The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-01-08
What Is lnt0lerance9


Gle of Dec. 18th on the Theological
Seminary in Columbia, to which Mr..
smyth, of Pelzer, refers in your issue of
January 1st, was taken, as I supposed,
from the Columbia Register, from which
copies were taken by many other papers
throughout the country. Nothing
preiudicial to either the friends or op.
ponents of DR.. Woodrow was said in
that article, or in your abstract Of it,
as far as appeared to me.
But when Mr.. Smyth says: "As we
all know it has been impossible to check
the spirit of intolerance" he classifes
his co.Presbyters who sat with him as
his peers in the late Synod at Greenville.
1t is not desirable, on many accounts.
to protract this discussion at present;
but it would be a pity if your readers
should infer from the above statement
that part of that Synod was tolerant and
part intolerant. 1t was a perfectly
open and free discussion. I have never
listened to discussion in which all the
courtesies of public debate were so finely
observed, or one so free from parliament
tary trick or maneuvre. DR.. Woodrow
himself most admirably exemplifed the
courtesy and eloquence of the occasion.
There was tolerance all round and
through the house. DR.. Woodrow was
requested to select his own hours for
speaking, and as many hours as 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 a question, which DR.. Woodrow
had solicited of all the members. 1t
was avowed as many times as there was
any reason in it hat Synod was not, and
would not, sit in judgment upon DR..
Woodrow's opinion, then under question,
as theological heresy. Every precaution
was observed &c keep intact his reputa-
ton az 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 Lam
guage, without sa. lg nothing. Even
after this, complimentary resolution
passed the house unanimously, in most
courteous and afectionate terms express.
ing to DR.. Woodrow the admiration of
his 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-any in having
honest convictions and 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 intolerance?
1t is, we 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 6xity
of scientific men that will not endure the
opinions of religious meD. 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 it intolerance to be
seriously convinced that a scientific
theory is hostile to religious doctrine
and to say SO? And, if this conviction
is the result of ignorance, how does it
happen that this spirit of intolerance
could not be checked in fair and open
debate9
It ia a sort of tacit 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, also, many of her friends
have inlperceptibly slid in their synpa>
thies over to.the party that seems to be
honored with literary favor. If it be
true that great many of the friends of
the Church have allowed their sympa>
thies to go over to the side of scientific
theories, at the expense of their loyalty
to sound doctrine, it is a proof that the
Church. has been very tolerant, too toll
Grant; and the late expression of her
convictions through the Synods has not
been tao soon. Her toleration of the
advance of new philosophical opinions
within her pale during the last so years,
in other forms beside that of evolution,
has been an expensive liberation; and to
wake up now to recognition of the fact
lis not only not intolerant, but she would
be recreant to her trust if 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 all her findings, that she is
almost ready to endorse theories that
haze not yet been demonstrated; and to
give them encouragement has already