IX. Physician William Coward Denies Separate Entity of Soul

WILLIAM COWARD, M.D. (c. 1656-1725), practicing physician, theologian, and writer, came of good family background, his uncle being principal and professor of history of Hart Hall, Oxford. William received his training at Wadham College, and then Merton, Oxford, receiving both the M.A. and the M.D. degree. ^{3939) Leslie Stephen, “William Coward,” Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 4, pp. 1298, 1299; Mills, Earlier Life-Truth Exponents, pp. 35, 36.} He practiced medicine in Northampton and London, and was a member of the College of Surgeons from 1695 until his death. He wrote four medical and four theological works.CFF2 193.2

But Dr. Coward had strong theological convictions and was a Biblical scholar in his own right. Becoming intensely interested in the question of the nature of man, he wrote Second Thoughts concerning Human Soul, demonstrating the Notion of Human Soul, as believed to be a Spiritual and Immortal Substance, united to Human Body, to be plain Heathenish Invention, and not consonant to the Principles of Philosophy, Reason or Religion (London, 1702). The title page bears the text: “Man lieth down, and riseth not till the Heavens be no more: They shall not awake, or be raised out of their Sleep. Job 14:12.”CFF2 193.3

Coward published this treatise under a pen name Estibius Psychalethes, and dedicated it to the clergy of the Church of England. In this he denied the postulate of the consciousness of the human soul independent of the human body, but contended that the whole man will receive immortal life at the resurrection. He referred to the independent soul theory as the “ground” of “many absurd and superstitious opinions.” Coward affirmed that the death of all animal life consists in “privation of life,” but the righteous man “will be raised to life again, and be made partaker of eternal happiness in the world to come.” An enlarged second edition was issued in 1704, in which the term “Immortal Substance,” in the title, was changed to “Immaterial Substance.”CFF2 194.1

Much opposition was aroused by the publication of Coward’s convictions, and printed attacks began to appear, one by a noted Baptist minister, Benjamin Keach, an ardent Immortal-Soulist. There were also caustic replies by Le Wright, Staalkopf, and later by Kahler and Fleming. These attacks led Coward to issue a second volume, Further Thoughts Concerning the Human Soul, in Defence of Second Thoughts (1703). His strictures in this book against the foibles of philosophy drew ridicule from John Locke, and further rejoinders were soon forthcoming.CFF2 194.2

In rebuttal Coward published, in 1704, The Grand Essay: or A Vindication of Reason, and Religion, against Impostures of Philosophy, etc. On March 10, 1704, soon after its publication, complaint was lodged in the House of Commons, and an inquiry instituted before which Coward was summoned to testify. As a result, his books were ordered burned by the Common Hangman as offensive doctrine. The resultant notoriety caused the intrepid doctor to issue a fourth volume, The Just Scrutiny; or a Serious Inquiry into the Modern Notions of the Soul .... Consider’d as Breath of Life, or a Power (not Immaterial Substance) united to Body according to H[oly] Scriptures .... With a Comparative Disquisition between the Scriptural and Philosophic State of the Dead (1706). A defense of Coward, by Evan Lloyd, also appeared in 1707, while Henry Layton, noted next, answered several of Coward’s critics.CFF2 194.3

Coward insisted that the “main stress of arguments” must be drawn from the only authoritative “credentials of true and orthodox divinity”—the “holy scriptures.” But notwithstanding his unwavering attachment to the Christian Scripture, opponents sought to discredit him by listing him indiscriminately with such detractors of the Bible as Toland, Tindal, and Collins—“the most rancorous and determined adversaries of Christianity.” ^{4040) Blackburne, op. cit., pp. 71-74.}CFF2 195.1

Using the Bible, Coward refuted the popular contention that “contiguity” of life precludes any intervening period of “sleep” or inactivity, and the contention that upon death the soul is “immediately and instantly clothed with the resurrection-body.” Such held that “no intervening moments can be admitted. Contiguity admits not a separation either in time or space.”CFF2 195.2

Still another Coward volume, in similar vein, appeared in 1706—Ophthalmoiatria—in which he ridiculed the Cartesian notion of an immaterial soul residing in the pineal gland. Henry Dodwell’s Epistolary Discourse appeared in the same year, which drew Samuel Clarke and Anthony Collins into the conflict. But Coward distinguished his own position from that of Dodwell, and attacked Clarke. Thus the battle of pens continued over the nature and destiny of man.CFF2 195.3