ONE of the most determined attacks made against the citadel of truth in modern times is by the advocates of Evolution. There is scarcely a department of human knowledge which it has not ruthlessly invaded and used what attainments have been made in these different fields for its own purposes. One can scarcely take up a book on biology, zoology, geology, palaeontology, anthropology, sociology but one is met with its dominating influence. It has entered the field of history, and was a dominating factor in the mind of Wellhausen in shaping the God-dishonouring theories he set forth. It has been responsible to a large degree for the mythological views that have been adopted by modern scholars in connection with the opening chapters of Genesis and the patriarchs. It has likewise captured philosophy in almost all its branches. It entered into practical politics, and through the teaching of Nietzsche influenced the minds of the War Lords of Germany who deluged the world in blood. It is taught in our universities and colleges. And literature for the young which is circulated broadcast throughout the country, such as the “Children’s Encyclopaedia,” “My Magazine,” and the “Children’s Newspaper,” accept it as one of the most assured facts of science. This being the case, it is no wonder that the uninstructed public press should so accept it. Articles from the pen of Prof. Arthur Thomson, one of the most popular evolutionary writers of the day, appear in the press advocating this theory. And when we remember that the Senatus of the Aberdeen United Free College asked Prof. Thomson to deliver a series of lectures to the divinity students of that College, which were afterwards published under the title of “What is Man?”—in which the evolutionary theory is unashamedly taught—it need not be wondered at that editors of the
secular press should fall a prey to Prof. Thomson’s captivating literary style, even though some of his writing in the name of science is purely imaginary. Recently, however, the newspaper world was stirred to its depths through the trial of a young professor, Mr Scopes, in Dayton, Tennessee. As for the American press, one can expect almost anything from it, and that it should try to turn the trial at Dayton into a farce was quite in keeping with a certain type of American journalism if it so minded, but one expected better things from British journalism; in this particular case, however, it followed generally the lead of the excited journalists of the United States. The issue to be decided in the Dayton trial was this—The State of Tennessee had made a law forbidding the teaching in State-aided colleges and schools of any theory that called in question the doctrine of creation as set forth in the Bible. It was not denied that Mr Scopes taught evolution, but it was the policy of the prosecution to show that the scientists could say a great deal for evolution, a contention which the presiding judge wisely ruled out of order, as the court might otherwise have a session for a year or two, and at the end of it all never get beyond the evident fact that Evolution is only a theory and nothing more. Mr Scopes was condemned and fined 100 dollars, but the case is appealed to the Supreme State Court, and will probably go to the the Supreme Court at Washington before all is done. The gauge of battle has been thrown down, and the defenders of God’s Word have taken it up, and we wish them well. The trial of Mr Scopes is only the firing of the first shot from forces that are entering into a death grapple with the advance legions of the Prince of Darkness marching against them as an angel of light. We cannot predict the issue, but we are intensely interested in it, and it ought to be our prayer that the Lord will arise and defend the cause that is His own, however imperfect and frail the instruments may be that are engaged in the conflict. In view of the interest awakened by this trial, we give in this issue an article written, we believe, by the Editor of “The Protestant” (Washington), Judge Nations, in which the case is stated from the sane American point of view. It is of special interest to know that there has been published at this moment one of the most crushing criticisms that has ever been levelled against Evolution by Prof. Trenchard More, in his “Dogma of Evolution.” The work is composed of a series of lectures delivered at Princeton University—not the Seminary, which is
quite distinct—by a scientist of repute. We are completely out of sympathy with his religious views, and especially his views in regard to the early chapters of Genesis, as one may gather from stray references in his lectures, but no one can read these lectures without being profoundly convinced that Evolution is a mere will o’ the wisp—a creation of the scientific imagination, and nothing more. It has utterly failed to do what it promised. Prof. More looks at the subject from a severely scientific standpoint, and has no hesitation in saying that Darwinian Evolution is rapidly waning, notwithstanding the infatuated reception that was given to it when it was announced. Though Darwin was a biologist, and that it was in this field Evolution made its first bow to the public, yet the biologist has never been able to explain the mystery of life. But our real antagonism to Evolution is not so much that it ignores the very facts of true science, but that it sweeps away at one blow the very foundations of our faith. In this process of development from lifeless matter through a brute ancestry to man there is no place for the Bible doctrines of creation, the fall, regeneration, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc. It gets rid of such Christian graces as meekness, humility, etc. In fact, the whole work of salvation wrought out by the Lord at such tremendous cost is useless if Evolution be true—man by a process of development would reach a state of perfection, not by the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus and the miraculous intervention of God, but by a mere natural process. It is for this reason we are continually directing our readers’ attention to this menace to the Christian faith, and warning, especially those who have the instruction of the young in their hands, and the young themselves, that they shun as the pestilence a theory so dishonouring to God and so destructive to our common faith. As Prof. More truly says:—”I can find no symbol and no law to satisfy our spiritual nature in the quasi-Christianity of the humanitarian applications of Evolution. The real tendency of Evolution is to be found in the philosophy of Nietzsche and not in the life of Christ.”
The Scopes trial is only an incident in the great battle waging between Fundamentalists and Modernists, and while we do not commit ourselves to all the methods or doctrines of those who are known as Fundamentalists in America, yet we thoroughly agree with a paragraph in the Statement issued by the Annual Convention of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, which had its meeting at
Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A. “The time has come,” says the paragraph in the Statement, “when Fundamentalists and Modernists should no longer remain in the same fold, for how can two walk together except they be agreed? Therefore, we call upon all Fundamentalists of all denominations to possess their souls with holy boldness, and challenge every false teacher, whether he be professor in a denominational or State school, whether he be editor of a religious publication, or the secretary of a denominational board; and whether he be a pastor in a pulpit in the homeland, or a missionary in the foreign field.” Among the signatories of this Statement is Mr William Jennings Bryan, whose sudden death has been so deeply lamented by many of his countrymen in general and Fundamentalists in particular.
Canadian Church Affairs.
AS so many of our readers are interested in Canada and what is happening there, we are giving in this short article a brief account of church affairs in the Dominion as far as the Union of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches are concerned. Whoever first devised the scheme of bringing Churches so far apart in doctrine and church polity together was either blind to the differences existing between these bodies, or was a reckless dreamer. From the “New Outlook,” the organ of the United Church of Canada, one would scarcely know how embittered the controversy has been between the Unionists and the Anti-Unionists, nor that there has been such a considerable break-off of Presbyterians. In the first number of the above there is an article—”The Streams that are flowing together,” in which an attempt is made by Prof. Falconer to show how the Calvinism of John Calvin, the Arminianism of John Wesley, the Congregationalism of the New England Puritans, and the Presbyterianism of the Scottish settlers are successfully blended in that strange medley of doctrine and church polity—the United Church of Canada. The article is accompanied by portraits of the three Johns—Calvin, Knox, and Wesley. And with a little imagination one can almost detect the kindling of the fire in Knox’s fiery eye as he is brought into such close proximity to that pronounced hater of everything that savoured of Calvinism—John Wesley. Prof. Falconer, however, gives the case away when he says:—”The Congregationalists and Presbyterians have thus been approaching the doc-
trinal positions of Methodism. The Congregationalists and Methodists have been advancing towards the Presbyterian form of government.”
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, preparatory to the Union, met at Toronto on 3rd June. Dr Pidgeon, of Toronto, Convener of the Union Committee, was appointed Moderator. The Union report came up on the 9th. The Anti-Unionists tabled a protest, in which they stated that over 700 congregations declared against the Union, while two Provinces had yet to declare. Near the end of the Assembly, the Anti-Unionists constituted themselves as an Assembly, notwithstanding the determined opposition of the Unionists. After all the planning, scheming, plausible speechifying, and bad exegesis of Scripture, the Unionists have not been able to gather into their strange fold all the Presbyterians of Canada, and some of these Unionists are so ill-mannered as to say nasty things about men who have a clearer vision and a stiffer moral back-bone than their own. We are gratified that Canada has witnessed this battle, and that there are men who still value principle above popularity. At the same time, we do not wish our readers, either at home or in Canada, to conclude that we are in full sympathy with the Canadian Presbyterian Church as now constituted. Between us and them there are very serious differences, as our people in Canada know full well, and nothing we have written on this subject is to be taken to indicate that we are blind to the seriousness of these differences. As for the United Church of Canada, its constitution is sufficiently elastic to suit the Churches of Sardis and Laodicea combined. The Presbyterian office-bearers who joined it were disloyal to the Church of their fathers, and their departure will not militate against the Church they left. We have in the United Church an illustration of the modern ecclesiastical fad for Union at any price. Outward union is more than truth, and the devious ways of the politician are resorted to by the ecclesiastical in order, forsooth, that the unity for which, we are told, Christ prayed might become an accomplished fact. If the “New Outlook” prophets prophesy truly, a great day of spiritual blessing has dawned for Canada, but as we have been so often disappointed by the modern school of prophets, we prefer to restrain our rejoicings. The Anti-Unionists, or Non-Concurrents as they are called out there, may have their own difficulties before them, but they should be profoundly thankful they have got rid of the Unionists.