The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-06-03

ShuiOh. inc iaCt Is lhefo IL no sucn
law. And the fact is that the action of the
synod ought to be annulled or arrested,
because upon the basis OF its recited iudg-
ment there is no ground for annulling the
action of Presbytery. 1t does not at all
respond to the action Of the Presbytery, the
Presbytery ucquit DIR. Woodrow OF an Of
Tense. The synod annus this action Of Pres
bytery, not because he is guilty as charged.
but because he is guilty of something
OF which he is not charged and which
is not an oilensc at all-thc evidence showed
him guilty of no offence at all. Therefore
the synod annuls a verdict of acquital OF an
oilense, because he is guilty of something
which is not an offence and with which
he is not charged. Moderator and broth
rcn, think before you act As judges, can
you do otherwise than annul or arrest this
unwarranted, this unprecedented action Of
synod. Upon this record you cannot do
otherwise. 1t would stultify us TO do other
wise. 1t would do the Presbytery wrong,
DIR. Woodrow wrong, and what is more il
would do our beloved church am irrcplmhlc
wrong to do otherwise. Again call attention
TO one further important consideration in
this connection, and IL is this The synod
finds that the evidence before the presbytery
showed that Dr. Woodrow's belief as to
the origin of Adams body was contrary to
the Scripture. Now, does this mean TO con-
Wet DIR. Woodrow of the belief that Adams
body was in fact actually produced by evo-
luton from some lower animal? II 50, this
finding is not only not sustained by par
ticle of evidence, but is contrary 10 all of the
evidence before the prosbytery, because the
only evidence before the prcsbytery was
that Dr. Woodrow taught that Adams body
was probably produced by evolution. And
If this is what the synod meant, the judg-
ment should be revoked or annulled for this
error. But II the synod intended 10 say that
the evidence showed that DR.. Woodrow's
belief, to-wit, that Adams body was prob
ably produced by evolution, then | ask is
this, can this be an oilcnse against any law
OF the church, Can any court In Christcn-
dom convict man of belief that thing is
probably truc2 Convict a man because he
believes that mans body Is probably pro-
duced by evolution? Is It the belief
In the probable truth OF this hy-
pothCsis that is contrary 10 Script
uro2 Or is is Il the belief in the abso-
lutte truth of this hypothesis that is contrary
10 scriptures? Most certainly and only the
latter. But we have seen that there was
not particle of evidence that this was Dr.
WoodrOw's belief. As certain Is Il that the
belief that this Is probably true, is not q
triable offence That thing is probably
true, but may not Ice true, cannot be con
trary 20 Scriptures.
Besides, DR.. Woodrow has always and
everywhere said, and this record shows with
repeated iteration, that he stands by the
Scriptures They are to him above all else
and that he would unhesitatingly and un-
conditionaly reject all and every form OF
evolution. II the Bible forbids belief in Il in
every form, and IL is only because ~ he
believes that the Bible is silent on the qucs-
ton of how God created man that lac thinks
himself free TO consult science as TO the prob
able origin Of man, but only where the
Scriptures are silent. And Is lac now, with
all this before us, 30 be convicted upon such
finding as that Of the synod, and ON this
record? II cannot be. IL would be an ever
lasting shame II he were.
But suppose this court should determine
20 try the cause, as upon n complaint from
synod upon the idea that its action was tan
tamount to "a reversal Of the action Of pres.
bytery, and a condemnation Of DR.. Wood
row. Then what have We before u.s. We
have the complaint Of DIR. Woodrow against
the action Of the synod, 'annulling' the
action Of prcsbytcry, because Il was con-
contrary 20 the evidence and the law, lin
that the evidence before the prcsbytery
showed the belief 81 DIR. Woodrow a. TO the
origin Of Adams body, Is contrary to the
Word Of God as interpreted IN our stand.
ards And we are TO say, did that evidence
80 show2 As respondents assert this, the
burden IL ON them 10 demonstrate this from
that evidence. This brings rs 70 the charge
against DIR. Woodrow, the evidence 20 sup
port It and the law applicable TO Il. That
charge Il that DIR. Woodrow taught and pro-
mulgatcd that the body Of Adam was prob
ably the product Of evolution from the body
Of some lower animal, In conflict with the
scriptures ~ interpreted In the standards 81
this church, aud unscttling the mind Of the
church respecting the accuracy and author
ity Of the Holy Scriptures ~ an infnllible
rule Of faith by teaching that the body Of
Adam was probably not made or created Of
the dust Of the ground, a. Is universally I'M
derstood by the church to be the declaration
OF the word Of God, but Of prc-exisiing or.
gnnic matter. Now, ~ DIR. Woodrow admits
that he does teach that the body Of Adam
was probably created Of Organic matter by
the process " evolution, and not immcdi-
ately from the literal dust u the ground. the
question we have to determine T., is this
| teaching In conflict with the Holy Scripture.
as interpreted In our standards i this
teaching an impeachment Of the accuracy
and authority Of the Scriptures rs uniycr'
sally understood by the church,
The questions, therefore are presented for
answer. uD l. evolution, rs taught by DR..
Woodrow, In conflict with the word of God
| evolution an impeachment Of the accuracy
and authority oi the Scriptures, they teach
| ing. las l. universally understood by the
church" (quoting from the chnrgck that
Adams body was created from the dust oi
| the ground aud DR.. Woodrow teaching that
| Adams body was probably produced by
evolution from some lower animn2 Answer
/ ing the iirst Of these questions will answer
the second. The second is included In the
| first
In order to answer the Grst question lets
/ nsk what precisely Is Dr. VS. teaching 81
/ what precisely u the teaching u the Bible
M Interpreted In our standards as 10 IN,
/ creation OF man2 Aud then sec II there j. Q
/ conflict between the two.
lie teaches that man, as 10 bis body, Wa
| probably produced from the lower animals
| by the gradual process Of evolution. H'
vas prubably created Immediately from
orranlo matter and not Immediately from
/ literal dust, but that God thus moved IN
/ mysterious ways his wonders 30 perform
/ and was and IA IN oil and over all the Gre
/ ator blessed forever. Now what saitl
the Scriptures on the creation Of mani Ih'
Scriptures, as interpreted IN our larger anc
/ shorter chaiccism and the Confession o
Faith The Confession of Faith says
After God had made all other creatures h'
created man, male and female, etc. Tha
4 ali. The chatecism says after God hat
made all other creatures he created man
male and female, formed the body 81 th'
man Of the dust of the ground" That !
all. These quotations are given because
they contain all the supposed interprcta
lions Of the Scriptures In our standards, r.
lied upon by the opposer Of Dr. Woodrow
Before pursuing the inquiry further jus
now rs 20 what these interpretations are NJ
IN. = La HUnntf