The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1886-06-10
DISCUSSING EVOLUTION.
DIR. Woodrow Before the Presbyterian AS
sembly.

fit to give his revelation 10 US IL covers ii
MANY cases the same field as science
God has given his revelation to US in
form in which the most educated man il
tie world can study it with interest, ant
babe can study its blessed truths. 1t il
made up of biographies, historical state
ments, the Psalms and prophesies, th'
life of his Incarnate Son, the Acts of thu
Apostles, the Epistles and the glorious
Revelation of the future. 1t must give
biographies of good men and bad men
and must in many instances cover tht
same ground as that covered by science
both physical and metaphysical. Tht
first chapters of Genesis tell us that Got
created the heavens and the earth anf
man. God wisely embodied this in Hi
revelation; it is a religious fact. Science
covers the same ground. 1t may bt
just as truly religious as scientific, or j
may be wholly religious or wholly scien
ti6c. When it is said, therefore, tina
when science attempts to cover certain
ground that because the church cover!
the same ground it is intruding upon tht
domain of science, the claim is wholly
unwarranted. Within the last century
something that is called science has come
forward. There is great deal tha
claims to be science that is not science
that claims to determine some of these
questions that the church has always
considered settled by revelation. They
say don't bother this, when it belongs tc
the church, and has been ours since time
whereof the memory of man runneth
not to the contrary. Science comes in
and squats upon our territory. Laugh
ter The cheek of the thing is mon
strous. Laughter. These things may
be studied as strictly religious or strictly
scientific. If you will conGne yourself
to true science there is no possible conflict
between revelation and science. The
book of Nature aud the book of Revela.
tion are both by the same God, and he is
a true God, aud there is no conflict in
the testimony.
In deciding the question before US
would impress on you that this belongs
to the Church, that it is a fundamental
religious truth. We can con6ne our
selves to the strict religious aspect of the
question, and we do not infringe upon
the field of science.
We have attempted in the majority re.
port to give an exposition of our stand
ards. They may be right or wrong but
they are to US Presbyterians an authentic
exposition as to what the Scriptures teach.
Our paper only gives the evolution OF
man. Language cannot be made so clear
that some man is not ingenious enough
to pervert it. Now in what sense must
we understand it? What must govern
US in our Interpretation /? We must in
terpret them in their historic sense. My
conclusion is that in the Interpretation
of creeds and covenants, we must inter
pret them in the sense that we believe
those who framed them meant them. We
don't claim for our Confession of Faith
the authority of inspiration. There is
but one divinely inspired book. What
am 1 to do if I cannot understand them
in their historical sense? When they
ordained me they called upon me to
accept the Confession of Faith as the
system of religion of our church. Now
I may not believe fully every point in
that confession in its historical sense. II
I can establish my error is not a danger
Gus or vital one they tell me to 60 ahead
I had a doubt about the length of the
six days in which the world was created.
| I do not doubt that in its historical sense
it meant six days Of "a hours each, but
do not know if am prepared to accept
that belief Neither do know if
believe that it means six years or long
periods of time. l don't know now
which I believe. Again, our confession
| teaches that man must not marry any
person nearer of kin to his deceased wife,
than he could marry if kin to himself
That is, he might not marry his deceased
wife's sister. do not believe this. Now
the church allows certain liberty within
rational bounds. What then is to deter
mine if this historic Interpretation of this
question is to be received? The church
If cannot receive them, 1 can appeal tc
The Presbytery, from this to the Synod
from that to the Assembly. They decide
is this fundamental error likely to dc
harm. If not then they say go on, youl
error in belief is not dangerous or hurtfu
to the church. l have thus tried to de-
fine for you the limits of liberty allowed
to personal belief.
The word "create" in the account O
the creation of man, can have but ont
meaning and that is immediate creation
That is what our creed teaches that il
what our confession of faith teaches
The rule is infexible that we must inter
pref them historically, but our book pro
vides for certain liberty of belief. L
must be- shown that my error Of belief o.
practice is a mischievous one before
can be dealt with For this majority
report I ask your careful consideration
It's language is peculiar. 1t has beer
carefully prepared by the committee. 1
is not my paper, nor DR.. Smoot's paper
nor DR.. Junkin's, nor DR.. Strickler's, bu
it is the joint work and united wisdom o
all. We ask that you do not make cap
tious objections to its verbiage.
Don't make captious objections to thi
report 1t is Che best we could do. w
have used plain language rather thar
scientific technicalities. Science is nov
like the sheet which Peter saw lowered
down from the heavens i! is filled will