record, in the fact that reference is made to sex in the very same period. “In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.” Now it would be most unreasonable to suppose that there should be such a sudden transition from spiritual to physical without any statement or explanation of such a change. Sex must relate to the physical nature of man; and it seems to us clear beyond all reasonable chance for doubt, that the text relates not to a supposed spiritual part of man, but to man as a whole.

The second text evidently relates not to any particular part of man, but to man as a whole. “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” The text does not say that God formed man’s body or his physical nature of dust, but that he formed man. It should also be noticed that the man was formed before the Lord “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [Hebrew, lives].” A good commentary upon this text is found in the thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel, in the vision of the valley full of dry bones. The Lord caused Ezekiel to prophesy upon the bones, saying, “Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live.” Then Ezekiel prophesied as he was commanded; and he says further, “And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above; but there was no breath in them.” It seems that although all the tissues, every structure, was complete, these bodies were not yet wholly alive. They undoubtedly possessed molecular life, that is, tissue life, such life as is possessed by a tree, but no conscious, animal life.

All that was lacking, however, was the breath. Nothing is said about a divine or spiritual nature that must be added, an immortal, invisible spirit that must be blown into their nostrils; nothing of the sort is even intimated. All that was lacking was the breath, and when Ezekiel prophesied again, the winds blew upon the dead bodies, breath came into them, air inflated their lungs, and they lived. This is the plain interpretation of the language. Now, how was it in the creation of man? God formed him from the dust of the ground. He was not a mere man of clay, a clod of earth, but a perfectly organized human being, with bones, sinews, flesh, and skin, like the men in Ezekiel’s vision. Undoubtedly man’s structure was complete in every detail, heart, blood-vessels, blood, brain, nerves, and every minute particular. Cell life or organic life was present, but no conscious or animal life. He was like a delicately constructed mechanism awaiting the touch of a master to unloose the mainspring and set the machine in motion.

Like the men in Ezekiel’s vision, all he lacked was breath. By the inflation of his lungs, the heart was set in motion, and the blood, laden with stimulating, vitalizing oxygen, was sent in every direction through the body. Every organ begins its functions. The glands begin to secrete, the muscles to contract, the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the brain to think. Adam is alive. Take this same breath away, and he returns to nearly the same condition in which he was before his lungs were inflated. He is dead. How appropriate, then, the term breath of life—or rather of lives, according to the original, since lower animals are represented in the Bible as possessing the same. “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” Gen. 7:15, 22. From these texts it is evident that if the breath of life breathed into man’s nostrils was a “spiritual nature,” beasts possess the same. Is our reviewer ready to accept this position? Consistency demands that if “breath of life” means spiritual nature, immortal spirit, or immaterial entity in Gen. 2:7, it must mean the same in Gen. 7:15. We are still in want of evidence to show that man’s nature is not a unity, that he is more than what we see him to be, an organization of matter.

Eld. W. next quotes Gen. 2:9 and 3:22, 23, which we need not repeat, then remarking, “These passages show that man’s body was not naturally immortal.” We agree with him very nearly, only differing in this, that the texts appear to us to make no distinction between man and “man’s body.” They speak of man. They show that man is not naturally immortal. Until it has been shown that man has a double nature, there is no justification for the view that the mortality plainly ascribed to man in the passages quoted, and in many others in the Bible, relates to man’s body only while excepting some other more essential part.

The argument based on man’s exclusion from the tree of life we cannot accept as having that force evidently intended by Eld. W., since it appears to us that his exclusion from the tree of life was simply the means adopted by God to carry out the penalty of death pronounced upon him.

Eld. W. concludes his article by quoting a long list of texts in support of the view that man has two lives, a physical and a spiritual life. We readily grant this, with the explanation, however, that we believe that in every case where the word life is used in a so-called spiritual sense, its use is figurative.

In conclusion Eld. W. remarks: “The above passages make it clear that neither physical life with mental activity, is the reward of the saints, nor physical death and cessation of knowledge, the penalty for sin; but it affects a higher element in man’s nature.” With reference to the last statement, we are compelled to say that as it has not been shown that man has a so-called “higher element” in his nature, we can see no logical foundation for such a statement.

J. H. KELLOGG.