,transcriber's note3 ,text enclosed between underscores was in italics in the original 7italics74 ,text enclosed between equal sings was in bold face in the original 7bold74 ,a list of changes made to the text is at the end of the e-book4 ,,the ,,church ,,the ,,schools and ,,evolution by ,j4 ,e4 ,,conant1 ,d4,d4 ,bible ,teacher and ,evangelist ,author of ,why the ,pastor ,failed1 ,is it ,scholarly to ,be ,orthodox8 ,is ,atonement by ,substitution ,reasonable8 ,divine ,dynamite1 etc4 ,chicago ,the ,bible ,institute ,colportage ,ass'n #hbf ,north ,la ,salle ,street ,copyright1 #aibb by ,j4 ,e4 ,conant ,,foreword ,the following pages have grown out of a paper1 following the same outline more briefly1 which was read before the ,pastors' ,conference of the ,san ,juaquin ,valley ,baptist ,association1 the largest association in the ,northern ,california ,baptist ,convention4 ,at the close of the reading a request for its publication was enthusiastically and unanimously voted4 ,the author has since divided the paper into two chapters2 in the first chapter has added to and classified the quotations concerning evolution1 has enlarged the remarks on the influence of evolution on ,scripture doctrine1 and has both enlarged upon and entirely rearranged the matter of the second chapter1 in an attempt to make it both more obvious and more conclusive to the reader than it was felt to be to the hearers4 ,the term ,church in the following pages is intended to cover that fellowship1 of every name1 which includes all who have been really born again4 ,when organized church fellowship is referred to1 the whole evangelical ,protestant fellowship in general is meant1 as distinguished from ,roman ,catholic1 ,greek church1 or any other non-evangelical faith1 although true ,christians are to be found within every fellowship4 ,the term ,schools1 in its larger meaning1 includes all institutions of learning maintained at private1 denominational1 or public expense2 more specifically1 those dominated by the present evolutionary philosophy are meant4 ,with notable exceptions in a few schools that refuse to be so dominated1 the whole educational system in general1 especially in the ,northern ,states1 has practically capitulated to the evolutionists1 and the schools that have so surrendered are particularly in mind in the following discussion4 ,it is but a humble effort to point out what is obviously the only possible solution for the present distressing and destructive controversy between the ,church and the ,schools1 but the author fondly hopes that it will prove to be a real1 even though small1 contribution toward the ending of that controversy4 ,it is sent out with the prayer that ,he who is ,truth incarnate may lead those in both the ,church and the ,schools who really want to know the truth at all cost to a common attitude toward ,himself1 to a common1 because truly scientific1 method of investigating truth in both the natural and the spiritual realms1 and therefore to a common goal which will unite them against all those forces that seek to capture both the ,church and the ,schools for the enemy4 ,j4 ,e4 ,conant4 ,,contents ,,chapter ,i ,,the ,,present ,,controversy--,,the ,,cause ,page ,i4 ,the ,theory of ,evolution is ,unproven #aa #a4 ,the ,testimony for ,evolution #ab #b4 ,the ,testimony ,against ,evolution a4 ,in the ,biological ,realm2 7i7 ,the ,doctrine of ,natural ,selection2 7ii7 ,the ,doctrine of ,acquired ,characters2 7iii7 ,the ,biogenetic ,law #ad b4 ,in the ,geological ,realm #ai c4 ,the ,whole ,theory in ,general #bj ,,ii4 ,the ,logic of ,evolution is ,destructive #bc #a4 ,evolution and ,inspiration #bc #b4 ,evolution and the ,fall of ,man #bf #c4 ,evolution and the ,nature of ,sin #bi #d4 ,evolution and the ,nature of ,christ #cb #e4 ,evolution and the ,atonement #cd #f4 ,evolution and the ,new ,birth #ce #g4 ,evolution and the ,holiness of ,god #dj ,,chapter ,,ii ,,the ,,present ,,controversy--,,the ,,cure ,i4 ,truth ,must be ,classified ,scientifically #df #a4 ,the ,realms of ,truth ,must be ,classified #df #b4 ,the ,faculties of ,investigation ,must be ,distinguished #dg #c4 ,the ,different ,kinds of ,truth ,must be ,separated #eb #d4 ,the ,primacy of ,primary ,truth ,must be ,maintained #eb ,,ii4 ,truth ,must be ,investigated ,scientifically #ee #a4 ,faith ,must be ,given ,precedence ,over ,reason #ee a4 ,the ,method of the ,rationalist #ef b4 ,the ,method of the ,believer #fa #b4 ,the ,spiritual ,realm ,must be ,given ,primacy ,over the ,natural #fh a4 ,by ,surrendering the ,heart to ,god #gj b4 ,by ,interpreting ,natural ,truth in the ,light of the ,bible #gf ,the ,church1 the ,schools and ,evolution ,,chapter ,i ,the ,present ,controversy--the ,cause ,it must be so self-evident as to be axiomatic that there are two distinct realms in ,god's universe4 ,one is the realm that contains the ,creator1 and the other that which contains ,his creation4 ,of course1 if we are pantheists1 we will not admit that classification2 but those who believe and accept the ,word of ,god are not pantheists4 ,it is inevitable1 therefore1 that the facts1 the verities1 the truths of the universe should be classified according to their realms2 those having to do with the ,person and relationships of the ,creator being separable into one realm1 and those having to do with ,his creation into another4 ,that this classification is universally recognized1 is a matter of common knowledge4 ,that class of truth which has to do with ,god we call supernatural1 or spiritual1 truth1 and that which relates to ,his creation we call natural1 or scientific1 truth4 ,it is precisely because of this classification that there are two separate institutions in the world1 each of which is working in one of these realms4 ,the ,church accepts it as her function to receive and propagate spiritual truth1 as ,god has revealed ,himself in ,his character2 while the ,schools accept it as their function to study and teach scientific truth1 as ,god has revealed ,himself in ,his works4 ,this is the entire logic of the existence in the world of these two separate institutions1 both of which are engaged in the investigation and propagation of truth4 ,but although the ,church and the ,schools are entirely separate institutions1 and although they are engaged1 one in the spread of spiritual truth and the other in the diffusion of scientific truth1 yet truth is an eternal unity4 ,this must be so1 in the nature of things1 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 expression4 ,conflict between these two realms of truth is1 therefore1 eternally impossible4 ,men talk of a conflict between science and the ,bible1 but no such conflict exists4 ,if there is any contradiction1 it is not between the statements of ,scripture and the facts of science1 but between the false interpretations of ,scripture and the immature conclusions of science4 ,herbert ,spencer was right when he said3 ,it is incredible that there should be two orders of truth in absolute and everlasting opposition4 ,not until ,god begins to contradict ,himself will these two realms of truth ever be in conflict with each other4 ,the ,church and the ,schools1 then1 can never be in conflict until some abnormal condition creeps into the one or the other2 for1 although working in different realms of truth1 each is yet receiving revelations of the one ,god who can never be in conflict with ,himself4 ,when these two institutions are in normal condition1 each will not only not destroy the work of the other1 but each will make every possible contribution to the success of the other1 and antagonism between them will be impossible4 ,when conflict occurs1 therefore1 it is because the teachers in one realm or in both have not arrived at the truth in their respective realms4 ,and so when the ,church denies the facts--not the unproven theories1 notice1 but the clearly demonstrated facts--of science1 something is wrong with the ,church4 ,and when the ,schools put forth theories that undermine the very foundations of the ,church and her work1 there is something wrong with the ,schools4 ,now it is no secret that the ,church and the ,schools1 broadly speaking1 are in serious conflict with each other today4 ,where lies the cause8 ,if the ,church is denying and fighting the demonstrated facts of science1 then the ,church is clearly at fault and ought to get right at once4 ,but this is not so1 for the conflict is altogether over unproven theories1 and has nothing to do with demonstrated scientific facts4 ,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 is4 ,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 ,evolution4 ,this lies at the heart of the opposition that each of these great institutions feels toward the other4 ,it is true that a certain amount of the trouble arises from misunderstanding1 because the term evolution is used in so many loose1 illogical1 and unscientific ways2 but back of all misuse of the term there is a fundamental cause on which this antagonism rests1 and that cause is found in the nature of the theory and its effects on those who consistently believe it4 ,the technical meaning of the term may be said to be a structural change in the direction of development into higher forms of existence1 brought about by internal force without external aid4 ,there is also a scientific classification of the subject1 into sub-organic1 organic1 and super-organic evolution4 ,sub-organic evolution applies to the development of non-living matter2 organic1 to the development of vegetable and animal life2 and super-organic1 to the development of intellectual1 moral1 and spiritual life4 ,but while the subject is thus classified for convenience1 it is all one doctrine1 and is meant to describe one process of development from the non-living realm to the spiritual4 ,there is also one theory which is called causal1 and another which is called modal1 evolution4 ,according to the former1 evolution is the first cause of all life1 which1 of course1 excludes ,god as the ,first ,cause2 and according to the latter1 evolution is the mode1 or method1 used by ,god in creation4 ,now1 the ,church has vital reasons for fighting this philosophical guess4 ,one reason is1 that it is entirely unsupported by facts1 and is therefore altogether unproven4 ,but if this were the only reason1 the ,church could be convicted of the supreme folly of her entire history1 for turning aside to fight an unproven guess4 ,a more vital reason is that the theory does not stop with the natural realm1 but goes right on up into the realm of spiritual truth1 and assumes to pronounce on the most vital spiritual realities in such a way that the logic of the theory1 if consistently accepted1 utterly destroys both the foundations of the ,church and the content of the ,gospel4 ,indeed1 evolution has been proclaimed to the world as the ally of a philosophy which boasts of its capacity to drive ,christianity out of existence4 ,for the ,church1 therefore1 to fail to fight a theory that strikes at her very vitals would be to become a traitor to the ,lord who bought her and sent her into the world to preach ,his gospel4 ,and so she is compelled to choose between submitting to an unproven and destructive theory1 which has never saved any one who has believed it1 and preaching the gospel of ,god's grace1 which has infallibly saved every one who has believed it4 ,the true ,church is fighting the theory of evolution in order that the message she is commissioned to preach may not be rendered of no effect by a non-belligerent attitude toward it being mistaken for approval of it4 ,not only the fact that the theory is entirely unproven1 but also and more particularly the nature of its influence on faith in the ,bible compels the ,church to reckon with it4 ,we will go into these two reasons for antagonizing this speculative guess4 ,i4 ,the ,theory of ,evolution is ,unproven4 ,the reason we reflect on this for a few moments lies in what has already been said4 ,if evolution is a fact1 then for the ,church to refuse it and fight against it would be to fight against ,god1 which ought to bring her to swift judgment for her mad folly4 ,but if it is only an unproven theory1 then she is justified if she has good reasons for fighting its propagation4 ,we will therefore note what the scientists themselves have to say regarding the theory4 #a4 ,testimony for ,evolution4 ,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 fact4 ,a few representative quotations from that class will suffice4 ,dr4 ,p4 ,c4 ,mitchell says1 in a late edition of the ,encyclopedia ,britannica3 ,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 evolution4 ,prof4 ,s4 ,c4 ,schmucker1 of the ,west ,chester1 ,pennsylvania1 ,state ,normal ,school1 in his book1 ,the ,meaning of ,evolution1 says3 ,among students of animals and plants there is no longer any question as to the truth of evolution4 ,that the animals of the present are the altered animals of the past1 that the plants of today are the modified plants of yesterday1 that civilized man of today is the savage of yesterday and the tree dweller of the day before1 is no longer debatable to the mass of biologists4 ,professor ,fish1 then of ,denison ,university1 ,granville1 ,ohio1 not long ago dictated to his class1 of which the writer's daughter was a member1 the following statement3 ,organic evolution is the key to all biological thinking of today4 ,it is not a theory but a fact1 because the main facts are true4 ,man is the off-spring of the lower animals1 and the ancestry can be traced back to the simplest forms of animals known4 ,all medical research takes that fact into account4 ,prof4 ,s4 ,w4 ,williston1 department of paleontology1 ,university of ,chicago1 says3 ,i know of no biologist1 whether of high or low degree1 master or tyro1 who ventures to suggest a doubt as to the fundamental truths of organic evolution4 ,prof4 ,william ,patten1 department of biology and zoology1 ,dartmouth ,college1 says3 ,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 science4 ,prof4 ,charles ,b4 ,davenport1 department of experimental evolution1 ,carnegie ,institute1 ,washington1 ,d4 ,c41 says3 ,i do not know of a single modern scientific man who does not believe in evolution4 ,and ,prof4 ,frank ,r4 ,lillie1 department of embryology1 ,university of ,chicago1 says3 ,i feel pretty impatient over the statements of certain religious teachers that evolution has collapsed4 ,these statements are sufficiently representative to indicate the attitude toward the theory of evolution of a great section of the scientific world today1 including many science teachers in schools founded and endowed by the ,church for the giving of ,christian education4 ,but it is not true that the theory is universally accepted or even scientifically proved to be a fact4 ,let a few scientists of at least equal eminence with those quoted above bear their testimony4 #b4 ,testimony ,against ,evolution4 ,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 us4 ,the so-called proofs of evolution are derived from both the biological and the geological realms of natural science4 a4 ,we will consider1 first1 the so-called proofs taken from the biological realm4 ,darwin's theory was arrived at from data taken from the biological realm1 and consists of two doctrines4 ,one is the doctrine of natural selection1 which was his own personal contribution to the discussion1 and the other is that of the inheritance of acquired characters1 which he borrowed from ,lamarck4 ,the former is the doctrine meant when pure ,darwinism is referred to4 7i74 ,the ,doctrine of ,natural ,selection4 ,darwin himself said3 ,we cannot prove that a single species has changed1 and1 also1 ,many of the objections to the hypothesis of evolution are so serious ,i can hardly reflect on them without being staggered4 ,dr4 ,n4 ,s4 ,shaler1 department of geology1 ,harvard1 says3 ,it begins to be evident that the ,darwinian hypothesis is still essentially unverified4444 ,it is not yet proven that a single species of the two or three million now inhabiting the earth had been established solely or mainly by the operation of natural selection4 ,professor ,fleischmann1 of ,erlangen1 has said3 ,the ,darwinian theory of descent has in the realms of nature not a single fact to confirm it4 ,it is not the result of scientific research1 but purely the product of the imagination4 ,and ,john ,burroughs1 although an evolutionist up to his recent death1 said of ,darwin1 in the ,august1 #aibj1 ,atlantic ,monthly3 ,he has already been as completely shorn of his selection doctrines as ,samson was shorn of his locks4 ,if these statements from scientific men mean anything at all1 they mean1 at least1 that pure ,darwinism is altogether unproven1 if not that it is dead4 7ii74 ,the ,doctrine of ,acquired ,characters4 ,spencer made this doctrine the fundamental one in his evolutionary philosophy4 ,its importance was so vital to him that he said3 ,close contemplation of the facts impresses me more strongly than ever with the two alternatives--either there has been inheritance of acquired characters1 or there has been no evolution4 ,it is of great interest1 therefore1 to note what competent scientists have said about this doctrine4 ,dr4 ,thomas ,hunt ,morgan1 department of science1 ,columbia ,university1 says3 ,today the theory has few followers among trained investigators1 but it still has a popular vogue that is wide-spread and vociferous4 ,alfred ,russell ,wallace1 in his ,autobiography1 said3 ,all the available evidence is opposed to the doctrine of acquired characters4 ,prof4 ,william ,bateson1 in his #aiad ,presidential ,address before the ,british ,association for the ,advancement of ,science1 said3 ,we have done with the notion that ,darwin came latterly to favor1 that large differences can arise by the accumulation of small differences4 ,he also remarks that the new knowledge of heredity shows that whatever evolution there is occurs by loss of factors and not by gain1 and that in this way the progress of science is destroying much that till lately passed for gospel4 ,and commenting on these remarks of ,bateson1 ,prof4 ,s4 ,c4 ,holmes1 of the ,university of ,california1 says they are an illustration of the bankruptcy of the present evolutionary theory4 ,then ,prof4 ,george ,mc,cready ,price1 department of geology1 ,pacific ,union ,college1 ,helena1 ,california1 has said very recently3 ,it has long since been definitely settled that acquired characters are not transmitted in heredity4 ,and in another place he exclaims3 ,if cells did not maintain their ancestral character in a very remarkable way1 what would be the use of grafting a good kind of fruit on to a stock of poorer quality8 ,the very permanency of the graft thus produced is proof of the persistency with which the cells reproduce only after their kind4 ,then in speaking of ,mendel's discoveries in the realm of heredity1 and which have now become scientifically demonstrated laws1 he says that the whole foundation of biological evolution has been completely undermined by these new discoveries4 ,and he sums up the conclusions to which present-day scientists are coming1 in the words3 ,the principles of heredity1 as now understood1 have brought us back to that great truth which is given in the first chapter of our ,bible1 that each form of plant or animal was designed by the ,creator to reproduce only after its kind4 ,the one who accepts this testimony1 therefore1 is compelled to conclude that the doctrine of acquired characters is also dead4 7iii74 ,the ,biogenetic ,law4 ,in addition to the two forms of the theory above noted1 ,haeckel added emphasis to these so-called biological proofs by putting forth a doctrine that came to be called the biogenetic law1 even though it was nothing but a hypothesis4 ,it was called the recapitulation theory1 because it was imagined that the developing human embryo recapitulates or passes through successive stages of the more mature forms of some of the lower animals4 ,concerning this theory ,dr4 ,a4 ,weber1 ,university of ,geneva1 ,switzerland1 said in the ,scientific ,american ,monthly for ,february1 #aiba3 ,the critical comments of such men as ,o4 ,hertwig1 ,kiebel1 and ,vialleton1 indeed1 have practically torn to shreds the aforesaid fundamental biogenetic law4 ,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 relationships4 ,so it would seem that if this form of the theory is utterly destitute of proof1 the whole biological foundation of the theory is gone4 ,it is perfectly in harmony with scientific testimony1 therefore1 that ,professor ,price says concerning this phase of the theory3 ,the science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution4 ,today1 for every careful1 candid inquirer1 these hopes are crushed2 and with weary1 reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the ,church has probably been right all the time4 ,if these men have borne faithful testimony to the situation as it now exists in the biological realm1 the only conclusion possible is that the borrowed portion of ,darwin's theory has also utterly collapsed4 ,it is passing strange1 in view of these facts1 that competent and scholarly men of science should still cling to a theory so utterly discredited by eminent scientists4 ,is it because they are determined to believe in evolution in spite of such evidence to the contrary1 or is it because there is still left a foundation for the doctrine lying back of all this which has not yet been disturbed1 even though the biological clues have all run out1 as ,professor ,price says they have8 ,the supposed evidence of geology1 with its theories of uniformity and successive ages1 forms precisely such a foundation4 b4 ,we will consider1 therefore1 in the next place1 the so-called proofs taken from the geological realm4 ,dr4 ,t4 ,h4 ,morgan1 who was quoted above as against the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters1 rests his faith in the theory of evolution on a geological foundation4 ,he says3 ,the direct evidence furnished by fossil remains is by all odds the strongest evidence we have in favor of organic evolution4 ,has present-day science anything to say about this8 ,in spite of the collapse of the supposed biological proofs1 are there any tangible and scientifically established proofs in the geological realm8 ,professor ,price1 who1 as noted above1 is a geologist1 and therefore speaks according to first-hand knowledge1 shows that fossil remains are deposited over many thousands of square miles in widely separated sections of the earth1 not only in the opposite order from that required to prove the theory of evolution1 but in a great variety of orders1 demonstrating1 as he says1 that they cannot be arranged off into ages1 but that they simply indicate different forms of life that existed side by side4 ,he then exclaims3 ,how much of the earth's crust would we have to find in this upside down order of the fossils1 before we would be convinced that there must be something hopelessly wrong with the theory of ,successive ,ages which drives otherwise competent observers to throw away their common sense and cling desperately to a fantastic theory in the very teeth of such facts8 ,then he tells us that the theory of ,successive ,ages1 with the forms of life appearing on earth in a precise and invariable order1 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 proved4 ,and he concludes that the work of strict inductive science has destroyed this fantastic scheme forever1 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 ,bible4 ,if these statements have any meaning at all1 they can mean only that the geological foundation for the theory of evolution has also collapsed4 c4 ,it remains for us to listen to the testimony of a few more men of science concerning the whole theory of evolution in general4 ,professor ,virchow1 the greatest ,german authority on physiology1 and once a strong advocate of the theory1 has said3 ,it is all nonsense4 ,it cannot be proved by science that man descends from the ape or from any other animal4 ,since the announcement of the theory1 all real scientific knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction4 ,professor ,tyndall1 in an article in the ,fortnightly ,review1 said3 ,there ought to be a clear distinction made between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact4 ,and inasmuch as it is still in its hypothetical stage1 the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution4 ,i agree with ,virchow that the proofs of it are still wanting1 that the failures have been lamentable1 and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited4 ,prof4 ,l4 ,s4 ,beal1 physiologist and professor of anatomy in ,king's ,college1 ,london1 says3 ,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 life1 and so onward to the higher and more complex1 has not the slightest evidence from the facts of any section of living nature of which anything is known4 ,professor ,zoeckler1 of the ,university of ,greifswald1 says3 ,the claim that the hypothesis of descent is scientifically secured must most decidedly be denied4 ,de,cyon1 the ,russian scientist1 says3 ,evolution is pure assumption4 ,prof4 ,george ,mc,cready ,price says3 ,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 blunders1 or mistakes1 or hasty conclusions of one kind or another4 ,and ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson says3 ,the evolution doctrine itself is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity4 ,it is a system destitute of any shadow of proof1 and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech1 and by the arbitrary and artificial coherence of its parts4 ,and he concludes that it is surpassingly strange that such a theory should find adherents4 ,to this list might be added such names as those of ,professor ,henslow1 former ,president of the ,british ,association2 ,prof4 ,c4 ,c4 ,everett1 of ,harvard2 ,dr4 ,e4 ,dennert2 ,dr4 ,goette2 ,prof4 ,edward ,hoppe1 the ,hamburg ,savant2 ,professor ,paulson1 of ,berlin2 ,professor ,rutemeyer1 of ,basel2 and ,prof4 ,max ,wundt1 of ,leipsic4 ,after all this contrary testimony on the part of such unquestioned authorities1 we are forced to conclude not only that the testimony for evolution is far from unanimous1 but also that the theory is altogether unproven1 and that it is therefore utterly unscientific to teach it as a fact1 especially when those who do so furnish us with no direct evidence whatever4 ,so long1 therefore1 as there is an unbridged gulf in the sub-organic realm between nothing and matter1 in the organic realm between the non-living and the living1 and in the super-organic realm between animals and man1 the ,church cannot be blamed for being scientific enough to refuse to accept such an unproven and discredited theory1 at least until a few facts are forthcoming4 ,until then we must conclude that all the proofs the scientists can furnish rest altogether on inferences and assumptions4 ,when evolutionists can produce matter from nothing or increase energy by any natural means known to man1 or bring forth the living from the non-living1 or bring into existence even one new and distinct species1 then they will be in a position to compel the ,church to listen to proofs2 but until then the ,church is forced to reject evolution4 ,the most serious aspect of the controversy1 however1 lies in the second objection mentioned above4 ,,ii4 ,the ,logic of ,evolution ,is ,destructive4 ,it is destructive of all the fundamental doctrines the ,church was sent into the world to preach4 #a4 ,it destroys the doctrine of the inspiration of the ,bible1 by denying its inerrancy and infallible and final authority4 ,over and again in the early verses of ,genesis we are told that ,god created the various species to reproduce after their kind4 ,but evolution says that this is not true1 for as a matter of fact1 the various species have continuously evolved from one to another all the way to man4 ,to a mind that is working normally1 these two propositions are mutually exclusive4 ,and so those who retain their intellectual integrity and consistency1 and who therefore cannot accept two contradictory propositions at the same time1 are compelled to make a choice between them4 ,huxley saw this when he said3 ,the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation4 ,evolution1 if consistently accepted1 makes it impossible to believe the ,bible4 ,when ,professor ,schmucker2 therefore1 speaks of the creation story as the poetical account of ,genesis2 when ,dr4 ,s4 ,b4 ,meeser1 of ,crozer ,theological ,seminary1 describes the ,scriptures as the survivals of the fittest of those communion experiences which men1 who have lived intensely in the moral interest1 have had with ,god2 when ,dr4 ,h4 ,c4 ,vedder1 of the same seminary1 says the ,scriptures grew in 444 accuracy as they were written2 when ,dr4 ,w4 ,h4 ,p4 ,faunce1 ,president of ,brown ,university1 can say3 ,mr4 ,gladstone's last book is called ,the ,impregnable ,rock of ,holy ,scripture4 ,the very title shows a conception of the ,bible at the farthest removed from the present ,biblical scholarship1 to which the ,bible is a growth1 not a rock2 when ,dr4 ,ernest ,d4 ,burton1 of the ,university of ,chicago1 says3 ,some among us have been constrained to admit that the books of the ,bible are not infallible in history or in matters of science1 and not wholly consistent and therefore not ultimately and as a whole inerrant in the field of morals and religion2 and when ,dr4 ,shailer ,mathews1 of the same ,university1 urges us to think the gospel in terms of evolution1 and then shows us what that means to him when he says3 ,for in the ,new ,testament there are conceptions which the modern world under the dominance of science at the heart of which lies the evolutionary philosophy finds it impossible to understand1 much less to believe2 these men are simply demonstrating the fact that they still retain their intellectual integrity and consistency1 and that they are therefore entirely unable to accept the doctrine of evolution and believe in an inerrant ,bible at the same time4 ,that is1 the logic of the doctrine of evolution destroys for them the faith that1 in its original manuscripts1 the ,bible as it came from ,god to man was truth unmixed with error1 with the resulting confidence that ,he who gave it has preserved it to us by ,his providence essentially as it was given4 ,this means that these men and all who agree with them have rejected that ,word which is forever settled in heaven1 in order to accept a hypothesis which is never settled on earth2 that they have given up the ,book which has stood unchanged through the centuries against every conceivable form of assault1 and taken in its place a set of scientific speculations that have either to be revised or discarded for new speculations every few years2 that they have turned from an inspired1 inerrant and authoritative revelation of ,god1 and turned to an unproven theory which makes the ,bible a human document1 of supreme value1 so they say1 as unfolding the religious evolution of the race1 but full of errors because of the human element in it4 ,the result of this is the so-called scientific or historical method of interpreting the ,bible1 which means1 to quote ,dr4 ,meeser1 that while the ,scriptures have the wisdom of experts in religion1 yet authority is scarcely the term to describe their value1 and may1 when applied to them1 obscure their real character4 ,but why make all this ado about it1 say the evolutionists2 it is all simply a question of interpretation4 ,that is absolutely right4 ,it is the interpretation of the evolutionists set in opposition to that of the ,holy ,spirit2 and the true ,church1 compelled to make a choice1 takes that of the ,holy ,spirit4 #b4 ,the logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of the fall of man and its result in total depravity4 ,after an address somewhat along these lines in one of the largest normal schools in the world1 the science professor said to the writer1 ,yes1 but you know there is evolution and evolution4 ,that is indeed true4 ,we are all aware of the fact that there are various kinds1 shapes1 and colors of evolution1 from theistic to atheistic2 but the fact still remains that every theory is still evolution1 and that any theory of evolution whatsoever1 if it means anything at all1 means steady progress from lower to higher4 ,progress is certainly the one thought that is vital to any definition of evolution1 and progress downward is excluded by the very meaning of the word1 and so evolution under any theory can mean nothing but progress upward4 ,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 ,god1 that he is not only not subject to the law of ,god1 but is utterly incapable of bringing himself into subjection to it4 ,and the experience of every ,christian gives sorrowful but certain evidence to that fact4 ,this condition the ,bible describes as being dead in sin4 ,and since death is not death at all until it is total1 man1 therefore1 being dead1 is totally dead--and this is total depravity4 ,this means that the only progress possible to man in his natural state is progress in corruption4 ,for total depravity1 which is total spiritual death1 does not mean that the last limit of corruption has been reached1 but that while death is total1 corruption may have just begun4 ,the reality of the natural man's spiritual death is abundantly illustrated in human history4 ,after man fell into sin1 and died1 he was given fullest opportunity to recover himself and to demonstrate thereby that he was still spiritually alive4 ,but the corruption of spiritual death worked until man was so far down in the filth of his moral putrefaction that the only way ,god could save the race from extinction was to save the one family that had accepted spiritual life from ,him1 and blot the rest of the race out in the flood4 ,then1 starting out again under more favorable circumstances than before1 man went from bad to worse until1 in one great universal brotherhood1 he rose up and defied ,god at the ,tower of ,babel1 and ,god had to smash the brotherhood into fragments by the confusion of languages4 ,time after time ,god tried man and found his progress downward always1 no matter how favorable the circumstances that surrounded him1 until finally he came to earth ,himself in the ,person of ,his ,son4 ,this brought both the reality and the completeness of man's spiritual death to a demonstration that can never be refuted1 for at the cross man displayed1 to its eternal uncovering1 the awful corruption of that spiritual condition that could not tolerate in its presence incarnate purity and holiness1 even though he had to become the murderer of ,god manifest in the flesh to get away from it4 ,even in his worship man's progress is steadily downward4 ,beginning with ,god1 he progresses downward until he is worshipping birds1 then beasts1 and then creeping things4 ,but evolution says that man is coming up from primitive conditions into fuller life4 ,and so the evolutionist cannot tolerate such doctrines as these which the ,word of ,god sets forth4 ,to a consistent evolutionist1 man is not spiritually dead1 for that would make progress out of the question4 ,and if progress upward is denied--if the only progress possible to the natural man is progress in corruption1 then the whole doctrine of evolution is gone4 ,this is why it becomes necessary for ,canon ,e4 ,w4 ,barnes1 of ,westminster ,abbey1 when he accepts evolution1 to reject the ,bible4 ,he says3 ,the inevitable acceptance of evolution means giving up belief in the fall and in all the theology built upon it by the theologians from ,st4 ,paul onward4 ,man was not made perfect and then marred2 his evolution is still proceeding4 ,so here again it is utterly impossible for the consistent evolutionist to accept the ,bible doctrine of the fall of man4 #c4 ,the logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of sin4 ,the ,bible makes man's fall deliberate and wilful1 and his continued attitude of sinful enmity against ,god1 in spite of all ,god's offered power to change it into love1 one of excuseless lawlessness and rebellion4 ,this makes man entirely responsible for his sin and accountable to ,god for everything sin does in his life4 ,and so the ,bible says3 ,every one shall give account of himself to ,god4 ,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 punishment1 where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth4 ,but to the evolutionary philosophy1 sin cannot be exceeding sinful1 for it is either inherent in the process of evolution1 or1 at worst1 but an unfortunate slip in the working out of that process1 if1 indeed1 it is not even a mark of budding virtue4 ,john ,fiske says3 ,theology has much to say about original sin4 ,this original sin is neither more nor less than the brute inheritance that every man carries with him4 ,rev4 ,dwight ,bradley1 a ,cleveland1 ,ohio1 pastor1 says3 ,there is no escape for intelligent people today from the acceptance of the law of evolution4444 ,it follows that what we call evil sin is the remains of a lower form of life4444 ,we are in the midst of the slow process of ridding ourselves of our animal inheritance4 ,and ,dr4 ,shailer ,mathews follows the evolutionary philosophy to its logical and necessary end when he says3 ,but for men who think of ,god as dynamically imminent in an infinite universe1 who think of man's relation to ,him as determined not by statutory but by cosmic law1 who regard sin and righteousness alike as the working out of the fundamental forces of life itself1 the conception of ,god as ,king and of man as condemned or acquitted subject is but a figure of speech4 ,such a doctrine as this absolutely and forever destroys man's responsibility for sin4 ,for if sin is what ,dr4 ,mathews suggests it is1--the working out of the fundamental forces of life itself1--then it is inherent in man's natural constitution as a process of his evolution4 ,and if this is so1 man is in no way responsible for his sin4 ,this altogether removes man's accountability to ,god1 for he cannot be brought to account for that which is the working out of the fundamental forces of life itself1 and which is therefore inevitable in the very workings of his nature4 ,and even if sin is an unfortunate slip in the process of evolution1 man cannot be held accountable for an accident4 ,this doctrine also puts a high premium on the whole beastly1 selfish1 lustful1 murderous history of the race1 for it makes sin a ladder up which man is climbing to his high destiny4 ,punishment for sin is therefore absolutely out of the question4 ,for if man is not responsible for his sin1 and if ,god punishes him for it1 as the ,bible says ,he will1 even by the law of cause and effect1 that would make ,god an infinite tyrant and an unspeakable fiend4 ,and so if ,god is not a monster1 and if evolution is true1 there is no punishment for sin1 and the ,bible lies4 ,thinking men see that this is the inevitable logic of the doctrine of evolution4 ,sir ,j4 ,william ,dawson1 speaking of the evolutionary doctrines as speculations1 says3 ,they seek to revolutionize the religious beliefs of the world1 and if accepted would destroy much of the existing theology and philosophy4444 ,with one class of minds they constitute a sort of religion4444 ,with another and perhaps larger class1 they are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter4 ,the theory of evolution cannot be consistently held and the statements of the ,bible concerning sin and its consequences be accepted at the same time4 ,and so the evolutionist will come1 sooner or later1 to refuse any meaning to ,scripture statements concerning sin1 as did ,dr4 ,w4 ,n4 ,clarke1 when he said3 ,we have no historical narrative of the beginning of sin1 and theology receives from the ,scriptures no record of that beginning4 ,that is1 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 standpoint1 which is the evolutionist's method of handling the ,word of ,god4 ,to accept evolution1 therefore1 is to discredit the ,bible4 #d4 ,the logic of evolution destroys the doctrines of the ,deity and the virgin birth of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,the ,bible makes ,christ the ,seed of the woman1 not of the man1 as all other human beings are2 it makes ,his conception to have been that of the ,holy ,spirit2 it declares ,his virgin birth in language that cannot be misunderstood2 it makes ,him the ,son of ,god1 not the son of ,joseph4 ,it also makes ,him ,god tabernacling in the flesh2 it makes ,him the ,second ,person of the ,triune ,god2 it declares in so many words that ,he is ,god4 ,but evolution cannot accept such a doctrine1 and so the evolutionist juggles the ,scripture statements of ,his ,deity and denies ,his virgin birth1 making ,him a ,jewish bastard1 born out of wedlock1 and stained forever with the shame of ,his mother's immorality4 ,dr4 ,a4 ,c4 ,mc,giffert says of ,christ1 that ,he is no more divine than we are1 or than nature is4 ,a magazine article on ,the ,cosmic ,coming of the ,christ says3 ,first the little scum on the warm1 stagnant water1 then the little colonies of cells1 the organisms1 the green moss and lichen1 the beauty of vegetation1 the movement of shell fish1 sponges1 jelly fish1 worms1 crabs1 trilobites1 centipedes1 insects1 fish1 frogs1 lizards1 dinosaurs1 reptile birds1 birds1 kangaroos1 mastodons1 deer1 apes1 primitive man1 cave man1 man of the stone age1 of earliest history1 ,abraham's migration1 the ,exodus1 the development of the ,jewish religious life and the climax in that purest of maidens1 ,mary of ,nazareth4 ,the hour had come for the dawn of a new day1 and the light of that new day was the birth of ,jesus4 ,the eternal purpose of the ages was now to be made clear1 and the long1 long aeons of creation explained4 ,it is no wonder that after quoting these words the ,sunday ,school ,times exclaims3 ,in other words1 without moss we could not have had ,mary2 without an ape we could not have had ,abraham2 and--shocking blasphemy--without a centipede we could not have had ,christ6 ,praise ,god1 we may turn from this to the words of ,god2 ,for it is written1 ,i will destroy the wisdom of the wise1 and the discernment of the discerning ,i will bring to naught4 ,and so here once more the consistent evolutionist is compelled to reject the ,bible by denying the doctrines of the ,deity and the virgin birth of ,christ4 #e4 ,the logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of atonement by substitution4 ,the ,bible says3 ,without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin4 ,him who knew no sin ,he hath made to be sin for us4 ,the ,lord hath laid on ,him the iniquity of us all4 ,who ,himself bore our sins in ,his own body on the tree4 ,we were redeemed 444 with the precious blood of ,christ4 ,we are justified by ,his blood4 ,the blood of ,jesus ,christ ,his ,son cleanseth us from all sin4 ,these and many other statements make ,christ's death one of atonement by substitution for our sins4 ,but evolution cannot tolerate such a doctrine4 ,to the evolutionist this is a doctrine of the shambles1 a slaughter house religion1 a gospel of gore4 ,christ's death is rather a revelation of the evolutionist's conception of divine love1 and an example of sacrificial service set before struggling man to help him climb4 ,let those who believe in the evolutionist's historical method of interpreting ,scripture speak for themselves4 ,dr4 ,gerald ,birney ,smith1 of the ,university of ,chicago1 says3 ,to insist dogmatically1 as an priori principle1 that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin1 is both foolish and futile in an age that has abandoned the conception of bloody sacrifice and which is loudly demanding the abolition of capital punishment4 ,dr4 ,walter ,rauschenbusch said3 ,what the death of ,jesus now does for us1 the death of the prophets did for him4 ,dr4 ,h4 ,c4 ,vedder says3 ,jesus never taught and never authorized anybody to teach in his name that he suffered in our stead and bore the penalty of our sins2 and also3 ,the one crowning absurdity of theology is that the penalty of an evil deed can be vicariously borne by another while he goes scot free1 which he describes in another place as taking an immunity bath in the fountain filled with blood4 ,and ,dr4 ,j4 ,h4 ,coffin1 of ,earlham ,college1 ,earlham1 ,indiana1 says3 ,the sacrificial life of ,jesus is the essential factor in ,his atonement4 ,his principles and example are the way of the individual and society to ,god4 ,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 sins4 #f4 ,the logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of regeneration4 ,the ,bible describes man as dead to ,god and running away from ,him2 as having a nature so full of corruption that ,from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it1 but wounds1 and bruises1 and putrifying sores2 and as having a character in the grip of such enmity against ,god that by nature he loves darkness rather than light4 ,this indicates that man is past improvement in his natural state1 for no improvement is possible in the dead4 ,the ,bible therefore speaks1 not of the improvement1 but of the burial1 of the old life1 and of resurrection1 by the power of a new nature1 to newness of life4 ,hear what it says3 ,we were buried with ,christ by baptism into death1 that like as ,christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the ,father1 even so we also should walk in newness of life4 ,there is a large section of the ,church that understand this passage to refer to immersion in water in confession of faith in ,christ4 ,not that they believe that immersion has anything to do with saving us1 for they do not1 but that it is the divinely appointed symbol or picture of the salvation that has already become a reality in the life4 ,to an immersionist1 therefore1 when a believer is buried with ,christ in symbol in his baptism1 and raised again in symbol of resurrection1 he confesses1 among other things1 that by his first birth he is so completely dead that there is nothing left to do with him but to bury him1 and his willingness to be buried in the grave of ,christ has been met by ,god with the gift of the risen and incorruptible life which is in ,his ,son1 and by which he is now enabled to walk in newness of life4 ,and so an immersionist cannot be a consistent evolutionist4 ,for when an evolutionist is immersed1 he is either perpetrating a meaningless travesty on immersion1 or else he is denying the whole doctrine of evolution4 ,for immersion certainly does not picture a step in the progress of the living1 but rather the burial of the totally dead4 ,immersing churches that have gone over to the evolutionary position should therefore be consistent and nail up their baptistries4 ,but another large portion of the ,church believe that the above passage does not refer to immersion in water1 but rather to the statement3 ,for by one ,spirit have we all been baptized into one body4 ,they regard it as referring to the inward1 spiritual union with ,christ which takes place in the new birth1 rather than to an outward act4 ,for in the moment of regeneration1 every believer is baptized by the ,holy ,spirit into the ,body of ,christ4 ,but even so1 the word buried still stands in the first passage above1 and a burial has to do with the dead1 not with the living4 ,being buried1 therefore1 when the ,holy ,spirit baptizes us into ,christ1 it is into death1 not into an enlarging life1 because we are so completely dead that the baptizing ,spirit sets the old man forever aside as utterly unimprovable1 in order that ,he may make us partakers of the divine nature by which we become a new creation in ,christ4 ,all this1 however1 is utterly intolerable to the consistent evolutionist4 ,for if man is dead and therefore unimprovable1 that makes progress upward impossible1 and1 if that is impossible1 the whole doctrine of evolution is at an end4 ,and so the evolutionist assumes the presence of life1 and conceives the race to be progressing upward out of crude forms and unethical conceptions toward ,god4 ,it is perfectly consistent1 therefore1 that he should seek to stir man's noble aspirations and should present high ideals for him to strive after4 ,for it is not life man needs1 they say1 it is simply conversion to higher ideals and aspirations in life4 ,hence ,dr4 ,e4 ,d4 ,burton is in perfect harmony with this evolutionary conception when he says3 ,jesus was a teacher of great principles1 which it is incumbent upon us to apply to the multitudinous phases and experiences of life1 and the embodiment of an ideal1 which it is ours to endeavor1 as best we can1 to achieve4 ,dr4 ,herbert ,l4 ,willett1 of the ,university of ,chicago1 was also in harmony with all this when he said in an address heard by the writer3 ,it is the task of the ,church to interpret to the world the ideals of ,jesus for men to strive after4 ,and ,dr4 ,j4 ,h4 ,coffin also voiced the evolutionary position when1 in speaking of conversion1 he said3 ,it is conversion to something1 namely1 the principles of ,jesus4 ,now when the logic of this conception is followed out1 it turns evangelism into religious education4 ,and so it is easy to see why the advocates of evolution are stressing religious education with increasing insistence4 ,for it is through the methods of religious education1 according to ,dr4 ,burton1 that the lost are being led to adopt the principles of ,jesus and to accept his leadership quietly and gradually4 ,this makes regeneration simply an added impulse in the direction in which men are imagined already to be going4 ,it also has the effect of altogether reversing the emphasis in the work of the ,church with the lost4 ,according to ,dr4 ,burton1 it transfers it from the salvation of the individual1 with emphasis upon rescue from future woe1 to the creation of a human society dominated by the spirit of ,jesus4 ,and ,dr4 ,gerald ,birney ,smith1 speaking of present-day missionary methods1 says3 ,humanly determined programs are being substituted for dogmatic decrees in the work of the churches4 ,this is genuine democracy4 ,the missionary enterprise is rapidly being conceived as a democratic social program rather than as the rescue of a few individuals from the divine wrath4444 ,education is coming to be a primary means of accomplishing the missionary task4 ,such a mission to the lost would be altogether unthinkable if men were believed to be spiritually dead4 ,for dead men are helpless to adopt principles and strive after ideals4 ,dead men do not need education1 they need life4 ,any one of average intelligence can see at a glance that these two programs of salvation are headed in opposite directions4 ,by one we strive after an ideal2 by the other we quit all striving and surrender to a ,person4 ,one is salvation by a human resolution to press toward the pattern set before us by the ,flower of the ,race2 the other is salvation by a divine rescue from that natural hatred of purity and holiness which made possible the murder of the ,son of ,god4 ,by one program we adopt the principles and follow the spirit of the life of ,christ2 by the other we trust in the merits of the shed blood and substitutionary death of ,christ4 ,these two programs are mutually exclusive4 ,thus the evolutionary philosophy utterly destroys the doctrine of the new birth4 #g4 ,the logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of the holiness of ,god1 for it makes ,god the author of sin4 ,le ,conte says3 ,if evolution be true1 and especially if man be indeed a product of evolution1 then what we call evil is not a unique phenomenon confined to man and the result of an accident the fall1 but must be a great fact pervading all nature and a part of its very constitution4 ,no thinking man can get away from that conclusion4 ,for if evolution in any form is a fact1 then the thing the ,bible calls sin was either somehow embedded1 by a competent and responsible ,creator1 in man's very constitution as a necessary process of his evolution1 or else it slipped into the race through the bungling and unwatchful incompetence of an impotent ,creator4 ,thus in either case ,god becomes the author of sin6 ,this puts evolution almost1 if not altogether1 on the ground of blasphemy6 ,god responsible for the unspeakable woe and the unmeasured suffering of man8 ,god the author of that inherent force in man's nature which has filled the earth with hatred1 violence1 bloodshed1 and death8 ,let him think so who can6 ,after these doctrines of the ,word are set beside the evolutionary philosophy1 and after it begins to dawn on the thinking mind how utterly irreconcilable they are1 the absolute impossibility of a consistent evolutionist believing in an inspired1 inerrant1 and infallible ,bible becomes well nigh an axiom4 ,it is no wonder that ,dr4 ,w4 ,b4 ,riley exclaims3 ,what thinking man fails to see the infinity of space between ,modernism and ,orthodoxy1 or to apprehend the fact that daily they are drawing farther apart6 ,time holds no promise of even a patched-up peace4 ,lord ,kelvin was astonished at the preachers and teachers who are trying to apply the doctrine of evolution to the fundamentals of the faith4 ,he said3 ,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 evolution1 while evolution itself remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science4 ,and well might he marvel4 ,and well might the ,church become aroused and alarmed as the logical workings of these false doctrines produce more and more fearful results within her ranks4 ,the whole ,church is being moved away from the foundations of the faith1 and this false philosophy is at the bottom of it all4 ,the group announcements of the ,sunday services of the ,los ,angeles liberal churches show where all consistent evolutionists are headed4 ,standing at the head of these announcements are these words1 the capital letters being theirs3 ,we found our faith on the thought of ,,evolution rather than ,special ,creation2 on revelation through ,,normal ,,human ,,experience rather than the supernatural2 on salvation through ,,growth rather than a miraculous rebirth4 ,and when it comes to the awful harvest that is being gathered from our churches for the forces of spiritual destruction through our colleges and universities1 ,william ,jennings ,bryan has had some information given to him that will give us a hint of what is going on4 ,he says3 ,having had opportunity to make a personal investigation1 ,i feel it my duty to warn the lovers of the ,bible of the insidious attacks which are being made upon every vital part of the ,word of ,god4 ,a father tells me of a daughter educated at ,wellesley who calmly informs him that no one believes in the ,bible now2 a teacher in ,columbia ,university begins his lessons in geology by asking students to lay aside all that they have learned in ,sunday-school2 a professor of the ,university of ,wisconsin tells his class that the ,bible is a collection of myths2 a professor of philosophy at ,ann ,arbor occupies a ,sunday evening explaining to an audience that ,christianity is a state of mind and that there are only two books in the ,bible with any literary merit2 another professor in the same institution informs students that he once taught a ,sunday-school class and was active in the ,young ,men's ,christian ,association1 but that no thinking man can believe in ,god or the ,bible2 a woman teacher in a public school in ,indiana rebukes a boy for answering that ,adam was the first man1 explaining to him and the class that the tree man was the first man2 a young man in ,south ,carolina traces his atheism back to two teachers in a ,christian college2 a senior in an ,illinois high school writes that he became skeptical during his sophomore year but has been brought back by influences outside of school while others of his class are agnostics2 a professor in ,yale has the reputation of making atheists of all who come under his influence--this information was given by a boy whose brother has come under the influence of this teacher2 a professor in ,bryn ,mawr combats ,christianity for a session and then puts to his class the question whether or not there is a ,god1 and is happy to find that a majority of the class vote that there is no ,god2 a professor in a ,christian college writes a book in which the virgin birth of ,christ is disputed2 one professor declares that life is merely a by-product and will ultimately be produced in the laboratory2 another says that the ingredients necessary to create life have already been brought together and that life will be developed from these ingredients1 adding1 however1 that it will require a million years to do it4 ,these are a few of the illustrations furnished by informants whom ,i have reason to believe4 ,these facts certainly furnish sufficient reason why the ,church cannot compromise with the evolutionary philosophy4 ,to do so would be to head herself toward destruction4 ,she must stand uncompromised and unflinching against that unproven and discredited theory1 the acceptance of which destroys faith in that infallible and inerrant ,word on which she was founded1 and on whose thus saith the ,lord she must rest her message to a lost world4 ,there is no middle ground4 ,to compromise would be to commit suicide4 ,if the ,church and the ,schools are ever to come into harmony1 it cannot be because the ,church gives up an infallible ,book and accepts a discredited theory in its place1 and so it must be because the ,schools give up this unscientific1 because unproven1 theory and get back to faith in the inerrant ,word of ,god4 ,that this is the only basis on which the ,church and the ,schools can ever come into harmony is strenuously denied by the evolutionists in both ,schools and ,church4 ,but their denial is meaningless when it is remembered that they are working night and day to capture the ,church1 as they have already almost done with the ,schools1 before we wake up to what is going on4 ,but it can never be done4 ,the true ,church will never surrender to those who would remove her foundations and wreck her message4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,the ,present ,controversy--the ,cure ,in the previous pages we went back to the cause of the present controversy between the ,church and the ,schools4 ,we found that the unproven and discredited theory of evolution lies at the bottom of it4 ,we also concluded that no compromise that permits entrance to this theory in any form is possible1 for the truth which is at once both the life and the message of the ,church1 and the theory of evolution1 are mutually exclusive4 ,in this chapter we will seek to find the cure for this distressing controversy4 ,that there is a cure is beyond all possible question4 ,and if it is not found and applied1 the controversy cannot fail to intensify until it may force a re-alignment in the ,church--a thing a great company of the most earnest in the ,church are fighting to prevent4 ,now the only possible basis on which both the ,church and the ,schools can take their stand1 if this controversy is to be settled without final disunion in the ,church1 was laid down by ,christ in that scientific formula3 ,if any man willeth to do ,his will1 he shall know of the teaching1 whether it be of ,god1 or whether ,i speak from ,myself4 ,to follow this formula in our search for common ground is to be utterly scientific1 for it is the laboratory method of experiment4 ,the true ,church has always believed and received the ,bible as the inerrant ,word of ,god1 not because1 in blind credulity1 she has followed some irrational and unscientific impulse1 but precisely because she has been scientific enough to work by this formula and carry the laboratory test to its final analysis4 ,and for the ,schools to follow this same formula with scientific accuracy would be for them to arrive at the same place at which the true ,church has arrived4 ,for when the ,church and the ,schools start out in search of truth and do not arrive together1 it is either because they did not start together1 or because one or both of them did not proceed all the way with scientific exactness4 ,truth is an eternal unity1 and conclusions regarding it that are mutually exclusive and therefore the cause of controversy prove to a demonstration that somebody's methods of investigation were unscientific4 ,if we really intend to be scientific1 therefore1 when we start out to investigate truth of any sort and in any realm1 the first thing we will do will be to classify4 ,we can neither start nor proceed together unless we do4 ,indeed1 if we are to be scientific enough to follow the formula laid down by ,christ1 we will be compelled to classify before we can even begin our investigation4 ,therefore-- ,i4 ,truth ,must ,be ,classified ,scientifically4 #a4 ,the ,realms of ,truth ,must ,be ,classified4 ,the first thing the true scientist does is to classify truth into realms4 ,this we have already done by classifying the realm in which ,god reveals ,his moral character to the hearts of all moral beings as the spiritual realm1 and that in which ,he reveals ,his creative power to the minds of all intelligent beings as the natural realm4 ,if we do not distinguish these realms to start with1 we invite confusion2 and if we should reach right conclusions without this classification1 it would be due to accident1 rather than to scientific accuracy4 ,but that this classification is universally recognized is proved by the fact that the moment science reaches the line where the natural ends and the spiritual begins1 it pursues its investigations no farther1 on the ground that it has neither the implements nor the capacities with which to investigate in that realm4 ,this proves as conclusively as anything could that the distinction between these two realms is so sharp1 as well as so self-evident1 that science is compelled to accept it and act accordingly4 #b4 ,the ,faculties of ,investigation ,must be ,distinguished4 ,the scientific man will next distinguish the faculties with which the investigating is to be done1 according to the respective realms4 ,that this classification is required by the fundamental difference in the nature of the truths in these two realms is so self-evident that it ought to be axiomatic to all who think with any degree of scientific accuracy4 ,for in the nature of things1 natural truth requires investigation by intellectual faculties1 and spiritual truth by spiritual faculties4 ,indeed1 this distinction is fully recognized when science halts its pursuit of truth at the boundary line of the spiritual realm4 ,yet1 although this classification is theoretically recognized by science1 and although it is absolutely demanded if we are to proceed scientifically in our researches in the spiritual realm1 it is little less than amazing how many there are who utterly fail to distinguish these faculties when they start out to investigate spiritual truth4 ,indeed1 this is the first place where the ,church and the ,schools part company4 ,for the whole attitude of our ,schools today1 including most of the institutions founded and fostered by the ,church1 seems to be one that entirely misses the scientific necessity of distinguishing between these essentially different faculties when working in these two utterly divergent realms of truth4 ,and so it comes to pass that while the ,church is using one sort of faculties1 the ,schools are using another kind on the same class of truth4 ,it needs scarcely to be argued that the intellect1 with its capacity to reason1 is the proper faculty of apprehension in the scientific realm4 ,but it is equally true that the heart1 with its capacity to believe1 is the one faculty of apprehension in the spiritual realm4 ,that is1 the inquirer reasons his way to knowledge in the natural realm1 and believes his way to knowledge in the spiritual realm4 ,he uses his mind in order to understand what ,god has done in ,his creation1 and he exercises faith in order to come into the knowledge of what ,he is in ,his character4 ,in natural things he believes because he understands1 and in spiritual things he understands because he believes4 ,in drawing this contrast between mind and heart1 however1 it is fully recognized that the term heart1 in much if not all of ,scripture1 stands for the whole personality1 including intellect1 emotion and will4 ,but it is also a fact that this term stands for that certain attitude of the whole personality toward ,god through ,his ,word in which one believes and receives ,his ,word without question1 even though it may not be understood1 rather than insisting on understanding it in order to believe it4 ,paul says by inspiration in ,first ,corinthians #a3ag to #b3af that mental capacity1 even of the highest excellence1 when exercised by itself1 is utterly incapable of apprehending spiritual truth in any degree whatever4 ,and ,christ says that it is with the heart that man believes unto righteousness4 ,this defines that attitude of the whole personality which accepts the ,word of ,god on faith without necessarily understanding it1 and which gives evidence of acceptance by such a whole-hearted surrender to it as will eventuate in a life of righteousness4 ,then in other ,scriptures we find that a life of righteousness1 according to the divine standard1 is based on right relations with ,god in ,christ through faith in ,his shed blood1 through whose incoming and indwelling life1 in response to such a faith1 the one who receives it will normally live in right relations with his fellow men4 ,that is1 it is a righteousness that is obtained by believing1 not attained by working4 ,it is received1 not achieved4 ,the use of the term heart1 therefore1 in ,scripture1 means that certain attitude of the whole personality toward ,god through ,his ,word which the exercise of the intellect apart from1 and unfounded on1 faith makes impossible4 ,it is precisely this distinction in faculties that ,christ's formula requires4 ,for it was spiritual truth1 not natural1 of which ,he spoke when ,he said1 ,if any man wills to do1 he shall know4 ,to work by this formula requires the exercise of faith4 ,for faith is that attitude of the heart toward the doing of ,god's will which is evidenced in willing to do that will1 no matter what it costs nor where it leads4 ,this is the first step of faith4 ,for faith is both an attitude and an act1 the genuineness of which is proven by an activity4 ,that is1 it is an attitude of willingness toward the will of ,god1 an act of surrender to the will of ,god1 eventuating in an activity in continuing in the will of ,god4 ,therefore complete surrender of the heart and life to ,god's will as revealed in the ,word1 trusting the outcome to ,him1 is where faith begins4 ,and so let no man imagine that he has any real faith either in ,god or ,his ,word who has not begun by willing to do1 that he may enter upon the doing of1 the will of ,god4 ,indeed1 this is not simply the place where faith begins1 it is also the only place where the presence of faith can be demonstrated4 ,for this is the only possible way of distinguishing that intellectual attitude which simply assents to the truthfulness of the ,word1 from that genuine heart faith which actively reckons the ,word to be true by surrendering the life to its requirements4 ,this formula of ,christ's1 therefore1 not only requires that the spiritual and natural faculties be distinguished1 but it is the one scientific test by which they can be distinguished4 ,then there is ,paul's classification of these faculties just referred to4 ,it is passing strange that so many even in our denominational schools have missed it4 ,he devotes a whole section of ,first ,corinthians1 from #a3ag to #b3af1 as noted above1 to a scientific statement of the natural and total incapacity of the intellect to discern spiritual truth4 ,consider it a little more in detail4 ,he says that natural human wisdom1 sophia1 which ,aristotle defines as mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense1 is utterly incapable of operating in the realm of spiritual investigation4 ,for after the world by mental excellence knew not ,god1 it pleased ,god by the foolishness 7to the natural mental capacities7 of the thing preached to save those that believe4 ,not those that understand1 for the natural man receiveth not the things of the ,spirit of ,god 7that is1 spiritual things71 for they are foolishness unto him2 neither can he know 7or understand7 them1 for they are spiritually discerned 7or understood74 ,the essential difference between natural and spiritual faculties1 as well as the utter incapacity of the natural faculties in the spiritual realm1 are so clearly brought out in this passage that it is impossible to miss it4 ,by this it is not at all meant1 however1 that mental training and intellectual capacity have no place in certain branches of ,bible study4 ,every believer in the ,book welcomes the keenest minds and the most expert scholarship in that branch of ,bible study1 for example1 which seeks1 by the investigation of the manuscripts and the variant readings1 to arrive at the very words that were written by the inspired writers2 or1 for example1 in that other branch of study which seeks to discover the history and origins of the various books of the ,bible4 ,but it is meant that when men seek to know the spiritual truths of the ,bible1 they are utterly unscientific if they fail to use that faculty in their investigation which the ,textbook itself prescribes4 ,to sum it up1 faith opens the way for ,god to quicken into activity a spiritual capacity through which ,he educates a man in spiritual things entirely independently of the schools4 ,the man who really intends to be scientific1 then1 will approach the ,bible in that attitude of faith which will lead him to will to do ,god's will as the ,bible reveals it4 ,he will then be where he can believe his way to an understanding of spiritual truth4 #c4 ,the ,different ,kinds of ,truth ,must ,be ,separated4 ,another classification which the scientific man makes is to distinguish between the two kinds of truth in each respective realm1 and to separate that kind which may be demonstrated to the experience from that which must be taken on hearsay4 ,that is1 in the natural realm1 in the department of chemistry1 for example1 the laws of chemical action can be put to the laboratory test of experiment1 while the history of the science of chemistry must always be taken on hearsay4 ,and1 in the spiritual realm1 those truths stated in the spiritual ,textbook which have to do with our spiritual relations with ,god can be put to the laboratory test of the experiment of faith1 while all the rest must be taken on hearsay4 #d4 ,the ,primacy of ,primary ,truth ,must ,be ,maintained4 ,one thing more which the scientific man does is to accord primacy to that realm of truth which is primary in importance4 ,in order to do this1 the scientific spirit compels the one possessed by it to meet two requirements4 ,recognizing that truth is an eternal unity1 he will first determine to deal with the facts in any given realm in such a way as to preserve harmony at all times between them and all the known facts of all the other realms4 ,for only thus can he avoid destroying the unity of truth and heading himself toward error and confusion4 ,he will then determine to maintain the primacy of primary truth by interpreting in its light the facts of all other realms4 ,that is1 he will make that realm whose truths are of transcendent importance the norm1 or standard1 by which to interpret the facts of other realms1 withholding interpretations until the facts of any other given realm can be interpreted in harmony with those primary truths which have been made forever secure by being scientifically verified4 ,these requirements would seem so axiomatic as to need no emphasis1 and yet1 strange as it may seem1 right here is another place where the ,church and the ,schools part company4 ,for the ,church is according primacy to one realm of truth1 and the ,schools to another1 making unity of final conclusions out of the question4 ,if we are to be possessed by the scientific spirit and proceed with scientific accuracy1 however1 we will be compelled1 in the terms of our present study1 to accord that primacy to the spiritual realm over the natural which its transcendent importance demands4 ,for by as much as truth about ,god is of more eternal value to sinful man than truth about ,his creation1 and by as much as truth by which we are saved is of more transcendent importance than truth by which we are informed1 by just that much will the scientific spirit compel us to interpret every bit of information that comes to us from the natural realm in harmony with1 and in the light of1 the truths of the spiritual realm1 for by this method alone can we maintain the primacy of the spiritual realm over the natural4 ,this means that the man who is truly scientific will never interpret discoveries in the natural realm in such a way as to deny or even throw doubt upon those fundamental truths in the spiritual realm which have been forever secured by scientific demonstration4 ,in other words1 he will not seek to bring the ,bible into harmony with man's interpretation of scientific facts1 but he will seek to bring every scientific discovery into harmony with the ,bible1 withholding final conclusions from all discoveries that will not so harmonize until he has light enough so they will4 ,we have now reached the point where we can sum up all the requirements which the really scientific man will meet in order that he may be able to proceed with scientific accuracy in his researches in the realms of truth4 ,he will separate the natural and the spiritual realms of truth from each other4 ,he will investigate natural truth with the intellect and spiritual truth with faith4 ,he will distinguish truth that can be demonstrated to the experience from that which must be accepted on testimony alone4 ,and he will accord primacy to the spiritual realm over the natural4 ,it only remains to be said that the man who will not meet these requirements is a total stranger to the scientific spirit4 ,the ,standard ,dictionary says that science is knowledge gained and verified by exact observation and correct thinking1 and the man who will not meet requirements that are absolutely necessary for exact observation and correct thinking in the gaining and verifying of knowledge does not have the first qualification of the scientific investigator4 ,for he is really not open to truth at all1 and is therefore in no position to maintain either the unity between the realms of truth or the primacy of primary truth1 and exact observation and correct thinking are out of the question under such conditions4 ,he cannot verify anything with scientific accuracy when he will not even classify the different realms of truth and the faculties of investigation1 or give the realms their respective places in the sphere of truth4 ,and so it is futile for one who refuses to do this to talk about being in harmony with the scientific spirit4 ,when an investigator meets these requirements1 on the other hand1 he is then ready to meet the next demand made upon the scientific inquirer1 which is-- ,,ii4 ,truth ,must ,be ,investigated ,scientifically4 ,accepting the self-evident accuracy of the classification we have just outlined1 we will now give attention to what the scientific spirit will require of us at those two places where the ,church and the ,schools have parted company4 ,for if we can get together here1 we can both proceed and arrive together in our investigation of truth1 and that will end the controversy4 #a4 ,faith ,must ,be ,given ,precedence over ,reason4 ,let us see what it will mean to give precedence to faith over reason when we are working in the realm of spiritual truth4 ,it will mean that believing will precede reasoning in our approach to the ,word of ,god1 and this defines the vital distinction between the true ,christian and the rationalist4 a4 ,the ,method of the ,rationalist4 ,faith and rationalism are mutually exclusive in the spiritual realm4 ,rationalizing and doubting are first cousins when the ,word of ,god is involved4 ,satan was the first rationalist on earth1 and ,eve fell when she accepted his reasonings about the ,word of ,god in the place of simple faith in that ,word4 ,for ,satan raised a question about the ,word1--,yea1 hath ,god said8--and thereby opened the way for incipient doubt1 and then he reasoned ,eve into accepting a common sense interpretation of what ,god had said1 which proved to be an outright denial of ,his ,word4 ,and look at the consequences--indescribably terrible--of rationalizing about ,god's ,word instead of believing it6 ,but rationalism did not stop there1 for ever since that day all men without exception have been natural-born rationalists4 ,for it is perfectly natural to all men to rationalize about ,god's ,word1 but it takes a miracle of ,divine power to make any one willing to believe it4 ,these two attitudes toward ,scripture are forever irreconcilable4 ,in the nature of things1 they can never be harmonized4 ,the believer in the ,word and the rationalist take two utterly divergent paths that cannot possibly reach the same goal4 ,the program of the rationalist is to arrive at an understanding of spiritual truth over the pathway of reasoning that is apart from faith4 ,that of the believer is to arrive at it over the pathway of reasoning that is founded on faith4 ,the program of the rationalist is to harmonize the ,word of ,god with his conclusions4 ,that of the believer is to harmonize his conclusions with the ,word4 ,the program of the rationalist is to become a critic of the ,word and sit in judgment on it4 ,that of the believer is to let the ,word become his critic and sit in judgment on him4 ,these are certainly reasons enough why the believer and the rationalist can never travel together4 ,for the believer is walking by ,god's estimate of him1 while the rationalist is walking by his estimate of ,god1 and these paths go in opposite directions4 ,if you sit in judgment on some portion of ,god's ,word and determine that it is reasonable1 and that since it commends itself to your judgment it is therefore acceptable and you will believe it1 that is not faith in the ,word but in your own reason4 ,you have surrendered your intellect to your own conclusions but your heart is far from ,god4 ,faith in the ,word is surrender to it without passing judgment on it4 ,and yet surrendering one's mind to one's own conclusions about ,god is precisely the thing that passes for faith in ,god on the part of those who have lost their old-fashioned1 evangelical faith while they were in the ,schools1 and yet come out with what they describe as a more intelligent and rational faith in ,god and the ,bible4 ,in their desperate attempt to survive the wreck of their orthodox faith1 they have reasoned their way to conclusions about ,god that harmonized with what they were taught in the ,schools2 but the ,god they arrived at was the god of rationalism and not the ,god of ,revelation4 ,they will say to the orthodox man1 ,you and ,i go by different pathways1 but we both arrive at the same ,god4 ,but this is eternally impossible6 ,for there is only one pathway leading to the true ,god1 and that is not followed by reasoning one's way out of a shattered faith1 but first by believing one's way out of darkness into light1 and then by believing steadily on in that divinely imparted faith which always shatters the reasonings and conclusions of the rationalists4 ,to be a believer in the ,word puts rationalism out of business1 for no one can reason himself into the acceptance of truth he already believes4 ,and on the other hand1 to be a rationalist regarding the ,word puts faith out of business1 for faith is the acceptance of the bare ,word of ,god without further evidence1 and the rationalizer is compelled to reject that attitude toward the ,word so that he may have the way left open to reason his way to what he is willing to accept as evidence4 ,this is why so many of those students who sit in the classes of the rationalists in our colleges and seminaries lose their faith4 ,rationalism makes ,scriptural faith impossible4 ,rationalizing and believing1 when the ,bible is in question1 are mutually exclusive4 ,the reason for this is not that the facts of ,scripture contradict each other1 and certainly not that these facts are one thing to faith and another thing to reason4 ,the antagonism does not arise over the facts of the ,word but over the interpretation of them4 ,the rationalist1 accepting no interpretation except that furnished by his own puny and incompetent reason unillumined by faith1 reaches conclusions absolutely contradicted by those arrived at by the man of faith4 ,the fact is1 he could not hope to arrive anywhere else4 ,for how can finite man relate and interpret the few and scattered facts he discovers in the realm of infinite truth8 ,how can a man by searching find out ,god8 ,by whose interpretation1 yours or mine8 is a favorite question which the rationalist asks the believer when the meaning of some ,scripture passage is in question4 ,by no one's interpretation except the ,holy ,spirit's6 ,he alone can interpret the ,bible1 for ,he alone knows what ,he meant by what ,he wrote4 ,and even the ,holy ,spirit is able to interpret the ,bible to no one but the believer4 ,for the rationalist1 the unbeliever1 rejects faith1 and thereby completely closes the eyes of the heart to the illumination of the ,spirit2 while the faith of the believer is the very thing that opens the heart to an understanding of the ,word4 ,spiritual apprehension begins only at the point where faith begins4 ,this is why it is that when the rationalist tries his hand at interpretation he is sure1 sooner or later1 to bring perfectly harmonious facts into confusion and contradiction4 ,take1 for example1 the facts regarding the development of the human embryo4 ,the rationalist notes that as it develops it bears a striking resemblance1 successively1 to the more mature forms of some of the lower animals1 in an imagined orderly progress from lower to higher4 ,that this resemblance is a fact no one disputes4 ,there is no controversy over the fact4 ,but when the rationalist attempts to explain this fact1 he interprets it to mean that man is the product of evolution1 rather than a special creation1 as the ,bible says he is1 and thus he thrusts such confusion and contradiction before us that we are compelled to make a choice between his interpretation and the statements of the ,bible4 ,the controversy that results is caused altogether by the rationalist thrusting himself into that place that belongs to the ,holy ,spirit alone4 ,he shall lead you into all the truth1 said ,christ1 and it is presumptuous in the extreme to seek to do the ,holy ,spirit's work for ,him4 ,we are forewarned of the methods of the modern rationalist in his approach to the ,bible by what ,christ said to the ,jews who were finding fault with what ,he taught3 ,for had ye believed ,moses1 ,he said1 ye would have believed ,me2 for he wrote of ,me4 ,but if ye believe not his writings1 how shall ye believe ,my words8 ,this is precisely the pathway modern rationalism has followed4 ,it began by discrediting what ,moses wrote1 and it has now gone to the length of denying final authority to what ,christ said4 ,rationalism is both irreverent and destructive when it seeks to do anything with the ,word of ,god4 ,for that ,book is to be handled as no other book is4 ,behind the historical1 and the literary1 and the textual1 and the philosophical criticism must be a spiritual discernment1 born of faith alone1 which both dominates and regulates all the rest4 ,for just as a blind man may turn the eyes of his head to the sun and see no physical light1 so the rationalist may turn the eyes of his mind to the ,bible and see no spiritual truth4 ,it takes the eyes of the heart to see spiritual truth1 and they can function only through faith4 b4 ,the ,method of the ,believer4 ,in order clearly to understand the method of faith1 we need right here to guard against another extreme4 ,by the contrasts we have drawn in the last few pages1 it is not at all meant that there is no place in the exercise of faith for the exercise also of the intellect at the same time and toward the same object4 ,for1 in the nature of things1 the intellect must be exercised in a mental apprehension of that which is to be believed before the way is even open for faith to begin4 ,neither is it meant that reasoning is so out of harmony with and destructive of faith that its exercise in connection with faith is impossible4 ,for faith is not blind credulity2 it is not jumping in the dark2 it is not an irrational impulse2 it is not swallowing something with the eyes shut4 ,it is rather an open-eyed stepping out on to the spiritual foundations of the universe4 ,but notice--it is stepping out on to spiritual foundations4 ,it is meant1 however1 by the contrasts above1 that the moment an intellectual apprehension of what is to be believed1 followed by a conclusion to accept or reject it according to whether it is reasonable or not--the moment such an attitude is substituted for the heart acceptance of the bare ,word of ,god1 even though it may be beyond understanding and reason1 that moment the normal exercise of mind and reason has degenerated into a rationalism that makes faith impossible4 ,notice an emphasis above4 ,faith is stepping out upon spiritual foundations4 ,then recall that to all except the man of presumption1 foundations must be seen before they will be stepped upon4 ,the normal man demands to see where he is going4 ,now spiritual foundations can be seen only by spiritual eyes4 ,the natural vision cannot see past the natural realm4 ,and spiritual realities will never be stepped out upon until they are seen4 ,for faith is not an abstract and aimless emotion4 ,it requires an object that can be seen1 and one that can be trusted4 ,it is therefore the one main purpose of the ,bible to set before men the one saving ,object of faith4 ,this purpose lies behind the multiplied revelations of ,god all through the ,old ,testament1 and the gathering together of all those revelations into ,christ in the ,new ,testament in such fullness and finality that ,he could say3 ,he that hath seen me hath seen the ,father4 ,but ,god and ,christ must be seen before they can be trusted4 ,not intellectually or historically1 but spiritually seen4 ,and they can be seen only by spiritual eyes4 ,and spiritual vision is possible only through the divine touch4 ,and the divine touch is given only to those who consent2 it is not forced on any one4 ,and the attitude of consent is precisely the attitude set forth in ,christ's formula3 ,if any man wills to do1 he shall know4 ,only by coming into this attitude can any man see ,god4 ,the pure in heart1 said ,christ1 shall see ,god4 ,it is a heart attitude4 ,and the meaning of the purity of heart that opens the vision to ,god is brought out when ,christ is asked the question1 ,how is it that ,thou wilt manifest ,thyself unto us and not unto the world8 ,his answer is of the utmost significance4 ,he says1 ,if a man love ,me1 he will keep ,my words4 ,keeping ,his words1 willing to do ,his will--this is the attitude that opens the vision to ,him4 ,he and the ,father can manifest themselves to and be seen by those only who are in the attitude of consent toward the keeping of ,his words4 ,this is the only attitude that can bring the anointing of the eyes with that eye-salve which opens them to spiritual vision4 ,but when the eyes1 in response to this attitude of willingness toward the will of ,god1 are once opened to spiritual things1 then ,god1 in all the perfections of ,his divine character1 is seen both in the ,bible1 the written ,word1 and in ,christ1 the living ,word1 and this two-fold revelation of ,him is seen to be as perfect and flawless as the ,god who is thus revealed4 ,those who think they see imperfections either in the ,bible or in ,christ are spiritually blind4 ,for when one thinks he sees flaws where there are only infinite perfections1 he advertises to all that he is attempting the impossible task of examining spiritual realities with his natural vision1 and is therefore passing judgment on what he has never seen4 ,but when the spiritual vision has once been opened1 and ,god is really seen1 in the ,bible and in ,christ1 in all the perfections of ,his infinitely holy and loving character1 the reason at once leads to the conclusion from the facts seen that such a ,being is to be trusted1 and active faith thereby becomes the outgrowth of that kind of reasoning4 ,that is1 the faith that begins as an attitude of willingness toward the will of ,god1 through which attitude the eyes are touched into a vision of the character of ,god1 such a faith comes into and continues in an active submission to that will through the normal functioning of reason4 ,this shows the vital difference between reasoning and rationalizing1 and the relation of each to faith4 ,the effect of reasoning on faith is constructive1 while that of rationalizing is destructive4 ,and the heart of the difference between the two traces back1 in the last analysis1 to those two kinds of vision4 ,the rationalist1 unyielding to the touch of ,god on his vision1 sees only natural facts1 and even then he sees them only partially and wholly out of relation to the spiritual revelation of ,god in the ,bible and in ,christ2 and thinking that he sees discrepancies between the facts in the natural realm and the statements of ,scripture1 his reason leads him to reject the ,bible as infallible and inerrant1 thereby making faith in the ,god of the ,bible utterly impossible4 ,his reasoning powers are simply functioning normally when he concludes to reject the statements about the facts that to him are entirely unseen which do not seem to agree with what he sees4 ,his trouble is not with his reasoning powers but with his vision4 ,refusing to see what he is passing judgment on1 his method of inquiry is rationalizing4 ,but the believer1 utterly yielded to ,god and therefore seeing ,him through anointed eyes in both the written and the living ,word1 thus seeing the infinite perfections of ,his character1 is led by the normal functioning of the same reason to accept and act on the bare ,word of ,god without further evidence1 because the evidence he sees is all the evidence he needs4 ,it is perfectly reasonable1 therefore1 for ,him to accept all that such an ,one says in ,his ,word1 waiting for the partial and apparently contradictory knowledge in the natural realm to be corrected into harmony with the ,bible4 ,and his reasoning powers are simply functioning normally when he accepts the ,bible as infallible and inerrant1 for this attitude is based on what he sees4 ,the entire difference between the rationalist and the believer is a matter of vision4 ,the reasoning powers of each simply act in view of what each sees4 ,this is why reasoning is never out of harmony with faith1 while rationalizing always is4 ,for true reasoning in spiritual things is based on an attitude of faith1 while rationalizing rejects that attitude as an essential preliminary to correct conclusions1 and therefore reasons either entirely apart from or in order to faith4 ,such an attitude as opens the vision does not precede the action of reason1 and the conclusions cannot help being destructive of faith1 for they are pronouncements on things utterly unseen and unknown1 and which the ,bible says are foolishness to the man who sees only through his natural vision4 ,but the attitude of willingness toward the will of ,god so opens the vision to the whole spiritual realm that the real foolishness is seen to be even the least attempt to pronounce upon or repudiate that which is utterly unseen and unknown4 ,this is the fundamental reason why there is such divergence1 even to the point of mutual exclusion1 between the different interpretations of ,scripture given forth by the believer and the rationalist4 ,the rationalist1 with heart and vision closed to spiritual truth1 can give no interpretation except that which seems reasonable in view of what he sees2 while the believer1 in the attitude of faith toward ,god1 sees the interpretation of ,scripture through the illumination of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,the interpretation of the ,word is the very work for which the ,holy ,spirit has come into the world4 ,that is not all of ,his work1 but a very essential part of it4 ,he is ,god's official ,interpreter of ,his truth to the believer4 ,not to the rationalizer1 but to the believer4 ,and ,his work is so divinely perfect and absolutely final that all human attempts at interpretation1 which are devoid of faith1 are an insult to ,him4 ,he is the ,one who wrote the ,word1 and so ,he knows the meaning1 not only of what ,he said1 but even of what ,he left unsaid1 and therefore none but ,he can interpret either the words or the silences of ,scripture4 ,for example1 when ,melchizedek flashes1 meteor-like1 across the page of ,old ,testament history1 and then disappears without a word as to beginning of life or end of days1 who but the ,holy ,spirit could interpret those silences into spiritual meanings of unfathomable richness8 ,who but ,he who was responsible for those omissions could interpret them into some of the richest revelations of all ,scripture concerning the eternal ,priesthood of the slain and risen ,son of ,god8 ,and if the ,holy ,spirit can thus seize upon the very silences of ,scripture in showing us the things of ,christ1 who will deny ,him the power to interpret to those who will receive it what ,he meant by what ,he wrote8 ,and who but the rationalist and the unbeliever can ever refuse to let ,him reveal the perfect harmony between the facts of nature and the scientific references of ,scripture8 ,it is the divine prerogative to cause us to understand the ,book4 ,when the risen ,christ appeared suddenly among the disciples1 first frightened and then scarcely believing for joy1 ,he first convinced them that it was really ,he to whom they had already given their hearts1 thus quickening their faith into renewed activity1 ,then opened ,he their mind that they might understand the ,scriptures4 ,first faith and then knowledge of the truth2 this is the scientific order4 ,luther saw this when he wrote to ,spalatin3 ,above all things it is quite true that one cannot search into the ,holy ,scriptures by means of study1 nor by means of the intellect4 ,therefore begin with prayer that the ,lord grant unto you the true understanding of ,his ,word4 ,even ,spencer had a glimpse of this scientific principle toward the end of his life4 ,in his essay on ,feeling ,versus ,intellect he showed that he had lost faith in his former estimate of the place of the intellect in the moral realm when he said3 ,everywhere the cry is educate--educate--educate6 ,everywhere the belief is that by such culture as schools furnish1 children1 and therefore adults1 can be molded into the desired shapes4 ,it is assumed that when men are taught what is right1 they will do what is right--that a proposition intellectually accepted becomes morally operative4 ,and this conviction1 contradicted by everyday experience1 is at variance with an everyday axiom--the axiom that each faculty is strengthened by the exercise of it--intellectual power by intellectual action1 and moral power by moral action4 ,what can this mean but that ,spencer saw1 at least dimly1 the radical difference between the intellectual and the spiritual faculties8 ,the logic of all these facts and principles makes only one conclusion possible4 ,when the man of scientific spirit approaches the ,book which can reveal its truths to faith alone1 he will not be unscientific enough to refuse faith to its statements and use his intellect alone4 ,for he will see that the one who refuses the attitude of faith toward the ,scriptures will be ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth1 while the one who accepts the ,word in humble dependence on the ,holy ,spirit's interpretation of its meaning is on the one solitary highway by which a knowledge of the truth can be reached4 ,when the ,church and the ,schools1 therefore1 agree on using this method of approach to the ,word of ,god1 they will at least have started toward the same goal4 #b4 ,the ,spiritual ,realm ,must ,be ,given ,primacy over the ,natural4 ,let us now see what it will mean to accord primacy to the spiritual realm over the natural4 ,there is only one possible method of doing this1 and that is to interpret in the light of spiritual truth all the facts of the natural realm4 ,the man of scientific mind will therefore see clearly that he will be utterly incapable of giving such an interpretation to natural facts until he first knows what spiritual truth is1 and this will mean the laboratory method of the experiment of faith4 ,but right here you may say that science has nothing to do with the spiritual realm2 that scientific investigation stops the moment it reaches that realm2 and that therefore to demand the use of these scientific methods in that realm is not only foolish but impossible4 ,but stop and think a minute4 ,it is both foolish and futile to demand that either the implements or the faculties used in the scientific realm shall be brought over and used in the pursuit of spiritual truth4 ,this is precisely the thing we are seeking to show4 ,but that does not mean for a moment that the inquirer must therefore give up the scientific attitude of mind and cease to work according to the demands of the scientific spirit the moment he begins inquiry in the spiritual realm4 ,for that spirit is simply an honest and accurate method of investigation1 and because science is compelled to stop at the border of the spiritual realm is no reason why we should cease being honest and accurate when we investigate in that realm4 ,it is perfectly true that the scientist1 as such1 has absolutely no pronouncement to make concerning spiritual truth2 but it is equally true that the inquirer in the spiritual realm1 if he does not pursue his inquiries by scientific methods and according to the demands of the scientific spirit1 will have no pronouncement to make either4 ,the man who intends1 therefore1 to be scientific enough in his spirit to give primary truth its place of primacy by interpreting in its light the truths of other realms1 and who1 with the instincts of the true scientist1 recognizes spiritual truth as primary in its relation to the natural1 will be actuated sufficiently by his scientific attitude to determine to know what spiritual truth is1 in order that he may be able to interpret natural truth in its light4 ,this will bring him face to face with ,christ's formula for entering upon the knowledge of spiritual truth4 ,being honestly desirous of knowing what spiritual truth is1 he will determine to do ,god's will in order that he may find out4 a4 ,this ,will ,mean ,surrendering the ,heart to ,god4 ,this is the only thing it can mean4 ,for spiritual truth is primarily heart truth1 not intellectual truth1 and the only way to know heart truth is to surrender the heart to that ,holy ,spirit of truth who searcheth the deep things of ,god1 and who was sent into the world to lead us into all the truth4 ,the grammarian1 the philologist1 the historian1 the naturalist1 the philosopher1 therefore1 have no service they can perform here4 ,they cannot carry their apparatus over into the spiritual realm and weigh and measure1 estimate and judge1 illumine and interpret spiritual truth for us4 ,when we stand here we are on that holy ground where we must lay off our sandals of scientific paraphernalia and stand before ,god with open heart ready to hear what ,he has to say4 ,the moment we get to this realm1 the whole apparatus by which truth is received changes from reason to faith4 ,but do you see where this brings us8 ,straight back to ,christ's formula6 ,this is precisely what ,his formula involves1 for when a man wills to do ,god's will1 he takes the first step in faith4 ,then when a man comes into this attitude toward ,god's will1 he will next inquire where he is to commence in the doing of that will1 what the first step is in the will of ,god4 ,the ,textbook tells us that the first step is to repent and believe the ,gospel4 ,that this is the first step is self-evident1 because the heart must be opened to ,him who alone can give the knowledge of spiritual truth before that knowledge is possible1 and repentance and faith are the opening of the heart to ,him4 ,for repentance is a coming into that attitude of heart toward ,god in which the whole life is laid bare before ,him exactly as it is1 thereby opening the way for faith2 and believing the ,gospel is an entering upon that faith which accepts the ,gospel--the ,good ,news--of ,christ's finished work of atonement for sin through ,his shed blood on the cross1 and reckons pardon for sin and new life in ,christ to be now ours according to the ,word of ,god4 ,for faith1 you remember1 is both an attitude and an act2 an attitude of surrender to ,god1 and an act of receiving what ,god has for us2 and this is precisely what it means to repent and believe the ,gospel4 ,this means that the man of genuine scientific spirit will begin his pursuit of spiritual truth by sincere repentance toward ,god and faith toward our ,lord ,jesus ,christ for salvation through ,his shed blood1 which1 according to the ,textbook1 are the first steps in willing to do the will of ,god1 followed by a moment-by-moment dependence on ,christ1 ,who is now his life1 to reveal truth to him as he continues1 by faith1 in the attitude of an open heart4 ,this is the only possible way of ever knowing that truth which alone can make us free4 ,it is true that it is quite the fashion these days for every unbeliever1 agnostic1 modernist1 and unitarian to quote those words of ,christ ,ye shall know the truth1 and the truth shall make you free in justification of the claim that something which he is pleased to call truth has given him what he fancies is freedom4 ,but ,scripture could not be more grossly perverted than by such a wresting of its plain meaning4 ,the whole statement reads3 ,then said ,jesus unto those ,jews that believed on ,him1 if ye continue in ,my ,word1 then are ye ,my disciples indeed2 and ye shall know the truth1 and the truth shall make you free4 ,only the spiritually blind can fail to see the meaning of such a statement4 ,it plainly means that the first step toward freedom is faith in ,christ1 the genuineness of which is evidenced by continuance in ,his ,word2 and that it is only in this attitude of faith that it is possible to know the truth that makes us free4 ,the truth is1 therefore1 that to be free one must believe on ,christ4 ,this does not mean to give intellectual assent to this or that fact about ,him1 but utterly to commit the life to ,him1 sin and all1 past1 present1 and future4 ,for the ,gospel tells us not so much what to believe as ,whom to believe1 and ,paul tells us what faith in ,christ means when he exclaims3 ,i know ,whom ,i have believed1 and then further unfolds what this involves by adding1 and am persuaded that ,he is able to keep that which ,i have committed unto ,him against that day4 ,faith is not simply giving mental assent to facts1 it is primarily surrendering to a ,person4 ,this is what it means to believe on ,christ1 and anything short of this will neither give us knowledge of the truth nor make us free4 ,then following this attitude toward ,christ1 the believer evidences his faith by continuing in ,his ,word1 by which he comes into experiential knowledge of its truth and its meaning4 ,then coming to know the truth by experiencing it through faith1 he is where the ,son of ,god ,himself becomes his freedom4 ,and there is no other freedom4 ,it is in the experience of ,himself1 not in an intellectual assent to facts about ,him1 that ,he makes us free by becoming the way to ,god for us1 the truth about ,god to us1 and the life of ,god in us4 ,it is therefore only he whom the ,son sets free who is free indeed1 for freedom from the curse of sin by the experience of ,christ as ,saviour1 and freedom from the blindness of error by the experience of ,christ as ,truth incarnate1 is the only freedom there is4 ,when the ,word says1 therefore1 ,whatsoever is not of faith is sin1 it contemplates both the object of faith and the cause of forfeited freedom4 ,for the ,holy ,spirit came to convict men of sin because they believe not on ,christ4 ,unfaith in ,christ is therefore the essence of sin4 ,and sin is bondage1 not freedom4 ,scripture describes the unbeliever in ,christ as the bondslave of sin1 held in chains of darkness and error4 ,this is why it is impossible either to know even natural truth in any adequate way1 or to be able to untangle it from error1 without becoming a believer on ,christ as the first step4 ,so let no one who has not surrendered his heart to ,christ in faith boast that he either knows the truth or is free4 ,but suppose a man should seek to know spiritual truth and yet refuse to surrender his heart to ,christ in faith1 then what8 ,it could only be because he was so devoid of the scientific spirit that he did not want to know the truth at any cost4 ,and no man who is in this frame of mind can ever come to know the truth4 ,haeckel defines the scientific attitude of mind when he says of the scientific inquirer that his sole and only task is to seek to know the truth1 and to teach what he has discovered to be the truth1 indifferent as to 444 consequences4 ,this means1 in the terms of our present discussion1 that in order to know spiritual truth1 the man of scientific mind will be willing to work by ,christ's formula no matter what it costs him1 for that alone will give him the knowledge of eternal things which will make it possible adequately to interpret natural truth4 ,but suppose the inquirer doubts the possibility of entering into a scientific knowledge of spiritual truth by following this formula1 what then8 ,it can only be because he is so unscholarly as to make the blunder in logic of assuming as untrue or impossible that which remains to be proved4 ,no matter on which ground he refuses to surrender to ,christ1 therefore1 no inquirer after spiritual truth can be either scientific or scholarly who makes this refusal2 for he thereby renders himself not only utterly incompetent to know spiritual truth1 but also entirely unable to accord primacy to the spiritual realm by interpreting natural truth in its light4 ,suppose a man should take this attitude of indifference or unbelief toward natural truth4 ,suppose that after refusing to make the first experiment in the study of chemistry he should attempt researches in a realm whose facts required interpretation in the light of the chemical laws he had refused to learn in the laboratory4 ,then suppose he should dogmatically announce such interpretations of his discoveries in that realm as were altogether out of harmony with the most fundamental laws in the chemical realm4 ,and then suppose that in order to maintain his unfounded and arbitrary interpretations he should so twist the statements of the textbook on chemistry into harmony with his theories as to destroy their essential integrity4 ,he would win nothing but contempt from experienced chemists4 ,he would certainly find no place in the ranks of scientists4 ,this is precisely why evolutionists and rationalists1 using this method exactly1 can win no response from experienced ,christians1 and why they ought to be outside the membership of our churches as long as they pursue this method4 ,believers can not listen for one moment to such interpretations of scientific facts by unbelievers as destroy the essential doctrines of the ,christian faith and deny the inerrancy and final authority of the ,word of ,god4 ,for unbelievers have not only not secured a scientific knowledge of what they are talking about1 but they have not even acquired the right to pass an opinion on the fundamental doctrines of the ,bible4 ,how can they announce dogmatically so-called scientific interpretations of the facts of nature which give the lie to the unmistakable doctrines of the spiritual ,textbook whose truthfulness they have refused to put to the laboratory test of experience1 and yet at the same time claim to be actuated by the scientific spirit8 ,those who do such things know nothing about the scientific spirit6 ,canon ,dyson ,hague was scientifically correct when he said that the rationalists are being opposed1 not on the ground of their scholarship1 but because the biblical criticism of rationalists and unbelievers can be neither expert nor scientific4 ,there is but one conclusion possible4 ,the man who intends to accord primacy to the spiritual realm will first acquire a verified knowledge of spiritual truth by the laboratory method of experience1 according to the formula of the ,textbook4 ,for when he does this he will then be qualified to take the next step and make the primacy of spiritual truth an actual reality4 b4 ,this will ,mean ,interpreting ,natural ,truth in the ,light of the ,bible4 ,we have now arrived at that point where we can sum up the logic of the scientific method of the laboratory as it applies to the investigation of the theory of evolution4 ,the man who is honest enough to want to know the truth at all cost1 and accurate enough to insist on coming into a knowledge of the truth both by scientific methods and in the scientific order of primacy1 will first acquire an adequate knowledge by experience1 as we have already decided1 of those statements of the ,bible that can be verified to the experience1 and then he will for the first time be qualified to arrive at an adequate estimate of the statements that cannot be so verified4 ,then recognizing that all the scientific references of the ,bible1 including those relating to origins1 are in that class that can not be verified to the experience1 he will decide to come to no conclusions concerning them except such as will maintain both the primacy of primary truth and the unity of all the realms of truth4 ,he will do this because it is the only thing he can do and still maintain a truly scientific attitude of mind4 ,this will mean that he will interpret all the non-experimental statements of the ,bible1 including the scientific references1 in harmony with and in the light of those spiritual and experiential truths which he has already had verified to him through his own personal relations with ,god through faith in ,christ4 ,in other words1 he will maintain the primacy of spiritual truth by allowing no interpretation of scientific facts that will cast either denial or doubt on those fundamental doctrines which he now knows are true1 because they have been supernaturally verified to him through the laboratory test of faith4 ,take an illustration4 ,suppose an author on chemistry1 who was also a historian1 should include in his textbook a history of the science of chemistry4 ,now if a man puts his statements of chemical laws to an accurate laboratory test and finds them true1 he has the presumption established that the history1 which cannot be so tested1 is also true4 ,yes1 that illustration breaks down1 but only at the point of human fallibility and imperfection4 ,if that author were omniscient and infallible the illustration would be perfect4 ,now apply it to the ,word4 ,when a man1 through the unfailing laboratory test of honest faith1 finds that the statements that can be put to the test of experience are infallible truth1 he has not simply the presumption but also the absolute certainty established that all its other statements are true1 because the infallible and omniscient ,author has given it to us as ,his ,word4 ,it comes to us with a ,thus saith the ,lord ringing in our ears from beginning to end1 and not with the multiplied repetitions of ,we may well suppose of the scientific guessers4 ,the man of scientific mind1 therefore1 will accept all the non-experiential statements of the ,bible as infallible truth1 including scientific and historical references and prophetic utterances4 ,he will then accord the place of primacy to all understood scientific references of the ,bible over all discoveries in the natural realm4 ,he will do this by interpreting the few and fragmentary discoveries of finite and fallible man in the light of the statements that come to us as the ,word of an infallible ,god1 concluding that if there is any apparent inharmony1 it lies in the partial discoveries or premature conclusions of scientists1 rather than in any error of statement in the ,bible4 ,in other words1 he will interpret science in the light of the ,bible1 and not the ,bible in the light of science4 ,and if at any time a harmonizing of scientific discoveries with the ,bible seems impossible1 he will withhold final conclusions until he has further scientific light1 realizing that when he knows enough science he will then be able to understand the scientific references of the ,bible1 and the apparent inharmony will vanish4 ,multiplied illustrations of this are so familiar that it is scarcely necessary to elaborate on it1 as many will occur to the reader who is at all familiar with the essential harmony between the ,bible and all real scientific knowledge1 and with the fact that a multitude of scientific discoveries have been made1 only to find that the ,bible made reference to them in the most accurate scientific terms many centuries before their discovery4 ,a conclusion is now possible as to what attitude a man who has faith in an inerrant ,bible will be compelled to take toward the theory of evolution4 ,when he sees that the logic of evolution destroys every fundamental ,scripture doctrine which he has already had verified to him by the ,holy ,spirit2 when he learns that evolution is not only entirely unproven but even discredited by many competent men of science2 and when he turns to the ,bible and reads the statement repeated over and again that each species was created to reproduce only after his kind2 he will be compelled to make a choice between evolution and an inerrant ,bible1 and1 believing the ,bible1 he will reject evolution4 ,then when he recalls that to ,eve1 ,satan advanced an unproven theory which assumed to interpret1 but had the effect of denying1 the ,word of ,god1 and then reflects that the theory of evolution does precisely the same thing1 he will become suspicious that the father of lies is behind the whole evolutionary propaganda4 ,other theories that are unproven and discredited fall by their own weight4 ,the persistence of this theory must be accounted for on the ground that it can be used to destroy faith in the infallibility of the ,bible4 ,it is quite true that there are many who say they believe the ,bible and accept evolution also4 ,but how those who are mentally sound and capable of logical consistency can accept two mutually exclusive propositions at the same time1 it is impossible to understand4 ,we will be compelled to let those who say they accept both the ,bible and evolution explain how they do it--if they can6 ,but meantime1 if we take pains to make careful inquiry of such people1 we shall find that in every case where logical and consistent thinking has any meaning whatever1 a choice has been made between the ,bible as an inerrant and infallible ,book and the theory of evolution4 ,it is quite possible for a man to hold the scientific or historical attitude toward the ,bible1 which makes it a human book marred by many errors1 and believe in evolution at the same time2 but the man who holds that attitude toward the ,bible does not believe it at all6 ,no one can accept the theory of evolution and the doctrine of an inerrant ,bible at the same time4 ,and yet the attempt is being very skilfully made by many leaders in the ,schools today to camouflage this impossibility4 ,a very recent article by ,dr4 ,shailer ,mathews on ,christ and ,education is a typical illustration4 ,in the midst of the article ,dr4 ,mathews frankly indicates his acceptance of evolution1 because of which1 he says1 the meaning of religion was enlarged for him4 ,then he leaves the impression with the reader that the conclusions of modern science are to be taken without question1 and also that our faith in ,christ and the ,bible are to be brought into harmony with these conclusions4 ,that is1 our faith must combine an acceptance of evolution with whatever attitude toward ,christ and the ,scriptures the evolutionary philosophy makes possible4 ,this puts reason above ,revelation and makes the scientific realm primary in its relation to the spiritual4 ,the reader can judge1 in the light of our previous thinking1 whether this procedure is scientific or not4 ,then in speaking of the fact that the educated man as truly as the ignorant man needs the saving power of ,christ1 he says3 ,but he must be saved as an educated man and not as an ignorant man4 ,he cannot be forced to give up what he knows to be real4 ,if he be told that ,christian loyalty involves the abandonment of the assured results and methods of scientific investigation1 he will refuse such loyalty4 ,this implied charge is later on in the article made specific when he says that some schools are refusing to let their students know the results of scientific investigation for fear lest such knowledge will ruin certain theological beliefs for which the schools stand--a method he describes as putting a premium upon ignorance as a prerequisite for faith4 ,the reader knows as well as the writer that the whole attitude of the ,christian ,church1 and therefore of true ,christian education1 challenges those words and hurls them back at their author for proof4 ,both the implied and the direct accusations are utterly without foundation4 ,indeed1 the thing ,dr4 ,mathews charges is the one thing true ,christian education does not do4 ,when did the ,church ever try to force a man1 educated or ignorant1 to give up what he knows to be facts in order to become a ,christian8 ,when was a man ever asked by ,christian schools to choose between the assured results and methods of scientific investigation and loyalty to ,christ8 ,when has that institution which1 above all others1 has fought ignorance and fostered true scientific investigation used a method that put a premium on ignorance as a prerequisite for faith8 ,it is not facts that the ,church either fears or refuses to accept1 but such an interpretation of them by evolutionists and rationalists as to deny the scientific accuracy and therefore the inerrancy of the ,word of ,god4 ,it is altogether beside the truth to intimate that the ,church is fostering an education that has to withhold assured scientific facts for fear their knowledge would ruin faith in any theological beliefs whatever for which the schools stand4 ,it is not the knowledge of scientific facts that true ,christian schools ever withhold1 but such theories and speculations concerning their meaning as would destroy the schools as ,christian institutions if the logic of them were followed to the end4 ,and as for the ,church ever abandoning the assured results and methods of scientific investigation1 this is precisely the thing the ,church is fighting to maintain against the efforts of evolutionists and rationalists4 ,it is rather the ,schools that have been abandoning scientific methods of investigation1 thereby reaching assured results that invalidate not only the doctrine of an inerrant ,bible1 but every other fundamental doctrine of the ,scriptures4 ,indeed1 this is the very reason why the controversy between the ,church and the ,schools is now on1 and ,dr4 ,mathews' article is typical of the attempts that are being made to make it appear that faith in evolution and the ,bible can be combined--an attempt toward which all believers in an infallible ,book will always be irreconcilable4 ,and this irreconcilable attitude is not without reason1 but for the perfectly valid reason that the one who accepts evolution as a fact is utterly unscientific4 ,for in the first place he accepts unproven assumptions and rationalistic speculations as demonstrated facts4 ,and1 in the next place1 he thereby forces human interpretations of scientific facts to contradict the divinely verified doctrines of the ,bible1 thus thrusting confusion and contradiction between realms of truth which are in perfect harmony4 ,and1 still further1 he interprets the ,bible in the light787 not simply of science but even of a false science1 and thus compels unproven hypotheses to deny the truthfulness of the scientific and historical references of the ,bible1 thereby forcing into primacy a realm of truth that is not primary4 ,and all of this because he refuses to follow the formula of the spiritual ,textbook and put faith above reason and the ,bible above science in his approach to truth4 ,how can a man follow such methods and yet imagine that he is scientific8 ,one more thing remains to be said before this argument is completed4 ,we started out with an unproven1 though self-evident premise4 ,turn back to the very first paragraph in the book and you will find that the falsity of the pantheistic theory was assumed but not proved4 ,its falsity was assumed on grounds that have come to light as the argument has proceeded1 and that might easily be turned to account now as conclusive proofs4 ,for example1 to refer to one of them1 the self-evident distinction between the realm which contains the ,creator and that which contains ,his creation science proves to be a real divergence in kind by being compelled to cease investigation with scientific apparatus the moment the boundary line of the spiritual realm is reached4 ,and if there is as real a distinction between ,god and ,his creation as this indicates1 the doctrines of pantheism are impossible4 ,but the theory of evolution fosters a doctrine of the immanence of ,god which is nothing but a modern form of pantheism4 ,for example1 ,prof4 ,josiah ,royce1 of ,harvard1 has said3 ,god is the spirit animating nature1 the universal force which takes the myriad forms1 heat1 light1 gravitation1 electricity1 and the like4 ,and ,prof4 ,george ,b4 ,foster said3 ,god is a symbol to designate the universe in its ideal achieving capacity4 ,this is pantheism1 pure and simple1 for ,god and ,his created universe are not distinguished from each other4 ,and this blots out the distinction between the natural and the spiritual realms4 ,realizing1 therefore1 that no matter how perfect a course of reasoning may be or how inevitable the conclusions resulting it all falls like a house of cards if the premise is false1 it becomes necessary to determine whether pantheism is false or true1 in order that we may know whether we started with a valid premise4 ,is pantheism true8 ,one thing we know is true4 ,the ,bible clearly and sharply distinguishes between ,god and ,his creation4 ,no one who reads the ,bible can dissent from that statement4 ,and pantheism absolutely denies that ,bible distinction4 ,it therefore immediately resolves itself into a question as to whether the ,bible is true4 ,this brings us straight back to ,christ's formula--,if any man wills to do1 he shall know4 ,he who accepts the challenge of this formula will come to know1 beyond all possibility of disproof1 that neither pantheism1 evolution1 nor any other doctrine that denies or casts doubt on the infallibility of the ,bible is true4 ,he will know it because it is supernaturally verified to him in answer to his faith4 ,this formula is the divine challenge to every form of unbelief in an inerrant ,bible4 ,there never has been an hour since ,pentecost when the aggressive hurling of this challenge at defiant and destructive unbelief was more needed4 ,and the whole ,christian ,church1 backed by the ,word of ,god1 is hurling this challenge back into the teeth of the whole evolutionary camp today4 ,either be fair enough1 be scientific enough1 be honest enough1 challenges the ,church1 to act upon ,christ's formula and gain for yourselves that supernaturally verified knowledge which will make further faith in the evolutionary theory impossible1 or else do not assume to pronounce any further on those truths of which you know nothing because you have been unwilling to take the means to find out what they are4 ,go and join the ranks of the other unbelievers and ,bible-rejectors1 taking your doubt-born theories with you as a reinforcement to their warfare against the ,bible1 and then the ,church can fight you in the open and drive you to defeat with the ,sword of the ,spirit1 which is the ,word of ,god4 ,if you are determined to destroy faith in the inerrancy of the ,bible1 at least be fair enough to come out from under the cover of ,christian education1 and stop assuming to interpret in the light of evolution--a light that is darkness--those sublime doctrines which are at once the foundation and the message of the ,church4 ,get out of the ,christian schools1 which were founded to strengthen1 not to destroy1 the faith of young people from ,christian homes1 and give place to those who believe the ,book4 ,increasing hosts of ,christian parents are too heart-broken over the invasion of their own homes by this destroying wolf in sheep's clothing to tolerate this situation much longer4 ,they are asking1 in the words of a ,chicago newspaper editorial concerning the destructive teachings of ,prof4 ,george ,b4 ,foster1 in the ,chicago ,university ,divinity ,school3 ,is there no place to assail ,christianity but a divinity school8 ,is there no one to write infidel books except the professors of ,christian theology8 ,is a theological seminary an appropriate place for a general massacre of ,christian doctrine8 ,and then the sentiment that follows in the next sentence is shared increasingly by multitudes in the ,church in proportion as these destroyers become increasingly aggressive in their work of destruction4 ,the editor continues3 ,mr4 ,mangasarian delivers infidel lectures every ,sunday in ,orchestra ,hall and no one is shocked1 but when the professed defenders of ,christianity jump on it and assassinate it1 the public--even the agnostic public1 cannot but despise them4 ,either be scientific enough1 cry believers to the evolutionists1 to accept the challenge of ,christ's formula with all its implications1 or be honest enough to cease destroying the faith in an inerrant ,bible you have sworn to defend but refuse to accept6 ,the ,church is also hurling the challenge of ,christ's formula at every other form of aggressive unbelief4 ,no unbeliever1 from destructive ,higher ,critic to agnostic and infidel1 has the shadow of a right to make contrary pronouncement on the inerrancy and infallible authority of the ,bible1 for he has refused to put ,christ's word to the test1--his unbelief proves it1--and he is therefore utterly incapacitated for passing any judgment whatever on that ,book which unfolds its meaning to faith alone4 ,and as to the controversy between the ,church and the ,schools1 the evolutionists must quit either evolution or the ,christian schools1 or the controversy can in no way be cured4 ,for how can faith in an inerrant ,bible and unbelief in its inerrancy abide in harmony in the same house8 ,in the very nature of things1 two groups who hold such absolutely antagonistic positions must either part company or continue the controversy born of the antagonism4 ,the true ,church always has believed1 and always will believe1 in an inerrant ,word of ,god1 and she cannot harbor within her ranks any group of people1 no matter by what name they go1 who do not take their stand without equivocation on that same ground4 ,if reason for this intolerance is asked1 it will appear in the light of some questions asked by ,dr4 ,joseph ,parker4 ,these questions are3 ,if the ,bible is wrong in history1 what guarantee is there that it is right in morals8 ,if the ,bible is not a reliable guide in facts1 how do we know that it is a trustworthy guide in doctrine8 ,however he may have arrived at his conclusions1 it is extremely significant1 in the light of these questions1 that ,dr4 ,e4 ,d4 ,burton1 being willing to admit that the ,bible is not infallible in history or in matters of science1 has also concluded that it is not wholly consistent and therefore not ultimately and as a whole inerrant in the field of morals and religion4 ,what reason more can the ,church want to justify her for intolerance of a theory that will do this to a man's faith8 ,is it not correct reasoning to conclude that if one man suffers such a collapse of faith after accepting evolution1 others are likely to suffer the same thing8 ,and when the ,church observes this collapse taking place in every quarter1 and then discovers that back of it lies the theory of evolution1 is she not justified for being intolerant of that thing which is gnawing at the vitals of her faith8 ,what can she say else than that the teachers of evolution1 at least in the ,christian schools1 must either give up evolution and come back to faith in an infallible ,bible1 or part company with the ,church8 ,it may be that one reason why the evolutionists are so loth to get out of company they do not belong in is because they fear that thereby they may lose their coveted reputation for scholarship4 ,prof4 ,howard ,w4 ,kellogg1 formerly of ,occidental ,college1 hints as much when he says3 ,science has again and again set aside as untrustworthy the so-called discoveries of evolution1 has compelled the great ,german evolutionist1 ,haeckel1 to confess that his drawings of missing links were from imagination rather than from objects found1 has driven him from his university chair1 and has compelled him to admit that ,most modern investigators of science have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution1 and particularly of ,darwinism1 is in error and cannot be maintained1--and yet in spite of such admissions from men recognized as authorities in their respective lines1 the doctrine of evolution appears to rule as absolutely in the educational world as if it were not a moribund hypothesis1 already discarded by many1 and to be discarded by others when scientific evidence rather than reputation for scholarship is allowed the deciding voice4 ,but whatever the actuating motive may be that has kept the evolutionists from giving up their unscholarly and unscientific theory1 true believers in the ,word long to see them do what ,henry ,drummond1 that brilliant scientist1 did before he died4 ,on his deathbed he said to ,sir ,william ,dawson1 as reported in this country in the writer's hearing by ,dr4 ,john ,robertson directly from the lips of ,dawson3 ,i am going away back to the ,book to believe it and receive it as ,i did at the first4 ,i can live no longer on uncertainties4 ,i am going back to the faith of the ,word of ,god4 ,when both the ,church and the ,schools consistently and sincerely take this attitude toward the ,bible1 the controversy will be ended in the one way in which the ,church longs to see it end4 ,printed in the ,united ,states of ,america ,,divine ,,dynamite ,by ,j4 ,e4 ,,conant1 ,d4,d4 ,a stirring address to the ,church1 pleading the need1 the source1 and the operation of power from on ,high1 which she needs above the power of eloquence1 of music1 of sociability1 of organization1 and of money4 ,a ,,representative ,,testimonial ,this order confirms my wire of even date1 ',please mail to-day fifty ,divine ,dynamite1' and best expresses what ,i think of the book since reading it4 ,f4,d4,s41 ,davenport1 ,iowa ,art ,stock ,covers1 #bj cents1 postpaid ------ ,i have been sending this book around to people who1 ,i thought1 ought to read it4--,william ,jennings ,bryan4 ,the ,other ,side of ,evolution ,its ,effects and ,fallacy ,by ,alexander ,patterson1 ,d4,d4 ,with an introduction by the late ,george ,frederick ,wright1 the eminent geologist of ,oberlin4 ,,contents page ,preface4 ,claims and ,influence of ,evolution vii ,introduction4 ,the ,meaning of ,evolution xix ,chapter ,i ,evolution ,is an ,unproved ,theory #e ,chapter ,,ii ,evolution of the ,universe and ,earth #ag ,chapter ,,iii ,evolution of ,species #bf ,chapter ,,iv ,evolution of ,man #fj ,chapter ,v ,evolution ,unscientific and ,unphilosophical #aab ,chapter ,,vi ,evolution and the ,bible #abj ,chapter ,,vii ,spiritual ,effect of ,evolution #acg #abmo1 cloth binding1 #a4jf1 postpaid ,there is more happiness in bringing souls back to ,god than in three presidential nominations4--,william ,jennings ,bryan ,,the ,,bible ,,and ,,its ,,enemies ,by ,,william ,,jennings ,,bryan ,written that the people shall not be robbed of their faith in ,god4 ,for he that cometh to ,god must believe that ,he ,,is4--,heb4 #aa3f4 ,there is a great stir in the camp of the ,atheist1 the ,agnostic1 the ,higher ,critic and particularly the ,evolutionist1 because of this modern ,david--,america's ,gladstone--,william ,jennings ,bryan6 ,the heart of every true ,christian rejoices because the enemies of our country and of our ,god and ,saviour are so plainly pointed out by this bold and mighty champion of the ,book4 ,read--,distribute--,recommend this attractive and compelling booklet4 ,pastors1 ,educators1 ,students1 ,parents--you cannot ignore this great message6 ,art ,stock ,covers1 #abmo1 #be cents1 postpaid4 ,,what ,,about ,,evolution8 ,by ,w4 ,h4 ,,griffith ,,thomas1 ,d4,d4 ,some thoughts on the relation of ,evolution to the ,bible and ,christianity1 by a former fellow of ,oxford and ,principal of ,wycliffe ,college1 ,toronto4 ,a neatly printed pamphlet1 #aj cents1 postpaid ,,the ,,bible ,,institute ,,colportage ,,ass',n #hbf ,north ,la ,salle ,street1 ,chicago 99 99 99 99 99 ,transcriber's note3 ,page #aa ,the word none has been changed to no in none effect by a non-belligerent4 ,page #cb ,duplicate of removed from the doctrines of of the ,deity4 ,page #hh ,added a period to the end of the quote finishing with 444 morals and religion4 ,page #ia ,the printer's name and adress were removed4 ,they appear at the end of the advertisments4