The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1888-05-31

false. They were to determine on the
creation of the body of Adam as under
stood by the standards of the Church.
He says he goes to the works Of God to
find anything about the body of Adam,
and his belief is not based on the Word
of God. If the Church has put upon it
its construction, he is bound to accept
that construction and conform his teach.
ings to that construction.
Recess was then taken until s p. m.
The General Assembly resumed busi-
ness at s o'clock. DR.. Adams continued
his statement in behalf of the Synod of
Georgia.
After stating what tie standards ofthe
Church teach on the creation of Adams
body, he said that DR.. Woodrow had
given sense to the standards which the
words do not justify, and until within
few years such thing was never thought
of. By their assertions Adam existed
before his creation, but not as Adam, for
he was not Adam until God put soul
into him, and then he was made. That
was contradiction and an absprdity. DR..
Woodrow has asserted his belief in every
word of the Bible, and yet he does not
believe that God made the body of man
out of the dust of the ground because its
de6niteness had disappeared. BE also
asserted that when God put curse upon
the serpent, and said he should eat dust,
Adam was flesh and blood and bone, and
before the fall of man was the same.
The speaker wondered if the serpent did
not wink at the curse. He hoped that
this Assembly would put its seal of con.
demnation upon all such Ideas and
relieve the Church from such misfortune.
He honored the man who adhered to his
friends, of which DIR. Woodrow had
many, but there might come time in
the history of man when they must
adhere to God and the truth, even to the
hurt of a friend.
JUDGE HE1sKELL's ADDRESS.
Judge Heiskell, on the part of Dr.
Woodrow, next addressed the Assembly
in substance az follows:
He had said twelve months ago to the
Rev. Dir. Daniel that he thought that for
the peace of the Church it would be better
to burn the man Woodrow at the stake
or throw him into the sea. But be had
since read the record and was himself
responsible for his position in this case:
He then read the indictment against Dr.
Woodrow as to his teachings in relation
to the creation of the body of Adam.
The Synod of Georgia neither convicted
nor acquitted DR.. Woodrow. The Press
bytery Of Augusta was on trial before the
Synod, and that was not convicted. The
charge was teaching and promulgating,
and of that the Presbytery acquitted him.
1t is his belief, and he was not tried for
believing, and the action of the Synod
should be annulled or reversed, because
it is absolutely void as there was no
offence at all. There could be no doubt
that the action of the Synod was errone.
Gus and did DR.. Woodrow and the Pres.
bytery both wrong. The only evidence
was that DR.. Woodrow believed that
Adams body was probably produced by
evolution from some lower animal. To
believe that thing is probably true that
is not true, is not contrary to Scripture.
He had asserted his belief in every thing
in the Bible, but what was not in the
Bible he had right to his belief. The
question to be determined was whether
DR.. Woodrow,s belief in evolution is in
conflict with the Bible. He believed that
Adam was created Immediately from
organic matter, and not Immediately out
of the literal dust of the ground. EVo.
luton is taught in many of the prin-
cipal colleges of the country, and that
theory is held by some of the most emil
nent diviues of the Church. Long before
Darwin Bishop Butler advanced the idea,
and those who heard him were familiar
with the views of that great man.
Judge Heiskell made strong argu'
ment in favor of evolution as entertained
by DR.. Woodrow, which is not inconsist'
ent with the standards of the Church.
The Bible says that God created the
world in six days. Was it believed now
that those six days were of twenty. four
hours each? There are many who
believe those six days we're an indefinite
term, aud that belief is not contrary to
the standards of the Church. 1t behoov.
ed them as wise men to move slowly. 1t
might be that DR.. Woodrow was right
and those opposed to him might be
wrong. He would not say either was
right or wrong, but one or the
other may be wrong. Could they convict
man upon such charge without MAX
ing themselves laughing stock? He
asked what Interpretation the standards
had put upon the words, "dust of the
ground" The standards simply quote
the words of the Bible, but do not say
what they mean. They do not say that
such was organic or inorganic, and they
had no right to condemn man for
believing either way DR.. Woodrow
may wrongly interpret the Scripture; so
may we. He never knew Dr. Woodrow
until he came here and be stood in
defence of the Church. He could not
say whether be believes in DR.. Wood
rows theory or does not believe in it,
because he WAS ignorant on the subject.
He hoped the spirit of all truth would
guide the determination of the Assembly.
He spoke of the wonders of science and
especially of the telegraph, by which
immediate communication can be had