The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1884-10-08

inspiration of Gods word.
Let it be remembered that Dir. Wood
rows address confines the application Of
the principles of evolution to the body
Of Adam. He holds that the Scriptures
do teach that the SOHl Of Adam was not
evolved, but that it was Immediately
created by God and that the Lody Of
Fee is not an evolution by natural pro-
ccsses, but 4 creation by the direct in
tcrposition Of the Divine hanh Even
in respect to the evolution Of Adam $
body he does not 'loGnatically and die
tatorially assert that it is so beyond far
thcr dispute, but. on the contrary, states
"a few OF the facts which sesg7eto to he
sufficient at least to keep us FROM sum-
marly rejecting the doctrine as certainly
false" cannot be lightly and
contcmptuously diSmiSscd,' \
''many good grounds for believing that
evolution is true in these respects"
Another distinction which DR.. Wood
row signalzcS is that distinction between
the Bible and science cont,Udicting
each other, and the Bible and science
not teaching the same thing. Many are
disposed to think that if science teaches
one thing and the Bible does not teach
the same thing then we have conflict.
They demand that the law which regu-
IatcS the connection between science
and the Bible shall be the law Of h0y-
mony. DIR. Woodrow maintains that
the regulative law is the law of nom
contradiction. This latter is again an
ncalu06le aid to the student of the
Bible in connection with science. 1t
saves him from running to the Bible
every time there is cry of conflict, to
see whether or not he can torture the
holy text until he can extort from it
some expression, which teaches the
same thing as science; and having done
so, he must wait in anxious suspense,
lest science should ngain change her
confession, when he will be under the
painful necessity Of "gain subjecting
the Bible TO the rack and the thumb
screw. But l)r. Woodaow'S students,
if faithful to the principles instillcd into
them in his classroom, arc saved from
all this persecution Of the Word of God :;
and not even the ghOSt Of conflict be-
tween science and the Bible can by any
possibility disturb them in their studies
OF the inspired page from the .t',*t chap
ter of Genesis to the closing word of
Revelation.
This law Of non contradiction DR..
Woodrow maintains arises mainly from
two facts: l. The two books-Naturc
and the Biblc-arc both the product of
the same Almighty Spirit Of truth.
2. The absolutely non-scicntific charac-
ter of all the contents Of Holy Scripture.
This law is confirmed by the results of
all previous so-called conflicts between
the Bible and science. So far as in him
lies he will not let his students forget
Calico, or how not only astronomy, but
geography and geology, have combined
to teach us this lesson. First there was
asserted conflict, truth Of science and
falsity Of Revelation then attempted
harmony; then recognition of the law
of fn0n-contradiction.
Prof. Woodrow was put in the Perkins
chair in our. seminary to teach "the
connection between science and Rcvc-
lation." Shall we now turn him out as
hereto because he teaches that the
tar which regulates the connection
between science and revelation is the
law Of REORGANIZATION /? If this will
not suit, will the Church have him to
teach that it is the law Of contradiction
This would he heresy, indeed sheer in
fidelity! What then ? Shall he teach
that it is the law Of ha,7nonyl How
will this teaching square with geography,
astronomy and geology ?
Is it not self. that there must
be some law which regulates the "con-
ncction" between science and Revela-
tion +? and that this law must be found
under one or other Of these three cate
gories, viz !: 1st. Observation-Disclosures or
"a, contradiction, or 81, harmOny1
Now it seems that his critics demand
that he shall maintain the third. If so,
then either (D there must be some
standard outside Of Nature and of Rcve-
lation with which the two must be com
pared. in order to show the harmony or
disharmony; or (2) Nature must be as
sumcd as the standard by which to judge
Revelation; or (3) Revelation must be
assumed as the standard by which to
judge Nature. The first is clearly I'M
possible-no such standard exists. The
law Of harmony, according to the second,
would compel US to find the doctrine of
evolution i'll the Bible, or reject the
Bible MS false. But this is exactly what