The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1884-10-15
PROF. WOODROW'S HERESY.
From the ST. Louis Presbyterian.

y
Whereof they now accuse me. but this /
confess untO tbcd, TINT after the way which
they call bercsy, so worship the God of my
fathers, believing all things which are writ
ten in the law and i'll the prophets and have
hope toward God, which they themselves also
allow, that there shall be resurrection of
the dead, both of the just and unjust. And
herein do exercise myself, to have always a
conscience void of offence toward GOD, and
toward men," 49, 'F'N'h - WV e.
The writer's opinion Of DR.. Wood
rows "Evolution" has been given. 1t
is the privilege usually accorded to cv-
cry one whose opinions are challenged,
that he be allowed to define his posi-
ton, but in DR.. Woodrow's case his
critics, refusing to allow him the privi-
lege of defining his position, arc con-
tinually a$$i0ming him n position i,of
their own devising. Why this pccul-
iarity? Is it because ProfcssorsT Wool.
row, in his owniehescn position, ishptats
lively seen to be unassailable ? First
hc'is assailed on the ground that he is
"nscicnt!fc, then he is almost charged
with being an utter ign0yumuS. then,
that he is hereto; andif any reasons
arc given for ethor Of these criticisms,
they are either drawn from an almost
objectionable misconccption of the
teachings Of his Address. or merely
based upon the ground that Dr.. Wood
rows views on Scientific matters arc not
those entertained by his critic, whichis
OF course mere begging Of the ques-
ton. In our humble Judgment, so long
as DR.. Woodrow is allowed the benefit
of being judged, not for what he has not
said, but for what he has said explicitly
Or implicitly, so long will he be able
both on Scientific and on Biblical
grounds to sustain himself successfully
against the charge of heresy.
What Is hcresy "Nothing there
fore ought to, be considercdJ by any
court as an offence! or admitted as a
matter Of accusation, which cannot be
proved to be such from Scripture, as IN
terpretcd IN these Standd,ds." Rules
Of sDisciplinc, chapter iii. zlIeresy
Therefore must be. the denial Of some
doctrine formulated in our Confession,
or the affirmation of, some doctrine con-
Trajectory Of those formulated there.
Applying this test to DIR. Woodrow's
views, ask smyselr-What doctrine of
the Confession Tor Of the Dible) does
Prof. Woodrow deny or srhat doctrine
does the address cOntIWlict? Is it
that God is Creator Of all things-Adam
included? that lie created Adam of the
the dust OF the ground ?' that He diff
fcrcntiatcd him from all other animals
by the gift of an immortal spirit ? that
lie cor stitutcd him the federal head and
representative of his race ? that Adam
is the first father of the human race :?
that the Bible is the very inspired word
OF God absolutely true in evcryrcspect !?
that it is the only and the infallible rule
OF faith and practice ? SO far from de-
nying or contradicting these points, he
is known explicitly to assert, maintain.
and defend them.
But it may be said, that granting he
himself is not a "herctic," yet his sci
entiiic views as put forth in his Address
are d0ngcroHs-they tend to hegesy.
On the contrary, ,afe MsO Mt bduhaa to
confess that the caution which he gives.
lest the Church repeat the follies
of the past in reference TO Geog.,
raphy, Astronomy, und GeutogySis worl!
thy Of our pro(oundcst attention &?
Is it true that Evolution is Scientific
question like Geography, Astronomy,
andEftcclosy is it true that the Bible
does not teach Natural ). ccnce at all on
aHy point? is it true, that so far, in ref
erence to questions Of asserted conflict.
the result has been, by general consent,
that, while the Bible does not harmonize
with Science, yetit is not contradicted
by Scicnce-that the true relation is
that of Observation-Disclosures? Are these
things so? then how can it be-
either hurtful or dangerous in Professor
Woodrow to maintain and teach before
his classes, and before the world, that
this same law applies to the Bible in re-
lation to this Natural Science question
OF Evolution II the, Church has en-
dorsed Professor Woodrow in the appIi.
cation OF this law to the Bible and Sci
cnce for the past twenty five years, how
can she consistently no'o reject thisilaw,
and cast him out as a hereto, or reject
his teachings as of hercticaI tendency,
becanse, forsooth, he proposes to do in
ting fufure, what he has done, with her
appreciation, in the past, viz. teach that
between tho Bible and Science there is
no. contradiction ? ~ ! ~.
irs Still it may bn'said {has been said J
granting that Professor Woodrow is no
hereto, and granting that ,hcresy is. not
logically implicated in his teachings.
they will, nevertheless produce here's