The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-06-03
MEMPHIS, TENN, SUNDAY, JUNE g. 1888.

prevailed, and all of the hlgh hills were GOV.
cred that were under the whole heavens, and
all flesh died that moved upon the face Of
the earth the cattle and tc beasts, and every
creeping thing that creeptth upon the earth,
aud every man, and every living substance
which was upon the whole face of the
ground, both man and cattle and creeping
thing, and the fowls of the heavens were dc
stroycd from the earth. ] say the standards
then interpreting Holy Scripture said this
must and could mean nothing less than a
universal dclugc. How Il il now DO not
those same standards interpret those same
Scriptures TO read that the flood was not
universal, but partial? Forty years ago u
Presbyterian would have hotu churrhcd al
most II lac had asserted TINT when Genesis
says according TO our standard, tod created
the hcaycug and the earth and all that In
them is In the space OF si' days and all very
good; that these six days lid not mean six
days of twCnty-fOur hour cJpl but uumcas-
urcd periods But how j. it now, professor
All intelligent Christians, thoroughly hclicv-
ing in the Scripture ns Interpreted i'm our
standards, have gone over tp tine Indefinite
period theory Yet the Word oi God stands
strong aye, stronger than ever aud the
standards remain unchanWd. May not this
he 81, professor with evolution and II II
should be so. what are we 20 do them We who
now shy that the STANDARD, interpret the
word uf God to say, man, as tu hi, body was
created hr unanimously fum inorganic dust
Fling away the Biblc2 MOI q hit uf it. We
will do as the church has always duuc-rc-
codc from false position, This is my idea.
Professor what do you saw What could
Prof Woodrow say except what lac has said
that n evolution should b. ,hr true method
Of creation OF mans body ID Is not iu conflict
with Scriptures a. interpreted in our stand
ards. II so teach says Pee, because | be-
licyc this 60 Dee the truth and ana bound To
teach ON lhi- subject Being bound Ia teach,
must teach the truth, or what, in a matter
about which absolute trnth b. not vet at
tanned teach what bclieIp to hc the truth,
or probably truth, II you plcasc.'
Returning now 20 tn question, is DR..
Woodrow theory uf the rob. i, creation of
man body Ia conflict will the Scriptures us
Interpreted In our standards What do We
find? Do our standards say how God created
man out of the dusR or What Kind NJ dust'
one thing Is certain, mod, utur lie did not
create you or me out Of ihurgInic dust yet
Np b, licyc W. are created but 1t the dust ui
gluic matter back % Adah The evolution
lists SLY, why stop nj Adait? n We are created
according tn the Scripturt uui nt thc dust
ol the ground. but that 10 dust uf which We
art male Is orrnnic. is It DIV moro in conflict
with TIE Scripture 10 lay Adams body
WAS also Uteliod cut III organic dust
than Ia say that ours was1 Christian
science SAYS. no IL is not Docs the Scrip.
turc. ~ interpreted ~ cur standards. Sy
yes. IL du,-3 u ~, where Do YOU sIy
where ii SAYS man was mule out ui the DUST
This Is begging the question. Til, u the
very question IN dispute. Christian science
al. a n ID.
dust. The Bible does nptsny IL means iuur-
IuniC dust II II Is, rcplihd the universally
understood Interpretation " our standards,
cpn-inc this Inorganic dust. answer. so
did this universally understood intcrproil.
ton yun.truo the siN days II creation. So
did the oldest standards cunstruc the scrip.
turc tu make ihp earth. dc center ~ the
system 81 worlds. and thnl the sun moved,
and without worl oi change Of the stand.
arls all these things are nov understood
differently. The slmc STANDARDS now CON
siruc the same Scripture dill, tly. sup
pisc .umr one here still Clings a. the oN
plodcd Interpretation of the ia days ul
creation being tWcnty-iour hour days, aud
We bad him ON trial Tor holding opinions
contrary tu the scripture ~ now interpret
Cd in our standards. aud suppose " WIS
Utmost the unanimous expression ui this
body that orr standards interpret the Scrip
lures now "a mean thnt the fiN DAYS aru an
uumcuurcd and indefinite period and We
were to convict suppose, Then, some one
~ forty YEAR ago were t0 arise Who had been
convicted then for hcrcsy fur holding the
opinions entertained hy lS to-day We would
have two men before us convicted ~ error
fpr holding precisely opposite opinions on
the same subject. aud Judged hy the same
standards What Ii the value uf these Illus
trutions This. our standards remain the sainc,
the Interpretation oi them vary. The script.
urr remain the same, Interpretation vary.
our views oi scripture dnngr, our views
on scientific questions Changc, aud our inter
prrtation at our Standard change Aud all
this Lends up a. this furtier that We should
boz very careful aud lihcnu in What We 10.
A. the town clerk ~ Eptssus said a. The
people I'VE ought Ia be- tuirtr and de- moth
Ing mshly.' The time idly come when We
will be- called into qucstidn ipr what W. do
this day. This. moderate isa momcntuus
aucsti6n-if a. be- Determined On The merits.
on our determination hanr. it may hr, the
destiny of millions yet g. o.. Is we'll ~ the
purity and integrity ~ iliu Presbyterian
faith May We not be- wruns and Dt. Wood.
row aud the long list Of fmiuunt Christian
scientists. Who believe with him, right !
do not say We are wrong nr they right !
say may And in question ul such mag.
nitude. such profound Importance 10 the
church does Il not bchOOFp us hF Wise men
b. move slowly LIT ~ not iursci, nay, Jet
u be- emphasized with nll he IpW'rul which
the English language J. capable, u u not
only that Dr. Woodrow " Uu trial before W.,
VI i ala that We arr on tnul before the
world aud the God IT ell worlds Wisdom,
therefore. saya hasten slowly Rome was
not built in day. aud We tll now believe
rint the world WIS not built iu siK days, Jet
~ not build now with uu.CmPofcl muricr.
Let nv build Tor ctcriiy nud The God 81
eternity.
Moderator. what I d. NOT know about
science generally and evolution 10 particular
would hll the iipdhan iilrlrU am told II
inkrl profound and long continued study "a
hnd out very much abOu either Perhaps
there are Others here whU'u Ignorance h o.
dense ns my own, aud aTU We ip pass ludF
mrnt On this momcntouH question without
information J. this The pIr ~ wise mcn|
let ~ pause. We eau n..0ri ~ wait Oui
religion " able 10 walt, iIis word ~ God j.
able. and these arr what Ng ore anxious "a
see going frum victory i1 Victory, let us
wait Tor more light l.li,yc 10 hns been
urged by sDme that our simdurl ~ inicrprc
taiion ~ Scriptures may h' one thing, aud
that according 10 them ~ woodrow u
guilty aud Scriptures ~ their highest and
absolute sense may be suuthrr thing, and
that under this the Dorior may not b'
guilty. Could We cOhdrmu any man On
such theory NJ this and not make ourselves
laughing stock before ihr wUrld' Are W
10 sny that a man il guilty NJ error under ih,
standards. but stands hHIuit NJ The bar 0
Scriptures In their higlirsi and absolute
sense, Rather should We not change oul
standards 10 conform 10 Scriptures nhd ihu,
ncqult aud take no nctiIm till this u done
hut here We are trying according 70 lh'
standards. ny them let us stand Or iall'
Our book Of discipline. chapter ., says