[p 1]
THE CHURCH
THE SCHOOLS
and
EVOLUTION

It must be so self-evident as to be axiomatic that there are two distinct realms in God's universe. One is the realm that contains the Creator, and the other that which contains His creation. Of course, if we are pantheists, we will not admit that classification; but those who believe and accept the Word of God are not pantheists.

It is inevitable, therefore, that the facts, the verities, the truths of the universe should be classified according to their realms; those having to do with the Person and relationships of the Creator being separable into one realm, and those having to do with His creation into another.

That this classification is universally recognized, is a matter of common knowledge. That class of truth which has to do with God we call supernatural, or spiritual, truth, and that which relates to His creation we call natural, or scientific, truth.

But although the Church and the Schools are entirely separate institutions, and although they are engaged, one in the spread of spiritual truth and the other in the diffusion of scientific truth, yet truth is an eternal unity. This must be so, in the nature of things, for all truth proceeds from and reveals the one and only God Who is its Source and of Whom it is the consistent and perfect expression.

Conflict between these two realms of truth is, therefore, eternally impossible. Men talk of a conflict between science and the Bible, but no such conflict exists. If there is any contradiction, it is not between the statements of Scripture and the facts of science, but between the false interpretations of Scripture and the immature conclusions of science. Herbert Spencer was right when he said: It is incredible that there should be two orders of truth in absolute and everlasting opposition.

Not until God begins to contradict Himself will these two realms of truth ever be in conflict with each other.

The Church and the Schools, then, can never be in conflict until some abnormal condition creeps into the one or the other; for, although working in different realms of truth, each is yet receiving revelations of the one God who can never be in conflict with Himself.

And so when the Church denies the facts—not the unproven theories, notice, but the clearly demonstrated facts—of science, something is wrong with the Church. And when the Schools put forth theories that undermine the very foundations of the Church and her work, there is something wrong with the Schools.

Now it is no secret that the Church and the Schools, broadly speaking, are in serious conflict with each other today. Where lies the cause? If the Church is denying and fighting the demonstrated facts of science, then the Church is clearly at fault and ought to get right at once.

But this is not so, for the conflict is altogether over unproven theories, and has nothing to do with demonstrated scientific facts. And so this takes us at once and completely out of the realm of science and lands us in that of speculative philosophy—a fact that shows how unreasonable and even foolish the conflict is. For the thing that has set the Church and the Schools into battle array against each other is that speculative guess concerning origins called the Theory of Evolution. This lies at the heart of the opposition that each of these great institutions feels toward the other.

The technical meaning of the term may be said to be a structural change in the direction of development into higher forms of existence, brought about by internal force without external aid.

There is also a scientific classification of the subject, into sub-organic, organic, and super-organic evolution. Sub-organic evolution applies to the development of non-living matter; organic, to the development of vegetable and animal life; and super-organic, to the development of intellectual, moral, and spiritual life. But while the subject is thus classified for convenience, it is all one doctrine, and is meant to describe one process of development from the non-living realm to the spiritual.

There is also one theory which is called causal, and another which is called modal, evolution. According to the former, evolution is the first cause of all life, which, of course, excludes God as the First Cause; and according to the latter, evolution is the mode, or method, used by God in creation.

Not only the fact that the theory is entirely unproven, but also and more particularly the nature of its influence on faith in the Bible compels the Church to reckon with it. We will go into these two reasons for antagonizing this speculative guess.

The reason we reflect on this for a few moments lies in what has already been said. If evolution is a fact, then for the Church to refuse it and fight against it would be to fight against God, which ought to bring her to swift judgment for her mad folly. But if it is only an unproven theory, then she is justified if she has good reasons for fighting its propagation. We will therefore note what the scientists themselves have to say regarding the theory.

There are teachers of science who do not hesitate to assure us that the doctrine of evolution is now no longer a theory but an assured fact. A few representative quotations from that class will suffice.

Dr. P. C. Mitchell says, in a late edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica”: The vast bulk of botanical and biological work on living and extinct forms published during the last quarter of the nineteenth century increased almost beyond all expectation the evidence for the fact of evolution.

Prof. S. C. Schmucker, of the West Chester, Pennsylvania, State Normal School, in his book, “The Meaning of Evolution,” says: Among students of animals and plants there is no longer any question as to the truth of evolution. That the animals of the present are the altered animals of the past, that the plants of today are the modified plants of yesterday, that civilized man of today is the savage of yesterday and the tree dweller of the day before, is no longer debatable to the mass of biologists.

Professor Fish, then of Denison University, Granville, Ohio, not long ago dictated to his class, of which the writer’s daughter was a member, the following statement: Organic evolution is the key to all biological thinking of today. It is not a theory but a fact, because the main facts are true. Man is the off-spring of the lower animals, and the ancestry can be traced back to the simplest forms of animals known. All medical research takes that fact into account.

Prof. William Patten, department of biology and zoology, Dartmouth College, says: Evolution is the accepted doctrine of the natural sciences to the extent that it has long ceased to be a subject of debate in standard scientific journals or in organized conferences of men of science.

Prof. Charles B. Davenport, department of experimental evolution, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C., says: I do not know of a single modern scientific man who does not believe in evolution.

And Prof. Frank R. Lillie, department of embryology, University of Chicago, says: I feel pretty impatient over the statements of certain religious teachers that evolution has collapsed.

These statements are sufficiently representative to indicate the attitude toward the theory of evolution of a great section of the scientific world today, including many science teachers in schools founded and endowed by the Church for the giving of Christian education.

But before we quote this testimony it may be well to pause a moment for a little information that may make it more intelligible to us.

The so-called proofs of evolution are derived from both the biological and the geological realms of natural science.

Darwin’s theory was arrived at from data taken from the biological realm, and consists of two doctrines. One is the doctrine of natural selection, which was his own personal contribution to the discussion, and the other is that of the inheritance of acquired characters, which he borrowed from Lamarck. The former is the doctrine meant when pure Darwinism is referred to.

Darwin himself said: We cannot prove that a single species has changed, and, also, Many of the objections to the hypothesis of evolution are so serious I can hardly reflect on them without being staggered.

Professor Fleischmann, of Erlangen, has said: The Darwinian theory of descent has in the realms of nature not a single fact to confirm it. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination.

And John Burroughs, although an evolutionist up to his recent death, said of Darwin, in the August, 1920, “Atlantic Monthly”: He has already been as completely shorn of his selection doctrines as Samson was shorn of his locks.

If these statements from scientific men mean anything at all, they mean, at least, that pure Darwinism is altogether unproven, if not that it is dead.

Spencer made this doctrine the fundamental one in his evolutionary philosophy. Its importance was so vital to him that he said: Close contemplation of the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two alternatives—either there has been inheritance of acquired characters, or there has been no evolution.

Dr. Thomas Hunt Morgan, department of science, Columbia University, says: Today the theory has few followers among trained investigators, but it still has a popular vogue that is wide-spread and vociferous.

Alfred Russell Wallace, in his “Autobiography,” said: All the available evidence is opposed to the doctrine of acquired characters.

Prof. William Bateson, in his 1914 Presidential Address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, said: We have done with the notion that Darwin came latterly to favor, that large differences can arise by the accumulation of small differences.

He also remarks that the new knowledge of heredity shows that whatever evolution there is occurs by loss of factors and not by gain, and that in this way the progress of science is destroying much that till lately passed for gospel.

And commenting on these remarks of Bateson, Prof. S. C. Holmes, of the University of California, says they are an illustration of the bankruptcy of the present evolutionary theory.

And in another place he exclaims: If cells did not maintain their ancestral character in a very remarkable way, what would be the use of grafting a good kind of fruit on to a stock of poorer quality? The very permanency of the graft thus produced is proof of the persistency with which the cells reproduce only "after their kind."

Then in speaking of Mendel’s discoveries in the realm of heredity, and which have now become scientifically demonstrated laws, he says that the whole foundation of biological evolution has been completely undermined by these new discoveries.

And he sums up the conclusions to which present-day scientists are coming, in the words: The principles of heredity, as now understood, have brought us back to that great truth which is given in the first chapter of our Bible, that each form of plant or animal was designed by the Creator to reproduce only "after its kind."

The one who accepts this testimony, therefore, is compelled to conclude that the doctrine of acquired characters is also dead.

Concerning this theory Dr. A. Weber, University of Geneva, Switzerland, said in the “Scientific American Monthly” for February, 1921: The critical comments of such men as O. Hertwig, Kiebel, and Vialleton, indeed, have practically torn to shreds the aforesaid fundamental biogenetic law. Its almost universal abandonment has left considerably at a loss those investigators who sought in the structures of organisms the key to their remote origins or to their relationships.

So it would seem that if this form of the theory is utterly destitute of proof, the whole biological foundation of the theory is gone.

It is perfectly in harmony with scientific testimony, therefore, that Professor Price says concerning this phase of the theory: The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time.

If these men have borne faithful testimony to the situation as it now exists in the biological realm, the only conclusion possible is that the borrowed portion of Darwin’s theory has also utterly collapsed.

The supposed evidence of geology, with its theories of uniformity and successive ages, forms precisely such a foundation.

Dr. T. H. Morgan, who was quoted above as against the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters, rests his faith in the theory of evolution on a geological foundation. He says: The direct evidence furnished by fossil remains is by all odds the strongest evidence we have in favor of organic evolution.

Has present-day science anything to say about this? In spite of the collapse of the supposed biological proofs, are there any tangible and scientifically established proofs in the geological realm?

Then he tells us that the theory of Successive Ages, with the forms of life appearing on earth in a precise and invariable order, is dead for all coming time for every man who has had a chance to examine the evidence and has enough training in logic and scientific methods to know when a thing is really proved.

And he concludes that the work of strict inductive science has destroyed this “fantastic scheme” forever, and thus leaves the way open to say that life must have originated by just such a literal creation as is recorded in the first chapters of the Bible.

If these statements have any meaning at all, they can mean only that the geological foundation for the theory of evolution has also collapsed.

Professor Tyndall, in an article in the “Fortnightly Review,” said: There ought to be a clear distinction made between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact. And inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited.

Prof. L. S. Beal, physiologist and professor of anatomy in King's College, London, says: The idea of any relation having been established between the non-living and the living by a gradual advance from lifeless matter to the lowest forms of life, and so onward to the higher and more complex, has not the slightest evidence from the facts of any section of living nature of which anything is known.

Professor Zoeckler, of the University of Greifswald, says: The claim that the hypothesis of descent is scientifically secured must most decidedly be denied.

Prof. George McCready Price says: In almost every one of the separate sciences the arguments upon which the theory of evolution gained its popularity a generation or so ago are now known by the various specialists to have been blunders, or mistakes, or hasty conclusions of one kind or another.

And Sir J. William Dawson says: "The evolution doctrine itself is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity." It is "a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech, and by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its parts." And he concludes that it is "surpassingly strange" that such a theory should find adherents.

To this list might be added such names as those of Professor Henslow, former President of the British Association; Prof. C. C. Everett, of Harvard; Dr. E. Dennert; Dr. Goette; Prof. Edward Hoppe, the “Hamburg Savant”; Professor Paulson, of Berlin; Professor Rutemeyer, of Basel; and Prof. Max Wundt, of Leipsic.

After all this contrary testimony on the part of such unquestioned authorities, we are forced to conclude not only that the testimony for evolution is far from unanimous, but also that the theory is altogether unproven, and that it is therefore utterly unscientific to teach it as a fact, especially when those who do so furnish us with no direct evidence whatever.

When evolutionists can produce matter from nothing or increase energy by any natural means known to man, or bring forth the living from the non-living, or bring into existence even one new and distinct species, then they will be in a position to compel the Church to listen to proofs; but until then the Church is forced to reject evolution.

The most serious aspect of the controversy, however, lies in the second objection mentioned above.

It is destructive of all the fundamental doctrines the Church was sent into the world to preach.

Over and again in the early verses of Genesis we are told that God created the various species to reproduce after their kind. But evolution says that this is not true, for as a matter of fact, the various species have continuously evolved from one to another all the way to man.

Huxley saw this when he said: The doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.

The result of this is the so-called “scientific” or “historical” method of interpreting the Bible, which means, to quote Dr. Meeser, that while the Scriptures have the wisdom of experts in religion, [yet] "authority" is scarcely the term to describe their value, and may, when applied to them, obscure their real character.

“But why make all this ado about it,” say the evolutionists; “it is all simply a question of interpretation.”

That is absolutely right. It is the interpretation of the evolutionists set in opposition to that of the Holy Spirit; and the true Church, compelled to make a choice, takes that of the Holy Spirit.

But the Word of God says that man has gone down from a condition of purity and innocence into a condition of such sinful enmity against God, that he is not only not subject to the law of God, but is utterly incapable of bringing himself into subjection to it. And the experience of every Christian gives sorrowful but certain evidence to that fact.

This condition the Bible describes as being dead in sin. And since death is not death at all until it is total, man, therefore, being dead, is totally dead—and this is total depravity.

This means that the only progress possible to man in his natural state is progress in corruption. For total depravity, which is total spiritual death, does not mean that the last limit of corruption has been reached, but that while death is total, corruption may have just begun.

Then, starting out again under more favorable circumstances than before, man went from bad to worse until, in one great universal brotherhood, he rose up and defied God at the Tower of Babel, and God had to smash the brotherhood into fragments by the confusion of languages.

Time after time God tried man and found his progress downward always, no matter how favorable the circumstances that surrounded him, until finally he came to earth Himself in the Person of His Son. This brought both the reality and the completeness of man’s spiritual death to a demonstration that can never be refuted, for at the cross man displayed, to its eternal uncovering, the awful corruption of that spiritual condition that could not tolerate in its presence incarnate purity and holiness, even though he had to become the murderer of God manifest in the flesh to get away from it.

Even in his worship man’s progress is steadily downward. Beginning with God, he progresses downward until he is worshipping birds, then beasts, and then creeping things.

This is why it becomes necessary for Canon E. W. Barnes, of Westminster Abbey, when he accepts evolution, to reject the Bible. He says: The inevitable acceptance of evolution means giving up belief in the fall and in all the theology built upon it by the theologians from St. Paul onward. Man was not made perfect and then marred; his evolution is still proceeding.

So here again it is utterly impossible for the consistent evolutionist to accept the Bible doctrine of the fall of man.

The Bible makes man’s fall deliberate and wilful, and his continued attitude of sinful enmity against God, in spite of all God’s offered power to change it into love, one of excuseless lawlessness and rebellion.

This makes man entirely responsible for his sin and accountable to God for everything sin does in his life. And so the Bible says: Every one shall give account of himself to God.

And those who go out of this life in the unconfessed and therefore unforgiven sin of rejecting God's mercy in Christ shall “go away into everlasting punishment,” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

John Fiske says: Theology has much to say about original sin. This original sin is neither more nor less than the brute inheritance that every man carries with him.

Rev. Dwight Bradley, a Cleveland, Ohio, pastor, says: There is no escape for intelligent people today from the acceptance of the law of evolution.... It follows that what we call evil [sin] is the remains of a lower form of life.... We are in the midst of the slow process of ridding ourselves of our animal inheritance.

And Dr. Shailer Mathews follows the evolutionary philosophy to its logical and necessary end when he says: But for men who think of God as dynamically imminent in an infinite universe, who think of man's relation to Him as determined not by statutory but by cosmic law, who regard sin and righteousness alike as the working out of the fundamental forces of life itself, the conception of God as King and of man as condemned or acquitted subject is but a figure of speech.

This altogether removes man’s accountability to God, for he cannot be brought to account for that which is the working out of the fundamental forces of life itself, and which is therefore inevitable in the very workings of his nature. And even if sin is an unfortunate slip in the process of evolution, man cannot be held accountable for an accident.

This doctrine also puts a high premium on the whole beastly, selfish, lustful, murderous history of the race, for it makes sin a ladder up which man is climbing to his high destiny.

Punishment for sin is therefore absolutely out of the question. For if man is not responsible for his sin, and if God punishes him for it, as the Bible says He will, even by the law of cause and effect, that would make God an infinite tyrant and an unspeakable fiend. And so if God is not a monster, and if evolution is true, there is no punishment for sin, and the Bible lies.

Thinking men see that this is the inevitable logic of the doctrine of evolution. Sir J. William Dawson, speaking of the evolutionary doctrines as speculations, says: They seek to revolutionize the religious beliefs of the world, and if accepted would destroy much of the existing theology and philosophy.... With one class of minds they constitute a sort of religion.... With another and perhaps larger class, they are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter.

That is, the perfectly plain and easily understood statements of Scripture concerning the beginning of sin are altogether unhistorical and utterly unworthy of credence to the man who looks at the Bible from the “scientific” or “historical” standpoint, which is the evolutionist’s method of handling the Word of God. To accept evolution, therefore, is to discredit the Bible.

The Bible makes Christ the Seed of the woman, not of the man, as all other human beings are; it makes His conception to have been that of the Holy Spirit; it declares His virgin birth in language that cannot be misunderstood; it makes Him the Son of God, not the son of Joseph.

It also makes Him God tabernacling in the flesh; it makes Him the Second Person of the Triune God; it declares in so many words that He is God.

Dr. A. C. McGiffert says of Christ, that He is no more divine than we are, or than nature is.

A magazine article on “The Cosmic Coming of the Christ” says: First the little scum on the warm, stagnant water, then the little colonies of cells, the organisms, the green moss and lichen, the beauty of vegetation, the movement of shell fish, sponges, jelly fish, worms, crabs, trilobites, centipedes, insects, fish, frogs, lizards, dinosaurs, reptile birds, birds, kangaroos, mastodons, deer, apes, primitive man, cave man, man of the stone age, of earliest history, Abraham's migration, the Exodus, the development of the Jewish religious life and the climax in that purest of maidens, Mary of Nazareth. The hour had come for the dawn of a new day, and the light of that new day was the birth of Jesus. The eternal purpose of the ages was now to be made clear, and the long, long aeons of creation explained.

It is no wonder that after quoting these words the “Sunday School Times” exclaims: In other words, without moss we could not have had Mary; without an ape we could not have had Abraham; and—shocking blasphemy—without a centipede we could not have had Christ! Praise God, we may turn from this to the words of God; "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will bring to naught."

The Bible says: Without the shedding of blood there is no remission [of sin]. Him who knew no sin He hath made to be sin for us. The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree. We "were redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ." We are "justified by His blood." The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.

These and many other statements make Christ’s death one of atonement by substitution for our sins.

But evolution cannot tolerate such a doctrine. To the evolutionist this is a “doctrine of the shambles,” a “slaughter house religion,” a “gospel of gore.” Christ’s death is rather a revelation of the evolutionist’s conception of divine love, and an example of sacrificial service set before struggling man to help him climb. Let those who believe in the evolutionist’s “historical“ method of interpreting Scripture speak for themselves.

Dr. Walter Rauschenbusch said: What the death of Jesus now does for us, the death of the prophets did for him.

Dr. H. C. Vedder says: Jesus never taught and never authorized anybody to teach in his name that he suffered in our stead and bore the penalty of our sins; and also: The "one crowning absurdity of theology" is "that the penalty of an evil deed can be vicariously borne by another while he goes scot free," which he describes in another place as taking an immunity bath in the "fountain filled with blood."

And Dr. J. H. Coffin, of Earlham College, Earlham, Indiana, says: The sacrificial life of Jesus is the essential factor in His atonement. His principles and example are the way of the individual and society to God.

Such statements make it perfectly evident that those who accept evolution utterly reject God’s provision for salvation through the shed blood of Christ as an atonement by substitution for our sins.

This indicates that man is past improvement in his natural state, for no improvement is possible in the dead.

The Bible therefore speaks, not of the improvement, but of the burial, of the old life, and of resurrection, by the power of a new nature, to newness of life. Hear what it says: We were buried with Christ by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

There is a large section of the Church that understand this passage to refer to immersion in water in confession of faith in Christ. Not that they believe that immersion has anything to do with saving us, for they do not, but that it is the divinely appointed symbol or picture of the salvation that has already become a reality in the life.

And so an immersionist cannot be a consistent evolutionist. For when an evolutionist is immersed, he is either perpetrating a meaningless travesty on immersion, or else he is denying the whole doctrine of evolution. For immersion certainly does not picture a step in the progress of the living, but rather the burial of the totally dead. Immersing churches that have gone over to the evolutionary position should therefore be consistent and nail up their baptistries.

But another large portion of the Church believe that the above passage does not refer to immersion in water, but rather to the statement: For by one Spirit have we all been baptized into one body.

They regard it as referring to the inward, spiritual union with Christ which takes place in the new birth, rather than to an outward act. For in the moment of regeneration, every believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

But even so, the word “buried” still stands in the first passage above, and a burial has to do with the dead, not with the living. Being “buried,” therefore, when the Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ, it is “into death,” not into an enlarging life, because we are so completely dead that the baptizing Spirit sets the “old man” forever aside as utterly unimprovable, in order that He may make us “partakers of the divine nature” by which we become a “new creation” in Christ.

And so the evolutionist assumes the presence of life, and conceives the race to be progressing upward out of crude forms and unethical conceptions toward God. It is perfectly consistent, therefore, that he should seek to stir man’s noble aspirations and should present high ideals for him to strive after. For it is not life man needs, they say, it is simply conversion to higher ideals and aspirations in life.

Hence Dr. E. D. Burton is in perfect harmony with this evolutionary conception when he says: Jesus was a teacher of great principles, which it is incumbent upon us to apply to the multitudinous phases and experiences of life, and the embodiment of an ideal, which it is ours to endeavor, as best we can, to achieve.

Dr. Herbert L. Willett, of the University of Chicago, was also in harmony with all this when he said in an address heard by the writer: It is the task of the Church to interpret to the world the ideals of Jesus for men to strive after.

And Dr. J. H. Coffin also voiced the evolutionary position when, in speaking of conversion, he said: It is conversion to something, namely, the principles of Jesus.

This makes regeneration simply an added impulse in the direction in which men are imagined already to be going. It also has the effect of altogether reversing the emphasis in the work of the Church with the lost. According to Dr. Burton, it transfers it from the salvation of the individual, with emphasis upon rescue from future woe, to the creation of a human society dominated by the spirit of Jesus.

And Dr. Gerald Birney Smith, speaking of present-day missionary methods, says: Humanly determined programs are being substituted for dogmatic decrees in the work of the churches. This is genuine democracy. The missionary enterprise is rapidly being conceived as a democratic social program rather than as the rescue of a few individuals from the divine wrath.... Education is coming to be a primary means of accomplishing the missionary task.

Such a mission to the lost would be altogether unthinkable if men were believed to be spiritually dead. For dead men are helpless to adopt principles and strive after ideals. Dead men do not need education, they need life.

These two programs are mutually exclusive. Thus the evolutionary philosophy utterly destroys the doctrine of the new birth.

Le Conte says: If evolution be true, and especially if man be indeed a product of evolution, then what we call evil is not a unique phenomenon confined to man and the result of an accident [the fall], but must be a great fact pervading all nature and a part of its very constitution.

This puts evolution almost, if not altogether, on the ground of blasphemy! God responsible for the unspeakable woe and the unmeasured suffering of man? God the author of that inherent force in man’s nature which has filled the earth with hatred, violence, bloodshed, and death? Let him think so who can!

After these doctrines of the Word are set beside the evolutionary philosophy, and after it begins to dawn on the thinking mind how utterly irreconcilable they are, the absolute impossibility of a consistent evolutionist believing in an inspired, inerrant, and infallible Bible becomes well nigh an axiom. It is no wonder that Dr. W. B. Riley exclaims: What thinking man fails to see the infinity of space between Modernism and Orthodoxy, or to apprehend the fact that daily they are drawing farther apart! Time holds no promise of even a patched-up peace.

Lord Kelvin was astonished at the preachers and teachers who are trying to apply the doctrine of evolution to the fundamentals of the faith. He said: I marvel at the undue haste with which teachers in our Universities and preachers in our pulpits are restating the truth in the terms of evolution, while evolution itself remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science.