Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-05-25
EVOLUTION.
YESTERDAY IN THE SOUTHERN PRES
BYTFRIAs ASSEMBLY.
The Case Of DR.. woodrow-speeches Of Rev.
DR.. George D. Armstrong, DR..
Woodrow, and Others.
Especial telegram TO the Dispatch

Augusta, GA, May 2i.-The discussion
81 the report On the subject OF evolution,
presented on Saturday. occupied the A.
sembly's morning, afternoon, and night
sessions.
Rev. T. T.. Smith read the following MI
nority report, signed by himself and Dr.
William Finn:
We. the undersigned members OF the
special Committee on Evolution, ree1m'
mend Il nj the General Assembly decline 70
make q deliyerauce on this subject because
the answer which Is evoked 10y these over
lures. IL gIanted. would violate our c0nstl-
tuition. Mole confession Of Faith, chapter
81, paragraph 4:
Ist. "synods and councils are to handle
or conclude nothing but TINT which IS oe-
clesislical."
ID because the Word Of God a inter.
prcicd By our standards gives the faith 81
the Church.
g.. Because before one Of our lower
courts a concrete case IS pending involving
the matter Of those Oyerturcs.
DIR. ARNsTRONG's SPEECH.
The Rev. DR.. Armstrong. chairman OF
the committee, made a clear and f0rcible
argument in support OF the majority re-
port. He said There are several distinct
points presented in these reports and TO be
considered.
First. The subject is before us IN regu-
lar form, for oyortures have come from
eight PTesbyteries in Texas, Missouri,
Virginia. and elsewhere from every
geographical section Of our Church.
They ask in legal manner for
an Interpretation. II our standards and
form Of government empower the Assem-
bly, 10 bear testimony against error in doe
:rine iujuriously affecting the Church, II Is,
therefore, proper for the Assembly TO de-
eide the question brought by these over.
| lures without waiting for a judicial case
| 10 be brought up as the minority report
proposes. 1be Assembly in the past
| has decided ten questions brought by
| overture to one brought upou appeal.
| There is a call for a deliyerdnce, for this
subj, ct is disturbing the Church. 10 i
not confined to Columbia Seminary, nor
| the Synods controlling it, but our Preshy.
| teIies call for relief, and last year half the
| time Of the synod OF Virginia was taken
up with case growing out OF II. and i'm
| pOrtant business was showed into corner.
second II is objected i'm the minority re.
pOIt that Synods may handle only what l.
ecclesiastical" but if the subject come mp
III Il case cl hpIth iuc ANN'mVig hV"i'
sill have 10 handle and conclude" H..
Would that make ii any more eccleSiaSti-
cal? The speaker showed that ecclesiaSt-
| cal in the article quoted included all mat
ter. moral and doctrnal, that n Church has
| TO deal with. Thi, is said to be a scientific
| question. and therefore may not be con-
| sidcred by Church courts, but the Bible IN
| it, statement oi facts, historical, geographic
| cal, and Of other Kinds, often partly covers
! the ground Of scientific investigation, both
| physical and metaphysical, and "Science
| falsely so called " would possess the ground
! the church has held from time immcmOra!.
a. in The case Of mans creation. Science
| here has only "squatters' rights" and the
| cheek q the assumption j. wonderful.
wife true science established facts ex-
Guiding lal,e hypoihese,) we have no con
| llu.
TIE EyeLUTION or MAN.
TIE sui jcct Of the evolution OF man. to
which The report confines itself. involve
| most important religious truths. He read
| the account Of mans creation from tdr
| standards. In interpreting this he snow q
| what degree of liberty the ordination v)W
| allowed the officer accepting the stindlr1-
~. rrIfniuiuV ilc 90 system OF doctrine - OF