Part 3

“Scientists have been addicted to unwise and inconsiderate haste in the announcement of new theories touching alleged facts; they have blundered repeatedly in their efforts to confound the Christian and set aside Moses. No less than eighty theories touching that many facts and discoveries have been developed during the period of fifty years, that were brought before the Institute of France in 1806, and not one of them survives to-day.” Truly the history of scientific investigation reveals the same fallibility of human nature that is known in the many errors found in the line of theological investigation. Truth, in science and religion, stands true to her God—_man alone deviates_.

DRAPER’S CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

No one idea has produced a greater sensation among skeptics and unbelievers than the idea of a conflict between science and Christianity. The history of the affair reminds us of the ghost stories that frighten people in their boyish days. There was, in truth, no foundation for the sensation. Mr. Draper never intended that his work entitled “Conflict between Religion and Science,” should be construed to mean Conflict between the Bible and Science, or between Christianity, as set forth by the primitive Christians and science, but conflict between apostate religion and science; or, rather, between corruptors of the ancient religion and science.

He says, “I have had little to say respecting the two great Christian confessions, the protestant and the Greek churches. As to the latter, it has never, since the restoration of science, arrayed itself in opposition to the advancement of knowledge. On the contrary, it has always met it with welcome. It has observed a reverential attitude to truth, from whatever quarter it might come. Recognizing the apparent discrepancies between its interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of science, it has always expected that satisfactory explanations and reconciliations would ensue, _and in this it has not been disappointed_.” Will all who read these lines take notice that Mr. Draper takes the Christian’s side in the above statement. “_In this it has not been disappointed._” In what? Answer—Its expectation that satisfactory explanations and reconciliations would follow the discoveries of science, by means of which apparent discrepancies between the church’s interpretations of revealed truth and the discoveries of science would disappear. Mr. Draper adds, “It would have been well for modern civilization if the Roman church had done the same.” He guards his readers by the following: “In speaking of Christianity, reference is generally made to the Roman church, partly because its adherents compose the majority of Christendom, partly because its demands are the most pretentious, and partly because it has commonly sought to enforce those demands by the civil power. None of the protestant churches have ever occupied a position so imperious, none have ever had such widespread political influence. For the most part they have been averse to constraint, and except in very few instances their opposition has not passed beyond the exciting of theological odium.” Preface, pp. 10, 11.

On pages 215 and 216, speaking upon the great question of the proper relations of Christianity and science, Mr. Draper says: “In the annals of Christianity the most ill-omened day is that in which she separated herself from science. She compelled Origen, at that time (A. D. 231) its chief representative and supporter in the church, to abandon his charge in Alexandria and retire to Cæsarea. In vain through many subsequent centuries did her leading men spend themselves in, as the phrase then went, ‘drawing forth the internal juice and marrow of the scriptures for the explaining of things.’ Universal history from the _third_ to the _sixteenth_ century shows with what result. The dark ages owe their darkness to this fatal policy.”

The pure Christianity, as well as Christians of 231 years, are exonerated by Mr. Draper. Unbeliever, will you remember this? Many unbelievers, like drowning men catching at straws, have endeavored to make it appear that Mr. Draper’s book, entitled “Conflict Between Religion and Science,” makes a square fight between the Bible and science. So far is this from the truth that, on the contrary, it does not even set up a square issue between Protestantism and science; its issue lies between Roman Catholic religion and science. Hear him: “Then has it, _in truth_, come to this, that Roman Christianity and science are recognized by their respective adherents as being absolutely incompatible; they can not exist together; one must yield to the other; mankind must make its choice—it can not have both. While such is, perhaps, the issue as regards Catholicism, a reconciliation of the reformation with science is not only possible, but would easily take place if the protestant churches would only live up to their maxim taught by Luther and established by so many years of war. That maxim is the right of private interpretation of the scriptures. It was the foundation of intellectual liberty.” (Did Luther say the foundation of intellectual liberty?) But if a personal interpretation of the book of Revelation is permissible, how can it be denied in the case of the book of nature? In the misunderstandings that have taken place, we must ever bear in mind the infirmities of men. The generations that immediately followed the reformation may perhaps be excused for not comprehending the full significance of cardinal principle, and for not on all occasions carrying it into effect. When Calvin caused Servetus to be burnt he was animated, not by the principles of the reformation, but by those of Catholicism, from which he had not been able to emancipate himself completely. And when the clergy of influential protestant confessions have stigmatized the investigators of nature as infidels and atheists, the same may be said. (No man should be called by a name that does not truthfully represent him.) Now listen to Mr. Draper: “For Catholicism to reconcile itself to science, there are formidable, perhaps insuperable obstacles in the way. For protestantism to achieve that great result there are not.”—_Conflict Between Religion and Science_, pp. 363, 364. Thus Draper speaks for himself.

FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, OR WHAT CHRISTIANITY HAS DONE FOR CANNIBALS.

The Fijians, a quarter of a century ago, were noted for cannibalism. The following scrap of history may be of importance as a shadow to contrast with the sunshine. It is taken from Wood’s History of the Uncivilized Races:

The Fijians are more devoted to cannibalism than the New Zealanders, and their records are still more appalling. A New Zealander has sometimes the grace to feel ashamed of mentioning the subject in the hearing of an European, whereas it is impossible to make a Fijian really feel that in eating human flesh he has committed an unworthy act. He sees, indeed, that the white man exhibits great disgust at cannibalism, but in his heart he despises him for wasting such luxurious food as human flesh.... The natives are clever enough at concealing the existence of cannibalism when they find that it shocks the white men. An European cotton grower, who had tried unsuccessfully to introduce the culture of cotton into Fiji, found, after a tolerable long residence, that four or five human beings were killed and eaten weekly. There was plenty of food in the place, pigs were numerous, and fish, fruit and vegetables abundant. But the people ate human bodies as often as they could get them, not from any superstitious motive, but simply because they preferred human flesh to pork.... Many of the people actually take a pride in the number of human bodies which they have eaten. One chief was looked upon with great respect on account of his feats of cannibalism, and the people gave him a title of honor. They called him the Turtle-pond, comparing his insatiable stomach to the pond in which turtles are kept; and so proud were they of his deeds, that they even gave a name of honor to the bodies brought for his consumption, calling them the “Contents of the Turtle-pond.” ... One man gained a great name among his people by an act of peculiar atrocity. He told his wife to build an oven, to fetch firewood for heating it, and to prepare a bamboo knife. As soon as she had concluded her labors her husband killed her, and baked her in the oven which her own hands had prepared, and afterward ate her. Sometimes a man has been known to take a victim, bind him hand and foot, cut slices from his arms and legs, and eat them before his eyes. Indeed, the Fijians are so inordinately vain that they will do anything, no matter how horrible, in order to gain a name among their people; and Dr. Pritchard, who knows them thoroughly, expresses his wonder that some chief did not eat slices from his own limbs.

“Cannibalism is ingrained in the very nature of the Fijian, and extends through all classes of society. It is true that there are some persons who have never eaten human flesh, but there is always a reason for it. Women, for example, are seldom known to eat ‘bakolo,’ as human flesh is termed, and there are a few men who have refrained from cannibalism through superstition. Every Fijian has his special god, who is supposed to have his residence in some animal. One god, for example, lives in a rat, another in a shark, and so on. The worshiper of that god never eats the animal in which his divinity resides, and as some gods are supposed to reside in human beings, their worshipers never eat the flesh of man.”

Recent History Of The Same People In Brief.

“In the Fiji islands, where half a century ago the favorite dish of food was human flesh, there are at present eight hundred and forty-one chapels, and two hundred and ninety-one other places where preaching is held, with fifty-eight missionaries busily engaged in preparing the way for others. The membership numbers twenty-three thousand two hundred and seventy-four persons.” _The Evangelist of January 29, 1880._ It is possible that some infidel might have been literally eaten up had it not been for the influence of the Bible. “According to the accounts of some of the older chiefs, whom we may believe or not as we like, there was once a time when cannibalism did not exist. Many years ago some strangers from a distant land were blown upon the shores of Fiji, and received hospitably by the islanders, who incorporated them into their own tribes, and made much of them. But, in process of time, these people became too powerful, killed the Fijian chiefs, took their wives and property, and usurped their office.”

In the emergency the people consulted the priests, who said that the Fijians had brought their misfortunes upon themselves. They had allowed strangers to live, whereas “Fiji for the Fijians” was the golden rule, and from that time every male stranger was to be killed and eaten, and every woman taken as a wife. The only people free from this law were the Tongans.

The state of the Fijians is wonderfully changed—even an American infidel may now visit those people without being flayed and roasted and devoured.

“The Samoan islands have been entirely christianized. Out of a population of forty thousand, thirty-five thousand are connected with Christian churches.

“In 1830 the native Christians in India, Burmah, and North and South Ceylon numbered 57,000. Last October there were 460,000. Facts similar in character might be given of Madagascar, South Africa and Japan.” _Evangelist._ What a curse (?) the Bible is to the poor heathen. It robs them of their “long-pig,” human flesh, as well as their cruel, murderous habits, and curses them (?) with virtue and the hope of “HEAVEN.”

ARE WE SIMPLY ANIMALS?

What is man? The materialist says, “He is the highest order of the animal kingdom, or an animal gifted with intelligence.” If such be true, it may be said with equal propriety, that animals are men without reason. Are they? Does manhood consist in mere physical form? Can you find it in simple physical nature? Man holds many things in his physical nature in common with the animal; but is he, on this account, to be considered as a mere animal? There are plants that seem to form a bridge over the chasm lying between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. Are those plants animals without sensation? Why not? What is the logical and scientific difference between saying plants, which make the nearest approach to the animal are animals without sensation, and saying animals are men without intelligence? Let it be understood at all times, that if man is simply an animal endowed with the gift of reason, an animal may be simply a vegetable endowed with the gift of sensation. “The bodies of mere animals are clothed with scales, feathers, fur, wool or bristles, which interpose between the skin and the elements that surround and affect the living animal.” All these insensible protectors “ally animals more closely to the nature of vegetables.”

“The body of a human being has a beautiful, thin, highly sensitive skin, which is not covered with an insensitive, lifeless veil.” Man’s body is in noble contrast with all mere animals. It is so formed that its natural position is erect. “The eyes are in front; the ligaments of the neck are not capable of supporting, for any considerable length of time, the head when hanging down; the horizontal position would force the blood to the head so violently that stupor would be the result. The mouth serves the mind as well as the body itself. According to the most critical calculation, the muscles of the mouth are so movable that it may pronounce fifteen hundred letters.” What a wonderful musical instrument.

The mouth of the mere animal serves only physical purposes.

Man turns his head from right to left, from earth to sky, from the slimy trail of the crustacean in the ocean’s bottom to the contemplation of the innumerable stars in the heavens. The human body was created for the mind; its structure is correlated with mind. The animal has a sentient life; man an intelligent, reasoning nature.

When animals are infuriated and trample beneath their feet everything that lies in their way, we do not say they are _insane_, but _mad_. “Man is an intelligent spirit,” or mind, “served by an organism.” We know that mind exists by our consciousness of that which passes within us. The propriety of the sayings of Descartes, “_I think, therefore I am_,” rests upon the consciousness that we are thinking beings. This intelligence is not obtained by the exercise of any of the senses. It does not depend upon external surroundings. Its existence is a fact of consciousness, of certain knowledge, and hence a fact in mental science.

We are continually conscious of the existence of the mind, which makes its own operations the object of its own thought; that it should have no existence is a contradiction in language.

Experience teaches us that the materialistic theory of the existence of the mind is utterly false. In an act of perception I distinguish the pen in my hand, and the hand itself, from my mind which perceives them. This distinction is a fact of the faculty of perception—a particular fact of a particular faculty. But the general fact of a general distinction of which this is only a special case, is the distinction of the _I_ and _not I_, which belongs to the consciousness as the general faculty. He who denies the contrast between mind-knowing and matter-known is dishonest, for it is a fact of consciousness, and such can not be honestly denied. The facts given in consciousness itself can not be honestly doubted, much less denied.

Materialists have claimed that mind is simply the result of the molecular action of the brain. This theory is as unreal as Banquo’s ghost—it will not bear a moment’s investigation. It is simply confounding the action of the mind upon the brain with the mind itself. Every effect must have a cause. When I make a special mental effort what is the cause lying behind the effort? Is it the molecular action of the brain? I _will to_ make the effort, and do it. Then will power lies behind brain action. But power is a manifest energy; there is something lying behind it to which it belongs as an attribute; what is it? Answer, _will_. But, where there is a _will_ there must of a necessity be that which _wills_. What is it that _wills_ to make a special mental effort—that lies away back “behind the throne” and controls the helm? It is evidently the I, _myself_, the “inner man,” _the spirit_. On one occasion, when some of the disciples of the Nazarene were sleepy, Jesus said to them, “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” It is the spirit that _wills_ to make a special mental effort. Here is the “_font_” of all our ideas. “What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?” 1 Cor., ii, 11. _Will_, as an effect, belongs to the spirit of man, as _the cause_ lying behind. Beyond this no man can trace this subject, short of crossing over from the spirit of man to the invisible Father of spirits. The spirit of man is a _wonderful intelligence_! “The body without the spirit is dead, being alone.” When we analyze the physical structure back to the germ and sperm-cells we are brought face to face with the invisible builder. Call it what you may, it still remains the same invisible architect, which, being matter’s master, built the organism. We live, and breathe; we die, and cease breathing. Dead bodies do not breathe. Therefore, life lies behind breath, and spirit behind life. So life and breath are both effects, which find their ultimate or cause in _spirit_. This at once sets aside all that materialists have said in order to show that spirit and breath are one and the same. The original term, translated by the term spirit has, in its history, away back in the past, a _physical_ currency. The old-fashioned materialist or “soul-sleeper” finds his fort in this fact. His entire aim is to get the people back to an old and obsolete currency of the term “_pneuma_.” If we lay aside words which were used in a physical sense, in times gone by, we will not have many words to express the ideas embraced in mental science. In ancient times “_pneuma_” signified both mind and wind, or air. In later times it lost its physical currency, and no longer signifies, in its general currency, breath or air. The adjective, “_pneumatikos_,” is _never used_ in a physical sense. It came into use too late.

We have many examples of old meanings passing away from words. “_Sapientia_,” in Latin originally meant only the power of tasting. At present it means _wisdom_, _prudence_, _discretion_, _discernment_, _good sense_, _knowledge_, _practical wisdom_, _philosophy_, _calmness_, _patience_. The word “_sagacitas_,” originally meant only the faculty of _scenting_, now it means the power of seeing or perceiving anything easily. In old literature we may read of the sagacity of dogs; keenness of scent. But it is now sharpness of wit; keenness of perception, subtilty, shrewdness, acuteness, penetration, ingenuity. The terms, “attentio,” “intentio,” “comprehensio,” “apprehensio,” “penetratio,” and understanding are all just so many bodily actions transferred to the expression of _mental energies_. There is just the same reason for giving to all these terms their old, obsolete, physical currency that there is for giving to pneuma, or spirit, the old obsolete currency of wind or air. You must ever remember that it is the business of lexicographers in giving the history of words, to set before you the first as well as the latest use of terms. In strict harmony with all this Greenfield gives “_pneuma_” _thus_:

1. Wind, air in motion, breathing, breath, expiration, respiration, spirit, i. e. the human soul, that is, the vital principle in man, life. Matthew xxvii, 50; Rev. xiii, 15.

2. Of the rational soul, mind, that principle in man which thinks, feels, desires, and wills. Matthew v, 3, 26, 41.

3. Of the human soul after its departure from the body, a spirit, soul. Acts xxiii, 8, 9; Hebrews xii, 23.

4. Spc. Spirit, that is, temper, disposition, affections, feelings, inclination, qualities of mind.

5. Construed with “_mou_” and “_sou_” (_I_ and _thou_), it forms a periphrasis for the corresponding personal pronoun. Mark ii, 8; Luke i, 47. A spirit, that is, A SIMPLE, SPIRITUAL, INCORPOREAL, INTELLIGENT BEING. Spoken of God. John iv, 24. Of angels. Hebrews i, 14. Of evil spirits, Matthew viii, 16; Mark ix, 20. A divine spirit, spoken of the spiritual nature of Christ. 1 Corinthians xv, 45; 1 Peter iii, 18. Of the Holy Spirit. Matthew iii, 16-28; John xv, 26; Acts i, 8; Romans ix, 1.

Robinson, in his Lexicon, sums up the history of its use thus:

1. Pneuma, from pneo, to breathe. A breathing, breath.

1. Of the mouth or nostrils, a breathing, blast. The destroying power of God. Isaiah xi, 4; Psalm xxxiii, 6. The breath. Revelations xi, 11. “Breath of life.” Genesis vi, 17; vii, 15-22.

2. Breath of air. Air in motion, a breeze, blast, the wind.

3. The spirit of man, that is, the vital spirit, life, soul.

4. The rational spirit, mind, soul (Latin _animus_), generally opposed to the body or animal (disposition) spirit. 1 Thessalonians v, 23; 1 Corinthians xiv, 14.

5. It implies will, council, purpose. Matthew xxvi, 41; Mark xiv, 38; Acts xviii, 5; xix, 21; 1 Chronicles v, 26; Ezra i, 1.

6. It includes the understanding, intellect. Mark ii, 8; Luke i, 80, and ii, 40; 1 Corinthians ii, 11, 12; Exodus xxviii, 3; Job xx, 3; Isaiah xxix, 24.

7. A spirit, that is, a simple, incorporeal, immaterial being, possessing higher capacities than man in his present state. Of created spirits, the human spirit, soul, after its departure from the body and as existing in a separate state. Hebrews xii, 23; that is, to the spirits of just men made perfect. Robinson renders it thus: “To the spirits of the just advanced to perfect happiness and glory.”

It is spoken of God in reference to his immateriality. John, iv, 24. Of Christ in his exalted spiritual nature in distinction from his human nature. In Hebrews, ix, 14, in contrast with perishable nature. “The _eternal spirit_,” Holy spirit, spirit of God.—_Robinson’s Lexicon._

From all this it will be seen that it is impossible to limit the term spirit to its ancient _physical_ currency. Our term _mind_ is, for two reasons, a better word for its place in modern literature. First, it never had a physical application. Second, the terms are used indifferently in the New Testament when they relate to man. See Romans, i, 9 and vii, 25. All spirits are _one_ in kind; in _character_ the difference lies; that is, spirits are all _imperishable_. It is not in the nature of a spirit to cease to be. If it is, then there is no imperishable nature that is revealed to man. I submit for consideration the thought that there is no difference in the final results between the man who denies the existence of spirits altogether and the man who allows that spirits may cease to exist.

“We are cognizant of the existence of spirit by our direct consciousness of feelings, desires and ideas, which are to us the most certain of all realities.”—_Carpenter._