The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1886-04-20

ever have questioned again on which
side stand with reference to this mat
ter. am alone responsible for this
letter. but am certain that accur-
ately represent the opinions Of Drs.
McCosh and Patton as we'll as nv
own.
Evolution as a working hypothesis of
scientific men lies beyond the sphore of
our criticism and threatens no interest
with which we are concerned. Science
has authority only because it deals with
questions capable Of definite verifica-
ton. When limited definitely to her
own sphere she is not to be questioned,
and cannot be resisted. But her sphere
is correspondently narrow. She has to
do with phenomena, things capable of
being determined by the senses, and
their hkenesses and unlikenesses, their
co-existcnce aud SUGGESTIONS. All
speculation rs to causes and final ends
belongs to the department of philoso-
ply. And the current philosophy of
evolution, which hypothecates spon-
taneous generation, and the gcnetic
evolution Of all existing living beings
from the same primary germs, has as
little Of the character of real science
and as little of its authority, as any
other philosophical speculation which
ever transicntly troubled the currents
of human thought. There is no evi-
dence that demands serious considera-
t'on to prove that man was originally
generated from non-human ancestors.
1t 's pr"posterous to teach it as fact of
science. Many Intelligent men regard
1t us probable on the side Of physical
analogy. and Of precisely that amount
Of value. We think that even if speci-
tic variation by descent should be prov
ed to have been the method followed
by God in bringing into existence the
successive orders Of the lower animals.
the immense probability in the case of
man. looking upon the problem in the
light of revelation and of the intelle Ct
ual and moral side Of man, is that the
preparatory law ceased to rule in this
supreme, instance and that Gods own
viii and image was brought into exis.
tence by an immediate act of God Him
self. Certainly the Scri ptures, which
we deVoutly be to be the very word of
God. render this very plain in what
they teach as to the production of Eve.
An evolution of the body of Adam,
since evolution signifies advanced
changes through immeasureable minute
variations, could possibly have been af-
fected in the male line alone. He must
have had a mother as we'll as a father.
and he must have had sisters and female
cousins as we'll. IF the theory of evo-
luton any man holds makes room for
the Bible account Of Eve, neither the
scientists, nor the philosophers, nor the
theologians will make room for him.
" ssAA shS ocot wiSueS LOT the pros.
perity of yourself and of your noble
and beloved church, and of all it's
institutions, l remain, yours sim
cerely
A. A. HODGE.
P. s.-To say that God created the
body Of Adam out Of pre-existing ma
terials is to say precisely what the Bible
says. But this is very different from
saying that it.was produced Aqa process
Of natural generation from the bodies Of
brute ancestors. To say thst God formed
body rs new creation out of pre-ex.
listing matter, and then placed = newly
created soul in it is one thing. But this
is very different from saying that brute
generated soulless body, and then tl.a,
God put soul created in His own irnu &C
in it.