The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1854-05-26
From the Charleston Standard.
Rev G. VI. Taggart's Lecture upon the
Origin of the FElgELnn Race, as taught

by ScrIDltgre

selves, therefore, with abstract.
After appropriate preliminary observations, he
first considered the passage in Acts 1926, showing
hat il is as commonly mIsused as II is Imperfectly
translated. He stated that ST. Paul was not
speaking OF the hunfUn OrioiH oil any people, but
attempted to correct the Greeks who believed them
selves to he aborigincs Of their own soil through
the creative power Of the Greek gods. The apostle
declares that ''eCefy race on every face OF the
earth, and not ''all nations," the common trans
lation reads had its diVine origin with the spiritual
God, Jehovah, the Infinite Sovereign. That ''one
blood here signifies one human constitution, one
rational nature, one moral agency, and not one
man, it is commonly l5tttrprcfed.
In a generic sense ''nl0n is one, because he is
OF like parts and passions - not because he is de-
scended from one human proeenitor. The singular
term LI00d, in this passage, should not be inter.
precd so 10 conflict with the Pluf0L term OF
St. John, "born not Of WOOdS &C." where race is
obviously referred TO. That ST. Paul himself uses
the term blood, TO signify huniaR pr0PenSlleS,
human things in general and not one man. or one
race In his address to the Greeks, (Acts l7-24,
26) he taught that he one spiritual God made OF
one human cOnstituIion OF like human nature, and
distinct from the irrational natures, every OF
men to dwell on every face of the earth, appointing
the times when each should appear. and the
bounds OF the regions or continents which each
race should properly nhabit.
Passing then TO the Old Testament, the speaker
showed that in the compilation arrangement by
Moses, in the book oil Genesis, there are two dis
tinct accounts, each marked BY It's own original
character. The first account, in the first chapter
mention creation of man, not implying OF neces-
sIty that the creation confined TO one moment,
one place, or TO one man.
The second account, beginning the second
chapter, mentions not creation, but t0rnIatIOn
"a different Hebrew term being employed as ii
is also differently translatcd-and that MiS man,
formed from the dust already created, was placed
in the garden Of Eden, "o dress it and keep it,"
After some indefinite lime, months years, it
might be, the woman, Eve, neither created nor
formed from the dust, taken from the Sicte Of
the man while he was in a deep sleep.
Two soHs then mentioned as being born to
this and woman; these tOur, the father,
mother and two sons being the only persons in any
way mentioned, directly or indirectly in this ac-
count, ill ritter the murder of Of these by
the oher-when the murderer fled from his father
and mother into another land, and there married
q aoyte and founded city. Till ofcrM s time, rot
syllable IS mentioned of any daughters or any
o'her sons to Adam and Eve-and then the birth
of a third son is mentioned, and his name called
Seth, or the substitute-he taking the place Of the
second son, who murdered.
There is not word to warrant the suppositon
that other sons, and daug hrers also had been born
to Adam end Eve previous to this murder and
that one of snch daughters the full sister of Cain
became his acife. The very earliest and every
alluSion in scripture to such Il domestic relation
as the marriage Of brother and sister OF the same
natural parents is represented as being 10 the
highest degree criminal. 1t is not necessary TO
suppose, that what God has always condemned as
criminal IN every family since, should be innocent
| and 0PErOrcd by him in the family Of Adam, the
progrnor ofthe Hebrew race. There is a syI-
! liable IN the account to warrant, or in any way
render necessary such hypothesis. Those who
frame systems of theology rendering such CRIME
necessary, should carefully consider whether the
Scripture account calls for any such assumption
whether diverse creations or formations are not
clearly implied, and therefore various families ex-
lstlng, no such hypothesis is needed.
Moses himself speaks of a distinct race, between
which and his certain preiudiccs existed, as
his own marriage to an Ethiopian woman proved.
Numbers I2-I.) That this distinction of race
involved even distinction Of color, is clear, from
the remark Of Jeremiah (ch. 1929 Can the
Ethiopian chahoc his skin the leopard his spots,
then may yc also do good that are accustomed TO
do evil" This, then, recent or temporary
difference OF race, but difference established
1000 years ago, well known, natural and I'M
changeable as the SIjotS upon the leopard. For on
this well known naturalnesS and unckanceabLeneSS
Of the distinction between the rests the whole
lOTce oil Jeremiah question or moral Illustration.
That is. it morally impossible that con.
firmed habits of vice should be changed into con-
firmed habits of virtue, as il naturally impos-
shle that the leopard should change his spots, or
The Ethiopian his skin. Scripture, therefore,
should be interpreted, in harmony with The facts
of established science, the worlds history and
the whole natural order of Divine providence.-
The then dominant Church trembIed and perse.
cuted, when Astronomy declared the revolution of
earth around the sun-and only few years since,
theologans predicted the ruin of The Ribe and
destruction of christianity, should the principles of
Geology be proved to possess the public
mind. Yet these same prophets of ruin, are now
earnest in testiiyng 10 the entire harmony Of As
ronomy and Geology with the Scripture records.
So EL"o!ogy and Scripture will one day find re-
concers in every enomnalion Of christians
The preacher stated that he did not speak as
the exponent of any sect or society, but offered
The Interpretation 10 which years of study had con.
Quoted hlm-not being aware that anr pulpit of
any denomination had ever vet distinctly declared
a similar view OF Scripture teachings respecting
the origin Of human races. Though it NAV be
inconsistent with The verbaliSm Of some Church
creedS, yet he did not consider this scripture
teaching as logically Inconsistent even with the
prevalent theology. For even of those divines
who hold the doctrine Of ricQriOus atonement
some, such DR.. Chalmers, consider that atone
ment not confined in lis efficacy to families O!
man on earth, but including the inhabitants Of
l.