Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-05-15


censes for three candidates
for the ministry by the New
York and Elizabeth, N. j.,
presbyteries, because these candi-
dates. on first examination, declared
that they held the story OF Adam
and Eve as given in Genesis to be
a mere allegory, has sprung an an
imated discussion in the newspa-
pers. Although by some sort of con-
cession or compromise the case was
somewhat relieved subsequently, the
controversy goes on. And it is well
II should, until some things are
made plain.
1t is quite time disguised infidelt-
ty were forbidden standing room in
orthodox pulpits, and the pretences
of faith under which it masquerades
were exposed. Open infidelity. the
church can meet and master, as 1t
has often done; but the praying
and preaching sort is perilous in
the last degree.
Now this theory of "the Adam
= Myth" as it is called, is no new
thing. II has bobbed up periodically
for centuries. But 1t has been gen.
orally recognized as unvarnished
infidelity, and as such it has been
often exploded. That it is now TAX
en- into the pulpit as the last and
best conclusion of up-to-date schol-
arship on the subject, is simply pre-
posterous.
Let men theorize about the Adam
myth" as they will, it is perfectly
clear that Christ and the apostles
accepted it as history, and those
who rspudiate the teachings of
Jesus and the apostles must not
think IT strange when people of
common sense repudiate their pro-
fession of Christianity. A man who
parts company with Christ and the
apostles can lay no just claim to the
name of Christian, whatever else he
may be entitled to be called.
Let us see how Jesus treated the
adam myth" When he was in
quired of concerning the matter Of
divorce, he rested his teaching on
the immutable facts recorded in
Genesis, saying: Have We not read
that he which made them at the
beginning made them male and fe-
male, and said. for this cause shall
a man leave father and mother and
shall cleave to his wife, and they
twain shall be one flesh" Can any
candid man deny that the Master is
Intentionally and distinctly refer
ring TO the Adamic account in Gen
esis as a history and not as an al
legory?
Hear st. Paul in his letter to the
Corinthians-an epistle which even
infidels acknowledge as genuine
when he says: For as in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive" Can we suppose such
an argument possible to an apostle
If he believed Adam to be a mere
allegorical character? If the Christ
by whom all are made alive is a
reality the Adam by whom all died
cannot be a myth. Otherwise the
apostles argument is not even good
nonsense.
Again, writing to the Romans,
he says: "Death reigned from Adam
to Moses, even over them who had
not sinned after the similitude Of
Adams transgression. who is the
figure Of him that was to come"
Does this association of Adams
name and sin with the law Of Moses
and the coming of Christ suggest
history or allegory?
ST. Jude is very specific as to the
place of Adam with reference to the
patriarch Enoch, saying "And
Enoch also the seventh from Adam,
yprophesied of these. saying behold
the Lord cometh with ten thousands
of his saints" Did st. Jude fix the
location of Enoch by measuring off
seven PAGES from a myth?
ST. Luke undertakes to give gen.
ealogical table in tracing the de-
scent of our Lord. At one end Of the
chain is Jesus, and the other end
terminates with these words:
(which was the son of Enos, which
was the son Of Seth, which was the
son of Adam, which was the son of
God" If Adam is a myth at one end
Of the chain, what is Jesus at the
other? Intervening links are the
historic names of David. Jesse,
Obed, Boaz, Jacob, Isaac and Abra-
ham-are all these allegorical char
acters? If not, what shall we say
of St. Luke for mixing history and
allegory in such inextricable confu-
sion?
Again, If the story of Adam and
Eve in the garden is an allegory
what does the allegory represent?
VIII some of these bright young
theologians give the key to the pic
ture?
In this connection it is pertinent
TO quote the words Of old Bishop
Horsley who pounded this absurd
theory to pulp above a hundred
years ago. In one of his sermons he
says: mo writer of true history
would mix plain matter of fact with
allegory in one continued narrative,
without any intimation of transit
ton from one to the other. If, there
fore. any part of this narrative be
matter of fact, no part is allegorical.
On the other hand, If any part be
allegorical. no part is naked matter
of fact; and the consequence of this
will be, that everything in every
part of the whole narrative must be
allegoricai If the formation of the