The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1886-11-18
THE SOUTH CAROLINA SYNOD.
a Iioviow OF tho Proceedings and Il Re-
affirmation OF the Position OF the Minor
ity on the Woodrow Question.
[IMblishUi bu RcQNcSk.l

iitllrmntiOn OF the Position oil the MinOf-
ity on the Woodrow Question.
[rublishoi by ReQucshl
TO the Editor Mcms and Courier, Your
admirable paper (by far the best we ever
had in South Carolina) caters for varic.
ty Of tastes and represents many differ
ent interests. 1t is not every one who
reads all the articles you set before us.
You have published the proceedings of
the late South Carolina Synod, and
though many are tired of the whole
matter which chiefly occupied them, yet
what you set forth has been read with
great interest by large number of per.
sons. Comments on those proceedings
you will not consider out Of order. The
accidental majority would not suffer de-
bate and have put the Synod into posi-
tion which, it is believed, her ministers,
elders and members do not approve aud
will not sustain.
Allow me then to say imprin.is that
what took place in the Synod Of South
Carolina, touching the Anti-Woodrow
case, was no new thing, but just what is
the continually recurring fact in the his.
tory of human opinion. That body. as
we'll as the Presbytery of Charleston, has
agreed to and confirmed the erroneous
deliyerances of our last Assembly-but
'Truth crushed to earth shall rise again.
The eternal years of God are hers"
In this controversy let me say now to
your readers, both parties of US Presby-
terians are agreed in maintaining the
plenary or verbal inspiration of the
Scriptures. Both are agreed that God is
the Almighty Creator of all things. And
both agree that He is still carrying on
His work of creation. Nor is either
party disposed to deny what scientific
naturalists affirm, viz: that descent with
modification is the law of the successive
appearances of the animal tribes on this
globe from the beginning until we come
down to man. And both parties agree
that God is now creating man just rs He
creates all other animals. We differ
upon only one point, viz: the creation OF
the body of Adam. And our difference
turns upon single word in our English
Bible, which may or may not be correctly
translated. As to that word, dust, our
side, with DR.. Woodrow in the lead,
afirms nothing; we only say that it may
mean some sort of organized material (,
such as the frame of an animal which
God modified to suit His purpose in Gre
ating man. The other side, however,
insist that the word used by our transla-
tors must be accepted by us as the only
proper Specification of the Hebrew term
and they threaten US all, as we'll as DR.
Woodrow, With serious consequences for
the doubts we express touching this one
English word.
Now, as to the question of the creation
of our first father, it is maintained on our
side, that the last General Assembly not
only added to, but directly contradicted
the Word of God. The decree of the
Assembly at Augusta was in these words
"That Adam and Eve we're created body
and soul by immediate acts of Almighty
power" 1t was thus denied that God
could have employed any time in the
creation of Adam. But the Scripture
says, "The Lord God formed man out OF
the dust of the ground and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life, and man
became living SOUL" Here is plainly
set forth not an immediate act, but a
work. The whole process of creation
described by Moses was gradual, occupy
ing six days; and the creation of the
first man and woman were very lmpor'
tant parts of the whole. 1t is not for us
to decide Low great or how small por..
tion of the sixth day was consumed
therein. Only this much is made GER
tain, that the creation of our first parents
cannot have been by immediate acts''
as our Assembly has ventured to assert.
Because, the Almighty must have formed
Adams body out of the dust of the
ground before he could breathe into il
the breath of life. He must have created
Adams nostrils before he could breathe
into them. In like manner EYES body
did not spring Immediately into being by
one act of Almighty power, for God first
caused deep sleep to fall on Adam
and after that He took out one of bis
ribs: and then He closed up the flesh
instead thereof; and after all these acts
He began the work of fashioning Ewes
body out of the rib. Can any mortal
tell how many minutes or hours our
Maker was pleased to employ on that
sixth day in converting the mere rib oi
Adam into the full developed woman,
Eve? Did our Assembly know anything
whatever about that of which it here
affirms? Yet, in the very face of Scrip
ture, it has presumed to alter its decree.
which if we accept not we are dangerous
heretics And Charleston Presbytery
and the Synod of South Carolina have
been persuaded to follow the Assembly
in this contradiction of the Bible.
Thus, Mr.. Editor, you perceive that
we freely criticize and condemn our
Assembly, but we are intensely loyal to
our Church. The Assembly is not our
Church, nor is any majority of the Pres
byteries our Church. They only repre-
sent or misrepresent it, as the case may
be. Nor yet are majorities in any case,
however large, at all sure to be in the
right. In fact, it is very apt to be the
case that the minority is in the right.
IF / am asked then, where is your
Church I answer that her members
and oficebearers are in all these South
ern States, and that her doctrine is not
in her assemblies, or her synods, but in
her Confession, and her Catechisms, and
in the holy and infallible Word of God,
out of which these Standards were
taken.
Yet further, Mr.. Editor, we condemn
what these fallible Courts of our Church
have said and done in this matter, but
we are no schismatics. We follow the
immortal John Calvin, and hold that we
are never to 60 out from the Church ex-
cept for the denial by her of fundamen-
tai truth. She is our mother. (so Calvin
has taught us,) and as such we must
honor and obey her, so long as she obeys
har Hnad we gre neynr to fnrsake the