The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1886-06-10

lLSel1, III may uSe a HaGuei!lillCai lcIu.
Now let us consider evolution from inor-
ganic dust. Suppose your COW dies and
becomes partly decomposed. There you
have your dust; what will you give me
for the calf you can evolve from that
dust? Laughter. If you talk about
evolution from organic dust re must put
different meaning on organic dust
We say in our report that he was Great
ed without any natural animal parentage,
and in manner to preserve proper race
unity? What do we mean by race unity {?
That there was no more ape blood in Eve
than in Adam, or vice versa in this
ground work for proper race unity. This
is simply the statement of what we be-
lieve. The deliverance is what we under
stand our standards 10 teach. 1t was this
our Westminster divines meant when
they formulated these doctrines. This is
no new doctrine. I have said when you
come to decide on limits of liberty, it
must be determined if the error is one
that strikes at the vitals of religion and
is liable to do harm. We say these
teachings of evolution are dangerous
errors, because they endanger the plenary
inspiration af the scriptures, and leave
the Bible no longer worthy to be called
the Word of God. These old ministers
who have been grounded in the Word Of
God for twenty years ere not endan.
gered by the teaching, but the young
men, if they adopt the same doctrine, are
swept away. I don't believe in evolution
in any sense and l am glad don't; but
if you do, don't let it carry you to the
belief that it refers to man made i'll the
image of God. 1t will necessitate giving
up the doctrine of the fall. According
to evolution, man was at his lowest stage,
lust evolved from brute-how could he
fall? he was already low as he could get.
Laughter. l want to hold on to those
first chapters of Genesis. l believe the
garden of Eden had as true and distinct
location as the city of jerusalem. 1t is
all history to me. 1t is book plcnarily
inspired it is the word of God.
DIR. WOODROW AND EVOLUTION.
1t has been truly said that I am simply
ope of the members of this body. am
not entitled to anything that ought not
to be extended to any other member. 1t
has been truly said that l have no more
interest in this matter than any other
member of the Assembly or church.
Yet am not surprised, when | see that
sense of courtesy and propriety which
marks this body, that you have done
what you have in granting me too hours
in lich to address you. have been
pushed into the forefront of the battle
that is now raging and disturbing the
whole church. I wish to express my
deep regret if l might ever seem to be
placed in antagonism with the venerable
father in the church who addressed you
this morning. heartily agree with the
greater part of what he said God forbid
that should differ from it In greater
parts they were my sentiments. And if
have been supposed to believe other
wise, have been greatly misunderstood.
Anything that could lead to doubt of
the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures
should not be entertained by this Assem-
bly,. There is no human being living
who believes more fully than I in the
plenary inspiration of every word of the
Scriptures. And if any doctrine hold
can be shown to be in opposition TO that
1 renounce it at once. Show me that it
is in opposition to any "thus sayeth the
Lord" I instantly abandon it. There
is not one word in my belief that does
directly or indirectly impugn one SEN
teuce in that Sacred Word. | think /
can show it to be So There is not the
slightest doubt in my mind of the perfect
historical accuracy of the first chapter of
Genesis and of every other chapter.
DR.. Armstrong properly called atten.
tion to the fact that this question is fully
before you, and you have the right to
discuss it. But it is not always our duty
to do that which it is our right and
authority to do. And l think this is one
of those cases. We are told that the
churches are everywhere troubled on this
question. This is true, but, Moderator,
the troubler does not stand before this
Assembly at this moment. 1fapparently
introduced by myself, it was iu answer
to most urgent demands that could have
been brought against any member i'll this
branch of the Church of Zion. am
not sorry it was brought, because l think
it will enable all to see more clearly the
beauty, truth and simplicity of the Word
of God. God maketh the anger of man
to please him. 1t has been said this
question is not alone scientific. So far
as it is scientific, the church has nothing
to do with it. 1t has nothing to do with
anything not ecclesiastical. Every scien.
ti6c aspect must be ruled out. If any
thing touches the truth of the Word of
God, it is ecclesiastical and a proper
subject for this Assembly. But while
agreeing with him in so much as referred
to the domains of religion and science,
and while approaching his charge that
science was a squatter upon the territory
of religion, and that their friends the
enemy must get out, would remind
him that science has some rights as we'll
We who are studying Gods Word and
works find ample testimony for Him in
both. There is just as much squatting,
and it is just as cheeky for the ecclesias'
tic 10 poach on science as for science to
intrude upon the ecclesiastic.
Turn your minds to the truth and the
facts in the case. Where damage has
been done in one instance by the intru