PHILOSOPHY vs. BIBLE TRUTH.
By M. E. Cornell
Prof. Schuyler, principal of the Seneca County Academy, Ohio, has just published a pamphlet, entitled "The human Soul; its nature and future existence." The effort is to prove the immateriality of the soul, and thus to establish its immortality. The pamphlet contains only 42 pages and up to the 29th page, no scripture argument is introduced. Only about nine pages are occupied with scripture arguments and the remainder is an effort at answering objections. The whole body of the work is a mere display of human wisdom and vain reasonings in philosophy and science falsely so called. Being conscious no doubt that the scripture arguments in favor of the soul's immortality were exceedingly weak, he dare not venture on that foundation, and so with immaterial wings, he soars away into the airy regions of nothingness; and straightway from behind a mystical cloud issue sounds which betoken only the presence of a man of learning. There are, in the work, many dark sayings against a simple truth of the Bible, that man is now wholly mortal, but is a probationer for immortality. "The soul that sinneth it shall DIE." Eze. xviii, 4. That which is immortal is exempt from death, hence the soul cannot be immortal. If it be said that 'soul' in this text refers only to the body, we reply that it must refer to the responsible agent, before which is placed life and death. It refers to that which is conscious and has the power of choice. "the soul that sinneth" is to receive the penalty. Is the body alone the actor in transgression? or will divine justice kill the body alone for the sin of the soul and body united? But it is said the death spoken of is a "spiritual death." To this we reply that spiritual death is a state of sin which is the crime and not the penalty. God does not pronounce the crime as the penalty of itself, saying to the wicked man, because you have become a sinner, I pronounce you in a state of sin. No no. But "the soul that sinneth, (is in a state of sin or spiritually dead) it shall die." "Shall die," in the text is the penalty of sin or spiritual death, but those already dead spiritually cannot afterwards die spiritually, except they first be resurrected from that death, which the wicked have no promise of, and hence the death threatened the sinner is literal death or extinction of life. Philosophical reasoning can never overthrow this conclusion. It commends itself to the common sense of all, and will be acknowledged by those whose judgements have not been warped by that first sermon which satan preached, namely, "Ye shall not surely die." But if all men naturally possess immortal souls, then verily immortality would come through Adam, whereas the Bible teaches that it is through Christ alone, [2 Tim. i, 10] and the apostle exhorts men to seek for immortality, [Rom. ii, 7] which he would not do if men have it already in possession. The tree of immortality is guarded with the flaming sword, and none of the family of Adam can partake of it until their time of probation has expired; therefore no man has immortality in this life; and the devil is a liar from the beginning. To establish any proposition by scripture, the very language of the proposition, or its equivalent, must be in the proof texts, or else it is all inference, and we know that many admitted heresies are proved by inferences. The proposition is, the soul is immaterial and hence immortal; but neither this language nor its equivalent is found in any text of scripture quoted by our author. It is no wonder then that his appeal is to philosophy. Men in their right minds will always lay the greatest stress upon what they consider their best arguments, and as the burden of our author's argument is in philosophy, it is fair to conclude that in his judgment, this is the only safe course to pursue. Indeed, so much is acknowledged in his preface. He says, "Some may, perhaps, think that to demonstrate the immortality of the human soul, it is not necessary, first to demonstrate its immateriality. I have, however, pursued that course of reasoning which appears the most conclusive to my own mind." I am not surprised that the Professor should take this course, after reading our books, and seeing as he must, if not blind, that the plain Bible testimony is against him; but I am astonished that he should strive to establish his proposition by philosophy after having his philosophy blown to the winds, as it was in a public discussion on the question, Has man an immortal soul? His course is strange, but "It is a serious fact, when men are driven
From Bible ground, the only standard given,
That then, whatever arguments they find,
Drawn from whatever source, whate'er their kind,
Provided, for their side they seem to tell,
To all appearance, suit them just as well." That the reader may judge of the character of the arguments the Professor used in the discussion, we give below a list of some of the words and phrases used in the pamphlet, which is very nearly a verbatim copy of his written argument in the discussion. The words Philosophy, Philosophize, Philosophic, Philosopher, Philosophical, occur 51 times. The words Material, Materialist, Materialists, Materialistic, Materialism, Immaterial, Immateriality, occur 58 times. Empiricism, 8 times. Skepticism, 10 times. Idealism, 12 times. Fatalism, 4 times. Realism, 4 times. Phenomena, 16 times. Dogmatism, twice. Phrenology and Phrenological, 6 times. Many other uncommon words and phrases are used more or less, such as Gaseous, Malleability, Ductility, Elasticity, Extension, Impenetrability, Mysticism, Science, Geology, Institutions, Conceptions, Alkaline-base &c. &c. Among the authors quoted, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, Aristotle and M. Victor Cousin, of France, are conspicuous. Such arguments may appear conclusive to one that is already wedded to the immortal soul theory, but to another, the only impression made is that the author is a scholar in philosophy. But this is no argument in favor of the correctness of his religious opinions, but is rather against them, especially when he gives philosophy the prominence in giving a reason for his faith in what he calls one of the fundamentals of christianity. There would be no need of so much philosophical reasoning, if immortal-soulism was plainly revealed in the Bible; and if it is not plainly revealed, why does this author charge Atheism upon us for not believing it. What we might say against using worldly wisdom and philosophy in matters of religion and truth would perhaps be of little value, but what God has said, all men should agree is the truth. The154following is what we presented in the discussion as an offset against philosophy. "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Cor. i, 20. "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1 Cor. iii, 18, 19. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col. ii, 8. "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Tim. vi, 20. The Apostles, all except Paul, were unlearned men; and he did not have any use for his philosophy after he was converted. One sermon by the unlearned Peter, converted more to Christ and truth than the learned Paul could have converted in an age, if he had used the words of man's wisdom. He might have converted many to himself—to the belief that he was a smart, learned, wise and scientific man, but the truth of God does not lie in that direction. But how did Paul preach? "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power." "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Cor. ii, 1, 4, 13. The Holy Ghost has ever taught with words adapted to the capacity of the simple, the childlike, and humble, however unlearned they may be. The language of the Spirit of God is so simple that the worldly wise and high minded cannot comprehend it till they come down. It is foolishness to them. The channel of truth is low and easily found by the lowly; but the high-minded are almost sure to overlook it and pass on in the broad road to death. Says the apostle "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world &c.?" James ii, 5. And Paul says "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called." The worldly, rich man, is esteemed by those who travel in the broad road; so is the philosopher, and the man of science; but none of these recommend a man to God. O that men would humble themselves in the sight of the Lord, then would they see that immortality comes through Christ alone, and if it is so sought for, never will be obtained, either in this world or that which is to come. M. E. CORNELL.
Green Spring, Ohio March 16th.