The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-01-08
What Is Intolerance

Gle of Dec. 18th on the Theological
Seminary in Columbia, to which Mr.
Smytb, of Pelzer. refers in your issue of
January lst, was taken, rs | supposed,
from the Columbia Register, from which
copies were taken by many other papers
throughout the country. Nothing
prcjudicial to either the friends or op.
ponents Of DIR. Woodrow was said in
that article, or in your abstract Of it,
IS far as appeared to me.
But when Dir. Smyth says: "As we
all know it has been impossible to check
the spirit of intolerance" he classiies
his co.Presbyters who sat with him rs
his peers in the late Synod at Greenville.
1t is not desirable, on many accounts,
10 protract this discussion at present
but it would be pity if your readers
that part of that Synod was tolerant and
| Il part intolerant. 1t was q perfectly
open and free discussion. | have never
listened TO discussion in which all the
courtesies Of public debate were 80 finely
observed, or one so free from parliGmen-
tary trick or maneuvre. DR.. Woodrow
himself most admirably cxemplilied the
courtesy aud eloquence of the occasion.
There WAS tolerance all round aud
| through the house. DR.. Woodrow was
| requested to select his own hours for
speaking, and as many hours rs he might
desire. He availed himself of that
privilege, and wisely selected the last
that were to close the debate, and spoke
seven hours. The Synod listened with
profound and respectful attention,
without any interruption, except politely
to ask question, which DR.. Woodrow
had solicited of all the members. 1t
was avowed rs many times es there was
any reason in it, that Synod was not. and
would not, sit in judgment upon DR..
Woodrow's opinion, then under question,
as theological heresy. Every precaution
was observed to keep intact his reputa-
tion as a Presbyterian Minister and
Doctor of Divinity; and when the con.
clusion Of the debate was reached, it was
as mild an expression of the Synod's dis
appreciation of his supposed new teach
ing as was possible to the English Ian
guage, without saying nothing. Even
after this, q complimentary resolution
passed the house unanimously, in most
courteous and affectionate terms express
ing TO DR.. Woodrow the admiration of
bis brethren. If there was any intoler.
ance in all this-any in vote of disap-
proval of certain form of instruction
in our own Seminary-a in having
honest convictions end kindly express.
ing them-expressing them in behalf of
the Institution we are pledged to protect,
then We must turn about and ask what
is intolerance7
1t is, VIC think, common to men and
may be either: A bigoted 6xity of re-
ligious men that will not endure the opin-
ions Of scientific men, or bigoted fxity
of scientific men that will not endure the
opinions Of religious mep. Religion
may be intolerant of science, and science
may be intolerant of religion. May
science claim to push her demands over
into the region OF theology, intolerant of
any doctrine that may stand in her way,
and the Church be denied the privilege
of defending her citadel? Is it tolera.
tion in science to demand Of theologians
the control of text of Scripture by
the introduction of one Of her theories ?
And intolerance in theologians to demur
to that demand Is 1t intolerance 10 be
seriously convinced that a scientific
theory is hostile to religious doctrine
and to say so9 And, if this conviction
is the result Of ignorance, how does it
happen that this spirit of intolerance
could not he checked in fair and open
debate2
1t is sort of tatit verdict of the
world that intolerance is an attribute OF
| the ignorant party, and the Church has
been assigned her position in that party.
Hence her opposition to any new idea
has been styled "odium Meologicum ~
and hence, aiso, many of her friends
have imperceptibly. slid in their sympa-
thies over to'the party that seems to be
honored with literary favor. If it be
true that great many of the friends o!
! the Church have allowed their sympa,
thies to 60 over to the aide of scientific
theories, at the expense of their loyalty
| to sound doctrine, it is a .roof that the
Church has been very tolerant, too toll.
Grant; and the late expression of her
convictions through the Synods has no,
been too coon. Her toleration of the
advance Of new philosophical opiniona
within her pale during the last 90 years;
In other formu beside that of evolution,
has been en- erpensire toleration; and to
wake up now TO a recognition of the fact
Iis not only not intolerant, but she would
be recreant to her trust IL she were not
as faithful as that.
The cry evermore Is that we are fight.
ing evolution, and that the Church is
intolerant of free inquiry and scientific
research. The truth is, that the Church
Is in such complete sympathy with
science in oil her findings, that she Ia
almost ready to- endorse theories that
have not yet been demonstrated !; and to
give them encouragement has already
allowed uernaeular creed to grow up