which there is no proof, and of which proof is impossible from the nature of the case; for no one can look back to the beginning and prove God's method of work, and there are no records of any description to bear witness.

If evolution is true, nothing was originally created perfect, but all living things are due solely to the operation of unconscious, unintelligent forces, as expounded by Hæckel, Huxley and Strauss. But the plain meaning of the Bible is, that every living thing, animal and vegetable, was made perfect in the beginning, and ordained to produce "after its kind." The grass, the herbs and the tree were all made perfect, "each with its seed in itself," to generate "after its kind," and every animal was made perfect, with the wonderful power of reproducing or propagating its species "after its kind." The great law of reproduction announced in the Bible is "each after its kind;" but evolution sets this all aside and produces all living creatures from one low type of life.

Christianity reveals a God who gives us our daily bread, who clothes the grass of the field and gives the lily its beauty, who numbers the hairs of our heads and notes even the falling of a little sparrow; but evolution excludes Providence: the laws of nature operate without God's superintending care; His presence is not needed, and the evidence of His existence is weakened. But we cannot love, revere and

worship a God for whom we have no practical need, and the inevitable tendency must be to disregard, forget, and finally deny and reject such a deity. The evolutionist forgets to trust in God, because his mind is directed to natural laws. The essence of Christianity is implicit trust in God, and without such trust there can be no love or devotion. There is no logical halting place between atheism and a God who has left the world to the operation of natural laws and withdrawn himself as a necessary factor in the affairs of the world. Such a God would not be a benevolent being, and, therefore, no God at all.

On the question of man's origin, evolution has not and cannot cast a single ray of light. It teaches that he is evolved from some lower animal; and all naturalists agree that in his physical structure he is most nearly allied to the ape. But the "missing link," the absence of intermediate species, is still missing, and the widest possible gap exists between man and animal creation. All the investigations of late years, conducted regardless of labor, time and expense, have really resulted in proof of the fact that there is no connection between man and the ape, or any other animal. A German scientist, A. Woldt, in an article published in a leading German review, Nord und Sued, February, 1887, says, "There is perfect unanimity among scientists that none of the known apes is the ancestor of man.' The gulf between man and animals is impassable.

The Bible says: "The Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." That is a distinct statement that God made him immediately, out of inorganic matter, dust, decayed, crumbling, disintegrated leaves, grass, stones, wood, etc. An ape, or any living animal, is not "dust," but organized matter. The word "dust" seems to exclude the evolution theory. So, St. Paul says, "the first man is of the earth earthy," again the same thing, inorganic matter, or dust. Adam, the first man, is called by St. Luke "the son of God." Does not this imply that he was created immediately by God? Does not St. Paul's expression, "we are his offspring," imply the same? The clear implication, not to say positive statement, is that his body was an immediate creation; and the positive statement is that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," which is totally irreconcilable with evolution; this was special and immediate. The Bible tells us how man was created; but no living naturalist, if interrogated as to man's origin, can give a more satisfactory answer than Quatrefage's, "I do not know."

Some think evolution may be applied to plants and animals, but not to man's creation. Mr. St. George Mivart, in "Men and Apes," published in 1874, adopts the general theory of evolution so far as man's body is concerned, but claims a specific creation of his soul. If it is assumed that plants and animals are

evolved from protoplasm, to make the theory consistent and logical the same must be assumed of man; and if true of his mental and physical nature, how stop short and not assume that his spiritual nature, his ideas of God and eternity, are evolved in the same way? Opinions and theories will, in the long run, reach their legitimate conclusions. The final rejection of God and revelation is the natural and logical outcome of evolution. This was illustrated in the case of Darwin, who was a Christian, but, with his development theories, ran into infidelity.

Man appears in creation suddenly and fully developed, and, I repeat, with no proof to connect him with any lower animal. Huxley confesses that if, in defining man, we are to take into account the phenomena of mind, there is between man and those beasts which stand nearest to him in anatomy a difference so wide that it cannot be measured, an "enormous gulf," "a divergence immeasurable" and "practically infinite." Tyndall says, "the chasm between brain action and consciousness is impassable," and he adds, "here is the rock upon which materialism must split whenever it pretends to a complete philosophy of the human mind." Darwin says, “the difference between the mind of the lowest man and that of the highest animal is immense." In all the known past we see no evidence of evolution in him, physically, mentally, or morally. He has more know

ledge, but not greater mental power. We know this to be true, and it is a standing barrier in the way of evolution. Some of the evidences of this truth have been adduced in another chapter of this work, but it may be here stated that those marvelous works of pre-historic ages, the pyramids of Egypt, the most stupendous ever erected by human hands, and which loomed up six hundred years before the wearied Israelites toiled beneath their shadows, furnish incontestable proof of the genius, science, and civilization of their builders. If the architecture of the Great Pyramid was of human origin, it was the fruit of an intellect unsurpassed, if equaled, in all subsequent time. How is it that the wisdom and knowledge which conceived. and constructed these memorials of a forgotten age were never attained by Grecian sage nor equaled by modern savant?

Modern enterprise and research have unearthed in Western Asia records made on clay tablets, bricks and stones, which attest the truth of the Bible, and tell us of civilizations equal, or superior, to those of Greece and Rome in their most brilliant period. If the evolution of modern scientists was ever anything more than the figment of a brain that knew nothing of an Almighty Creator, it has been dormant for at least five thousand years, or expired in evolving the mighty genius that gave birth to the pyramids and the hoary civilizations of the unknown past. In point of fact, there is no change in the