Signs of the Times, Vol. 41, No. 3.
The Burdens of Criminality, Vice, and WarPage 1
Earlier text: The Burdens of Criminality, Vice, and WarConstitutional Pledges of Religious Liberty
By J. F. Blunt
Tyranny of Robbing an Honorable Citizen of a Portion of His Time—The Founders and Builders of This Nation Set Up Bulwarks Against Religious Despotism
“This is a country of religious liberty, not of religious toleration merely.” Thus wrote Thomas M. Cooley, the eminent jurist, whose work on “Constitutional Limitations” is a handbook greatly appreciated by the legal fraternity, and who is an acknowledged authority with bench and bar in America. In a foreword, of which the foregoing is the opening sentence, printed in “American State Papers,” Judge Cooley says: “Every person is entitled to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, under the obligations which rest upon all alike, that public order shall be respected, and the elements of morality and decency observed.” Tyrannical and Destructive
Passing on in a terse analysis of the issue thus forcibly presented, he says: “Whenever the law, either in terms or by the method employed in its enforcement, goes beyond this, and undertakes to compel observances that are only required by particular creeds, no matter how numerous may be those who consider them of divine obligation, it becomes tyrannical and destructive of a fundamental principle of American liberty. “It is also tyrannical when it punishes as a public offense the management of a citizen’s private affairs in such a manner as his own conscience approves, taking care in doing so neither to wrong nor to disturb those of his fellow citizens who differ with him in their views. “If in their opinion the course he pursues must be displeasing to the Ruler of the world, the question involved belongs not to human tribunals, and it is the purpose of our constitutional system that human laws administered by imperfect human instruments shall not assume to deal with it.” In “Constitutional Limitations,” upon the same subject, page 476, Judge Cooley makes this pertinent comment: “The Jew who is forced to respect the first day of the week, when his conscience requires of him the observance of the seventh also, may plausibly urge that the law discriminates against his religion, and by forcing him to keep a second sabbath in each week, unjustly, though by indirection, punishes him for his belief.” Pledge of Freedom of Worship
With a view to the avoidance of such partiality in the administration of justice in California, the framers of the constitution now operative in this state inserted in that instrument this sweeping pledge of religious liberty: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this state.”—Article 1, section 4, Constitution of California. When one Newman, a Hebrew clothier of Sacramento, was found guilty of keeping his store open on Sunday in violation of a state law then on the statutes of California, the Supreme Court of California ordered his discharge from custody, declaring that “the enforced observance of a day held sacred by one of the sects, is a discrimination in favor of that sect, and a violation of the freedom of the others.” (Volume 9, page 502, California Reports.) Punishing the Laborer for Working
The same tribunal, in a more recent decision, commenting upon the fundamental proposition of the state constitution, that “all men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty” (article 1, section 1, Constitution of California), said: “A man’s constitutional liberty means more than his personal freedom. It means, with many other rights, his right freely to labor, and to own the fruits of his toil. It is a curious law for the protection of labor which punishes the laborer for working. Yet, that is precisely what this law does. . . . Such protection to labor carried a little further would send him from the jail to the poor-house.”—Volume 112, page 468, California Reports. Stood Alone Without a Sunday Law
Thus it comes about that California for more than thirty years has stood for the equality of all its citizens before the law. It long enjoyed the unique distinction of being the only state in the Union where Sunday laws were not in force, and where all citizens, whether Jews or Gentiles, Catholics or Protestants, heathen or Christian, were not constrained by the civil power in respect to their religious beliefs or the observance of days, which might be regarded by any sect as deserving of acceptance or practise. The rulings of the courts of California almost invariably in support of natural rights, as affecting religious privilege, have been approved by the masses. Not only so, but it has been widely discerned that by no other course could the fundamental guaranties of state and nation be carried out. The founders of the national government were not remiss in their efforts to insure the free exercise of civil and religious liberty in the republic. On the contrary, they established strong barriers against religious oppression and civil intolerance. While recognizing in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truths, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they took care to incorporate in the Constitution of the United States at the onset a provision that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article 6, section 3, United States Constitution.) Lest the foregoing guaranty might be insufficient, and to guard against possible eventualities, the first amendment emphasized the purpose of its framers to insure absolute and perpetual religious freedom, in the guaranty that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”; and to prevent any possible coercion of citizens on the part of the individual states composing the Union, thus pledged to the maintenance of equal rights, the fourteenth amendment was added, in due time, declaring that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Law of the Land
Thus safeguarded, the wonder ever must exist that even for a time it should have been left to a single state to maintain so excellent a policy, while all the rest were engaged in restrictive legislation, wholly opposed to those fundamental pledges. Yet, in the original draft of the Federal Constitution, as if imbued with prophetic vision and possessed of the foreknowledge that parties would arise to demand the curtailment of these natural prerogatives, its sponsors had declared that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Article 6, section 2, United States Constitution.) They Made Sunday Laws Notwithstanding
In harmony with these principles, whose justice none can gainsay, the several states have adopted constitutional provisions guaranteeing civil and religious liberty, which guaranties have been ignored by nearly all of them, in the enactment of Sunday laws, always the outgrowth of sectarianism, and opposed alike to the divine law and to the national standards of freedom. And, as though this were not enough, a persistent demand is heard from various quarters, that these unjust and unconstitutional enactments be rendered more oppressive by further restrictive legislation, whereby the whole community39shall be forced, willingly or unwillingly, to lend outward obedience to laws primarily directed to the exaltation of Sunday, a day nowhere in Sacred Writ designated as intended for such honor. Bearing in mind that the fundamental object to be gained by the institution of governments, as enunciated by the Declaration of Independence, is to insure the maintenance of unalienable rights, inherent in mankind, it only remains to point out, in the words of that most glorious manifesto, “that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Victory by Surrender
By C. P. Bollman
ONE of the paradoxes of the Christian life is that by surrender we gain victory. Indeed, it is only by surrender, absolute and unconditional surrender, that we are brought into a position to receive anything from God. Of him who is resisting the divine will the Lord says, "Let him take hold of My strength, that he may make peace with Me; and he shall make peace with Me." Isa. 27:5. The meaning of the text is made plain by the experience, the conflict, the surrender, and the victory of Jacob in that night of wrestling by the brook Jabbok. Gen. 32: 24-30. Like many Christians to-day, for years, though a child of God, Jacob had carried a burden of guilt, and had felt a conscious lack of power, because while reaching out after God, and knowing some of His goodness, he had never made a full surrender, and had not therefore received the fulness of the divine blessing. But the time had come when Jacob must know that his sin was forgiven. He was about to meet his wronged brother, and he knew not the result of the meeting. His life might pay the forfeit of his overreaching in his younger days, and he felt that he was not prepared for the issue. Whether he was to die or to live, Jacob felt that he must know he was forgiven. He felt that he must experience in his soul the transforming power which would take out of his life the overreaching disposition that had been the bane of his existence all those years, weakening him at every step in his experience in the service of God. And so Jacob went out alone to seek God. He prayed for the assurance of divine acceptance and protection. But instead of experiencing the sweet peace he sought, he was beset, as it seemed to him, by an enemy. The struggle was long and desperate. Sometimes victory seemed on the side of Jacob, and again he realized that he was in the grasp of some one who was stronger than he, and hope well-nigh died in his bosom. But Jacob struggled on, till at last his antagonist touched the hollow of his thigh, and immediately "the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint." This ended the contest. Jacob was now disabled, and the victory rested with his antagonist. But that touch did more than put out of joint Jacob's thigh. It revealed to him the supernatural character of his antagonist, and broke his hard and stubborn heart. And the angel of the Lord said, "Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob." Ah, there was the weak spot in Jacob's character. "Jacob" meant supplanter. That name stood for character, the character that Jacob had learned to hate, but from which he had not been able to free himself. Doubtless he had again and again resolved to be no more overreaching, but generous; no more selfish, but liberal,—only to find that to will was present with him, but how to perform he found not. He felt his need of a power which he did not possess. But here he was in touch with supernatural, yea, even with divine power. He would not miss the opportunity. Before, his selfish disposition had led him to struggle for the supremacy; now that he is brought face to face with God, he cries out for deliverance from himself, and in the agony of his heart he says, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." It was this cry that brought the blessing, and his name was changed from Jacob—supplanter—to Israel—a prince of God. Jacob had surrendered, and in his surrender had gained the most glorious victory of his life, the greatest victory that can come to any man—victory over self, and oneness with God. By laying hold of God's strength, he had made peace with Him, and also with his own brother Esau; for "when a man's ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." "So each of us must, Jacob-like,
Surrender to our God;
Must feel the weakness of our flesh,
The power of His word."
C. P. BOLLMAN. What Christ's Coming Means to the Righteous
By H. W. Cottrell
Questions with Answers in Scripture
1. Will the righteous dead be raised at Christ's coming? "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first." 1 Thess. 4:16. 2. Will the living righteous join this throng and meet Christ in the air? "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:17. 3. Will the saints then be immortalized? "Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep [die], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." 1 Cor. 15:51-54. 4. When will Christ receive His children and remain with them ever? "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." John 14:3. 5. What is the consummation of the Christian's hope? "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13. 6. Will the new-born nation enter in through the gates into the city of God? "Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." Isa. 66:8. "Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in." Isa. 26:2. 7. Will their voices then be attuned to heaven's melody? "And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God: for true and righteous are His judgments." Rev. 19:1, 2. 8. When, therefore, will all men receive their reward? "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." 2 Tim. 4:7, 8. 9. Does Christ reassure us of the reward at His Coming? "Behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22:12. 10. Can this eternal gift ever be marred by sin? "The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more." Luke 20:35, 36. Rest unto Your Souls
By Arthur L. Manous
CHRIST says: "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matt. 11:29. See also Jer. 6:16. What are we to understand by the term "souls" in this verse? Perhaps this question may best be answered by another translation of the verse thus: "Take My yoke on you, and be taught by Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and your lives will find a resting-place."—Emphatic Diaglott. "Those who take Christ at His word, and surrender their souls to His keeping, their lives to His ordering, will find peace and quietude."—"Desire of Ages," chapter 34. THE LORD'S DAY OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA
By A. G. D.
Does the Lord Claim a Day in the Christian Dispensation ? — May We Be Sure Which Day It Is? FOR centuries the Lord's day has been a subject of deep interest to the religious world. Many sermons have been preached, and many articles and books written, about it. There has been some difference of opinion, which has, no doubt, led to a more thorough investigation than there would have been, had all been of one mind. Viewed from a Scriptural standpoint alone, the subject is plain and simple, and free from difficulty. The historical part of the subject, however, has not always been so well understood as it is at present. What, then, we inquire, are some of the well-established facts respecting the Lord's day? In Rev. 1:10 we read, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." This scripture establishes beyond question the fact that the Lord has a special day in the Christian dispensation. The book of Revelation was written when well-nigh one hundred years of this dispensation had passed away; and at that time there was a day that was distinguished from the other days of the week by the sacred title "Lord's day." In the absence of proof to the contrary, it is but reasonable to suppose that whatever day of the week was the Lord's day when John was in the Spirit, is the Lord's day at the present time. But what day this was, John does not inform us. He does not enter into particulars, but calls the day of which he writes "the Lord's day." We are left, therefore, to other scriptures for a settlement of this point. Turning to Isa. 58:13, we get a little light: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words." Here the Lord refers to a day which He calls His "holy day." From this we understand that the Lord's day is better than other days of the week; it is "holy." But we learn more from this verse,—that the Lord's holy day is His Sabbath day. His "holy day" and "Sabbath" are synonymous words, referring to one and the same day,—the Lord's day. THE COMMANDMENT AND A FORTY-YEAR TEST
By turning to Ex. 20:8, we get further information respecting this day. We read, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." That this scripture refers to the same Sabbath day which we have just examined in Isaiah is unquestionable. According to Isaiah, we are not to do our pleasure nor work, nor speak our own words, on the Lord's holy Sabbath day. The command is this: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work," etc. From this it is not difficult to determine which is the Lord's day. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Volumes could not make it plainer. The "seventh day" is the Lord's day. That the seventh day of the week is meant, is abundantly proved by the giving of the manna, as recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus. Whoever will take the pains to examine this chapter will see that God proved and tested His people by the Sabbath; and that He gave them no manna on the seventh day of the week, and that for forty years He thus pointed out to His people the meaning of the fourth commandment, from which our last quotation is made. The latter part of the commandment assigns the following reason for which the Sabbath was given: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." By this we are pointed to the origin of the Lord's day. It was at the close of creation week. Of its institution we read: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Gen. 2:1-3. It can not be denied that God rested on the seventh day of the week. This is admitted by all. That He blessed and sanctified the day of the week on which He rested, the record plainly states. And inasmuch as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the rest day of the Lord, it follows that the commandment points out the seventh day of the week. THE FOUNDATION AND THE FACTS
On these plain scriptures are immovably founded the following facts: 1. God has a day in this dispensation (Rev. 1:10); 2. This day is the Sabbath, or rest day, of God, which He blessed and set apart for a holy use (Isa. 58:13); 3. And this was the seventh day of the week (Gen. 2:1-3). The proof is conclusive, therefore, that the Lord's day of Rev. 1:10 is the seventh day of the week. This is the only day He has ever claimed as His. But it may be asked, Does not the word "Lord" in Rev. 1:10 refer to Jesus, and not to God the Father? and if so, is there any evidence that Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath day of which the commandment speaks? That John in Rev. 1:10 may refer to Jesus we are quite willing to grant for argument's sake; and that this same Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, the seventh day to which the fourth commandment points, is abundantly proved by our Saviour's own words. He says, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." Matt. 12:8. Of what does this verse speak? —Of Jesus and the Sabbath day. What is said of them? Jesus Himself declares that He is the Lord, owner, possessor, of the Sabbath day. Now if He is Lord of that day, certainly it is His day. Let it be remembered that the apostle John was a disciple of our Lord, and heard Him make these claims. John was also familiar with the commandments of God, which enjoin the careful observance of this day of which Jesus claims to be Lord. From these considerations, we are forced to the conclusion that the Lord's day of Rev. 1:10 is the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath of the Decalogue. WOULD HAVE MENTIONED THE CHANGE
This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that when John wrote his Gospel, a year or two after he wrote the book of Revelation, he used the same words in speaking of the first day of the week, that are found in the first chapter of Genesis, "the first day." Had there been any change of this day, it is but reasonable to suppose that John would have here pointed it out. This is also true of the other New Testament writers. They speak of the first day of the week eight times in all, and in no instance do they give it any sacred title whatever. On the other hand, they refer to the seventh day fifty-five times, and in every instance, without an exception, they designate it by the same sacred title the Lord used when He proclaimed His holy and perfect law. Thus we find that the Lord's day of the patriarchal and Mosaic9dispensations is also the Lord's day of the Christian dispensation. And finally, when this world of sin and death shall have given place to the glorious kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the same Sabbath will continue to be honored as the Lord's day through the ceaseless ages of eternity. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord." Isa. 66:23. A WORD TO OUR READERS
By Editor
We send no papers from this office to individuals without pay in advance. When persons receive copies without ordering them, they are sent by other parties, and we can give no information in regard to them. Persons thus receiving copies of the SIGNS are not indebted to the office, and will not be called upon to pay for them. Please read the papers you may receive, and hand them to your friends to read. The SIGNS wrapper bears date of last issue due on your subscription. Unless renewed in advance, paper stops with expiration date. If herewith is an order-blank, you will know you have overlooked sending renewal. You will not wish to miss a single issue. Back numbers often can not be furnished. Our authority for the doctrines we teach is the Bible. Quotations are usually from the King James Version or the American Standard Revised. SUBSCRIPTION RATES
By Editor
Three months ............................... $0.50
Six months ................................... .90
One year (50 numbers) ........................ 1.75
With "Questions and Answers" ................. 2.00
With Bible Atlas (maps only) ................. 2.25
With Bible Atlas (maps and text) ............. 2.50
With Bible Dictionary ........................ 2.50 1. One new yearly subscription and one renewal, or two new, sent at one time, $3.00. 2. Two new yearly subscriptions and one renewal, or three new, sent at one time, $4.00. 3. Three new yearly subscriptions and one renewal, or four new, sent at one time, $5.00. Five or more copies to one person, six months, each $0.60. Five or more copies to separate addresses, six months, each $0.65. Weekly and Monthly SIGNS one year, $2.25. G. C. HOSKIN, Circulation Manager. THE EVOLUTION THEORY NOT A MODERN DOCTRINE
By R. C. P.
The "Primeval Egg" Borrowed by Democritus from the Brahman Priests—The Evolution Theory Would Destroy the Need of a Creator—If Evolution Is Right Why the Gospel?
WHILE the theory of evolution comes before the world as the result of modern scientific research, it is in fact no new discovery, but an old heathen superstition. It originated with Democritus, among the Greeks, about four hundred years before Christ. FOUNDATIONS FOR NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS
The world had almost wholly drifted into idolatry. Democritus, becoming offended with the vulgarity attributed to these heathen deities, set himself to the task of inventing a plan of developing and operating the world without them. Drawing his theory from the theory held by the Brahmans of India, that the world developed itself from a primeval egg, he retouched this theory, which was too bald to be considered by the Greeks with any favor, and developed what was virtually the nebular hypothesis. He presented the view that all matter consisted of very small atoms, which were dancing about through space from eternity until they happened to come together. The sea mud development theory was originally held by the ancient Phenicians, who taught that all life was from the sea. They reasoned that as wet mud produces all kinds of herbs, it must have produced originally all kinds of animals. Upon this hypothesis they worshiped it as a god, and called it "mot" or "mud." Anaximander and Eucretius still further developed the theory. TRANSUBSTANTIATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE TRANSMUTATION OF SCIENCE
Mr. Tyndall says that the spread of Christianity hindered the spread of the doctrine, until the Saracens overspread the East, when some of them seemed to favor it. But with the reverses that weakened the power of the false prophet in the East, this anti-christian science went down. It was again encouraged by finding its counterpart appearing in the Church of Rome under the garb of the Christian religion about the tenth century, in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine of the sacrament into the real body and blood of divinity. It was the old doctrine of transmutation of species in a more complete form than that in which it had appeared under its heathen patrons. Science ignores miracles; yet a finer spun field of logic would be required than literature has yet produced, to distinguish between the miracle of transubstantiation of the Romish church and Mr. Tyndall's endowment of matter with life and thought without a Creator. SOME VARIATIONS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Lamarck presented another theory. He held that all plants—even fungi—and animals were endowed with intelligence, and improved themselves by the exercise of that intelligence. So the greyhound grew slim by running, the giraffe's neck grew long by reaching for high branches, and the duck acquired web-feet by swimming. Others agreed with this theory, but they attributed the evolution of difference to external conditions. "The Negro became black by exposure to the tropical sun, the arctic hare received its coat of thick white fur from the cold climate, and the buffalo and camel their humps of fat from the sterility of their pastures at certain seasons and the consequent need of reserved store of fat for food for the rest of the body." These were both variations of the evolutionary theory; but Darwin's doctrine of natural selection refused Lamarck's conscious attempt of either plant or animal for improvement, and it equally denied any external improvement by the power of nature, except by killing off poor specimens. Neither Huxley, Parsons, Mivart, nor Wallace accepted the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin. Others presented still other views. Not one of them was based upon a real scientific foundation. The promise in every case was assumed instead of being a proved fact. WANDERING BACK TO THE HEATHEN DIVINITIES
So after twenty-two centuries of wandering in a labyrinth of skeptical reasoning to get rid of God in creation, skeptics have circled back to the pure and simple heathenism of Democritus, who started out to develop the universe apart from heathen divinities. The marvel is that any eminent thinkers can be found to support such theories as scientific. It is no wonder astronomers have generally declared that the theory is in opposition to the facts of physical astronomy; and naturalists, that it is directly opposed to the facts of natural history. Evolution not only discredits the Bible account of creation, but laying this as its major premise, it logically denies the fall of man and the need of the atonement. Bishop Williams, of the Episcopal diocese of Michigan, declared that the book of Genesis contains a statement of "impossible geology, astronomy, and ethnology." Prof. C. R. Barnes, of the University of Chicago, said: "Reconciling Biblical accounts of natural events with scientific ones is a waste of time. To identify the days of creation with geological epochs is absurd." This represents the trend of sentiment of schoolmen who are misled by the false teaching of this pretended science. The issue is squarely on. If the Bible record of creation is true, the theory of evolution is false. Comte, speaking of the statement in the nineteenth psalm, "The heavens declare the glory of God," says, "The heavens declare no other glory than that of Hipparchus, of Kepler, of Newton, and of all those who have aided in establishing these laws." ("Illustrations of Universal Progress," page 241.) IT WOULD DESTROY THE CREATOR
The whole tendency of the evolutionary theory is to degrade the Creator, that man may be exalted to the seat of God. This is well known to every candid Bible student to be the work first begun in heaven by Satan, who became ever afterward an adversary of God and His work. Gen. 3:1-5. Is it not passing strange that human reason can become so dwarfed by beholding this false science as to distinguish no difference between a creator and an observer? These men named above observed the heavenly bodies until they were able to proclaim their laws; but their observations led them to exclaim, "We are thinking Thy thoughts after Thee, O God." Man has also been called a creator, because by the cultivation and irrigation of barren lands, they have been made to produce differently from before. Profound logic! God appointed man as tiller of the soil. He did not appoint him creator. There is a marked difference between a creator and a cultivator of things already created. NOT RESPONSIBLE TO THE CREATOR, AND THE FALL OF MAN DENIED
As previously remarked, the mischief of this theory does not end with creation. If the evolutionary theory of creation without a Creator is accepted, then God is not man's Creator, and man is therefore not responsible to God; and if man evolved, there was no fall of man; and if there was no fall of man, there is no sin; and if there is no sin, there is no need of a Saviour through whom atonement may be made, and the whole Bible is swept away, and man is left without God and without hope in the world. Mr. R. Blatchford, in an article in the Clarion (England), says: "If the theory of evolution is true, the doctrine of the atonement is not true. First, as to the fall; if there was no fall, there was no reason for an atonement. How can we square the fall with evolution? When did man fall? Was it before he ceased to be a monkey or after? There never was any fall—never could be any fall—according to the evolutionists. Evolution assumes a long, slow rise. No, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sinned against God. In fact, the whole fabric of the Christian faith is a mass of error. There was no fall, there was no atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no devil, and no hell." THE ISSUE IS PLAIN: IS THE CHRISTIAN FAITH TO BE DESTROYED?
This is the logical result of the teachings of all evolutionary theories. Evolution makes this stupendous demand for the reconstruction of the Christian faith, without presenting one scientific fact to entitle it to consideration as a demonstrated science. It demands not merely the reconstruction of the Christian faith, but42its annihilation. In the days of Elijah the issue was between the prophets of Baal and the prophet of God over the same question. "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him." 1 Kings 18:21. The lines of demarcation were clearly drawn in that conflict. Compromise was impossible. So now, if evolution be god, the creator and redeemer, follow it; but if the Lord be God, Creator, and Redeemer of a fallen race, "worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Rev. 14:7.