with us as the president now of the seminary and giving us good leadership. And let me thank those of you who have lectured before. I came into the second of those lectures. I'm sorry I missed Dr. Harris's first lecture, but I'm sure that all of us are appreciative of the stands that these men are seeking to set forth from a biblical point of view as they understand it. And we would hope this conference will help us all to think through these things more and more carefully. The topic that I've been assigned is the history of the creation doctrine in the American Presbyterian churches. And specifically, what I have been seeking to deal with is what we might call the mainline American Presbyterian churches, not going back to those divisions that came from Scotland, such as the Associate Reformed Presbyterian or the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, or other smaller divisions of the Presbyterian Church, but mainline church, which would be In the north, the U.P. U.S.A., United Presbyterian Church, or Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. now, and in the south, the Southern Presbyterian Church, or the P.C.U.S. By the end of the 19th century, even the Orthodox leaders of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., that's the Northern Church, accepted the so-called findings of science, with the results that many abandoned the idea of a six-24-hour-a-day creation. As we approach the end of the 20th century, we find the question of a proper interpretation of the length of the six days of creation to be still with us. It is my intention to trace something of how the shift took place, particularly in the Northern Presbyterian Church, and how it affects us today, particularly in the PCA. There was a somewhat different development in the Southern Presbyterian Church, which we shall cover briefly, and which Dr. Duncan Rankin will be giving to you more fully Wednesday evening, tomorrow evening. It's my thesis that by and large, American Presbyterianism, including conservatives or Orthodox Presbyterians, have been influenced by the position taken by the Princeton theologians. Even though the Southern Presbyterian Church as a church dealt more strongly regarding the evolution doctrine, the position of the Princetonians affected individuals such as Beatty in the South. The church prior to 1860. First Presbyterian of Philadelphia founded in 1706 under the leadership of Francis McCamey, a Scottish-Irish minister who ministered primarily on the eastern shore of Maryland. and Virginia. The subject of creation is not mentioned in the opening papers of that presbytery. Subject is not mentioned in the index of the minutes of the Presbyterian Church in America, 1706 to 1788, edited by Guy S. Klett, which is a volume, by the way, that's still available from the Presbyterian Historical Society, if any of you are interested in early American Presbyterianism. The earliest history of the Presbyterian Church in America by Richard Webster, which covers the first 50 years of the Church's life up to 1757, makes no mention of the creation being a point of issue. The same is true of E.H. Gillette's history of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which brings this history up to the reunion of the old and new school churches in the North in 1869. The only specific mention of the doctrine of creation would appear to be in the Westminster Confession and Catechism as they were adopted in 1729, and again after the old side-new side reunion in 1758, and again at the first General Assembly in 1789. Even in the years of conflict of the 1830s, which culminated in the division of the church between the old school and new school churches in 1837, the creation issue was not an issue. Subscription was an issue, but creation issue was not the issue at that time. In the early 1800s, the church saw the challenge of the geologists on the short age of the earth. New School Presbyterian Quarterly Review, with its first issue, set the tone for an open discussion of the genesis and geology question. It was asserted that the Bible was not a textbook book of science, that the findings of science must be accepted. The writer affirmed that Christians should no longer hesitate to admit that geology had established beyond a shadow of a doubt, one, that the earth, instead of originating 6,000 years ago, had existed through an indefinite period safely expressed by millions of years. Two, that creation, taken in its largest sense, instead of being accomplished in one of our weeks, was a gradual work through countless ages. That's the Presbyterian Quarterly Review of June of 1852, as cited by George Marsden. George Marsden's book, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience, is a very interesting book for you to get into and well worth studying. George Marsden, you know, taught at Duke for a while, and now he's at Notre Dame. President of Notre Dame asked someone, how can Notre Dame begin to have an effect on the culture of the United States? And they said, get some other scholars besides Roman Catholic scholars. And George Morrison is one of those who's there, a fine Presbyterian scholar in many ways, and I think he's making a major contribution to our understanding of some of this history. That Presbyterian quarterly review during the next decade carried on a good deal of debate regarding the genesis in geology. One of the influential spokesmen was Taylor Lewis, a Dutch Reformed professor of Greek at Union College. He did a philological study of the words create and day. He concluded that the word create did not mean absolute creation, but only the arranging of previously existing materials. Thus he viewed the Genesis account as a description of gradual developments. The word day was regarded not so much as a reference to time, but rather a way of referring to the cycle of great phenomena such as light and darkness. Thus the term day in Genesis may be a way of speaking of cycles of indefinite duration. It's of interest to find that Lewis defended the idea of inerrancy of scripture. The New School editors of the Presbyterian Quarterly Review insisted that the well-ascertained facts in science are to be admitted as a fixed truth. It was their conviction that these facts would never subvert God's truths revealed in the Bible. Marsden cites Albert Barnes as holding this same position. He concludes, quote, the greatest challenge of the generation, the findings of geology had seemingly been met successively without handing down the mass of an enlightened Christianity. It's of interest to note that Albert Barnes, who was one of the prominent leaders of the new school Presbyterianism, refused Darwinian theory as too fantastic for a serious consideration. Barnes observed that the signs of the new realignment of Presbyterianism were to be seen in the fact that Barnes stood closer to old-school Charles Hodge than he did to the evangelicals at Harvard, as represented by Asa Gray or the Congregational Minister, Henry Ward Beecher. He states his commitment, this is Barnes' commitment to the Bible, his commitment to the Bible that most of us here could endorse. Quote, the Bible is a book given by supernatural inspiration of God, that is, that truths are recorded there which in fact have their origin directly in the mind of God and have been imparted by him to the minds of the writers by direct communication that those truths are above any natural powers of the writers to originate them, to discover them, or to express them, and that in recording them, however much they may have been left to their own peculiarities of modes of expression or language, they have been so guided by the Holy Spirit as to be preserved from error. that this principle applies to every part of the sacred volume, that the Bible is, in fact, and to all intents and purposes, one book whose real author is the Spirit of God. That's Albert Barnes, New School Presbyterian. Preston Theological Seminary was established in 1812 by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. The first professor of the seminary was Archibald Alexander, a native of Rockbridge County in Lexington, Virginia, who at the time was serving as pastor at the Third Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. The placing of the seminary in Princeton, adjacent to the College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, was significant, for it indicated that the church saw both the areas of general revelation and special revelation to be from God. The principle of the unity of all truth meant that truth ascertained from both areas were equally true from God. As man understands both areas properly, there can be no contradiction between them. Calvin had inculcated the study of science for the elegant structure of the world served as a kind of mirror in which we may contemplate the otherwise invisible God. The Presbyterian commitment to the essential unity of both science and theology resulted in the establishment of particular professorial chairs at the College of New Jersey and at Columbia Theological Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina, for the teaching of how the two harmonize. Archibald Alexander had said in his inaugural address in 1812, quote, indeed, to speak the truth, there is scarcely any science or branch of knowledge which may not be made subservient to theology. Natural history? Chemistry, geology have sometimes been of important service in assisting the biblical student to solve difficulties contained in the scripture, or in enabling him to repel the assaults of adversaries which were made under cover of these sciences. A general acquaintance with the whole circle of science is of more consequence to the theologian than at first sight might appear. not to mention the intimate connection which subsists between all parts of truth and consequence of which important light may often be collected from the remotest quarters. It may be observed that the state of learning in the world requires the advocates of the Bible to attend to many things which may not in themselves be absolutely necessary." That's the end of quote from Archibald Alexander at his opening address in 1812 at Princeton Seminary. David Calhoun and his volumes, I would commend to you to read. His two volumes on Princeton Seminary give you the background of our theological history, in a sense, in American Presbyterianism. They are well done, excellently done, and David observes, the seminary professor believed that science and theology were allies in establishing the truth. God is author of both scripture and creation, so the Bible properly interpreted, they believed and taught, could not conflict with the facts of nature properly understood. I think that's essentially right. I think we would all agree to that. God's the author of all truth, both that which is given in his word and that which he gives in the general revelation area as well. Properly understood, both of these areas would have no conflict. Now, the second division of the paper is the impact of Darwin on the American Presbyterian Church. You see, what you have in the earliest part here is, first of all, the impact of geology and the idea that there must be a longer history to the world than the Bible has been telling us, or our interpretation of the Bible has told us. Darwin's Origin of the Species, published in 1859, Hodge and the Princeton faculty were convinced that science and theology were allies in establishing the truth. Charles Hodge wrote in 1859, God and nature can never contradict God in the Bible and in the hearts of the people. He was fond of telling the students at the seminary that the truth has nothing to fear from the truth. In defense of having argued that scripture might have to be interpreted by the facts of science, Hodge wrote in 1863, nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible. And we only interpret the word of God by the word of God when we interpret the Bible by science. In holding this view, Hodge insisted the facts of science must be verified beyond the possibility of doubt. He always maintained that Darwin's hypothesis was just that, and incapable of proof. In 1871, Dr. James McCosh, by the way, from the Free Church of Scotland, became the president of Princeton College and declared that he held to theistic evolution. Hodge continued to argue that Darwin's theory that the natural selection was without design, being only the result of natural causes, was essentially atheistic. He said that the denial of the final cause is the formative idea of Darwin's theory, and that therefore no teleologist can be a Darwinian. We have thus arrived at the answer to our question. What is Darwinianism? It's atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists, but it means that his theory is atheistic and that the exclusion of design from nature is tantamount to atheism. And Calhoun observes, both Charles Hodge and Charles Darwin, it seems, agreed that Christianity in its orthodox sense could not be reconciled with Darwin's views of evolution. As the Princeton theologians, and this is a quote from Calhoun, as the Princeton theologians responded to the challenge of Darwinianism, others were too busy analyzing and judging its claims. Unitarian were also busy, too, in that sense, busy in observing and analyzing its claims. Unitarian Lewis Agassiz, one of the most influential naturalists of the United States, scorned Darwin's theory and became its leading opponent, Unitarian, the leading opponent of Darwin at Harvard. Agassiz's Harvard colleague, Asa Gray, an evangelical Christian who worshipped at Park Street Church in Boston, by the way, whose book I still have in botany. It was the standard work when I studied botany at the University of Michigan on the matter of plants and so forth. Asa Gray, who was an evangelical Christian, worshipped the Park Street Church in Boston, championed Darwin's cause in America. Attempting to show that natural selection did not exclude design, he pointed to the exquisite adaptations so evident in the evolutionary theory. George Frederick Wright, a congregational minister, endeavored to construct a Calvinistic idea of design based on Darwin's theories. And James Dwight Dana of Yale came to accept a form of evolution guided by God. Arnold Geo, one of the mountains in Smoky Park, is named Mount Geo for him. Arnold Geo of Princeton allowed the possibility of some natural development within strict limits, but he insisted that always God's hand must be discerned. Calhoun describes the journey that Hodge made regarding his views of Genesis 1 thus. Hodge was willing to concede that if the idea of a long Earth history could be established, the first chapter of Genesis could be interpreted accordingly. Although he never completely surrendered his skeptical attitude towards the conclusions of the geologist, he taught that if they were correct, we do no force to the Mosaic account by supposing that the Earth was created many ages before six days' work of creation commenced. At first, Hodge favored the gap or interval theory that the original creation of the universe recorded in Genesis 1.1 was followed by an indefinitely long interval or gap before the six days described in Genesis 1.3 through 2.2. By the 1860s, Hodge had abandoned that interpretation but for the day age or era theory. that the six days of Genesis represented six creative eras or ages of indefinite duration, a view that appeared to be more consistent, he believed, with the fossil evidence. Charles Hodge was succeeded by his son A. A. Hodge. Calhoun describes his position regarding the age of the earth thus. In his discussion of the statement of the confession of faith that God created the universe in the space of six days, Hodge judged that no adjustment had thus far been found that perfectly harmonized the biblical text with the geological discoveries of the various conditions through which the world had passed before its present order. He was confident, however, that the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature are both from God and will be found when both are adequately interpreted to coincide perfectly. Hodge states in his outlines of theology, first edition which was written while he was pastoring a church in the South, at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in 1860, later revised in 1878, he states the following. The results of modern geological science clearly establish the conclusion, A, that the elementary materials of which the world is composed existed an indefinitely great number of ages ago. B, that the world had been providentially brought to its present state by gradual progression through many widely contrasted physical conditions and through long intervals of time. C, that it has successively been inhabited by many different orders of organized beings, each in turn adapted to the physical conditions of the globe of its successive ages or stages, and generally marked in each stage by an advancing stage scale of organization from the more elementary to the more complex and the more perfect. And D, that the man completes the pyramid of creation, the most perfect and that last form of all the inhabitants of the world. In general, however, there is a most remarkable agreement between the mosaic record and the results of geology as to the following points. The record agrees with science, In teaching first, the creation of elements in the remote past. B, the intermediate existence of chaos. C, the advance of the earth through various changes to the present physical condition. D, the successive creation of different genera and species of organized beings, the vegetable before the animal and lower forms before the higher in adaptation to the improved condition of the earth and man last of all. All of that is a quote from his outlines of theology, written at that time as a Southern Presbyterian. A. A. Hodge maintained that Abraham was the beginning of known history. First thing we see in the history of redemption begins with Abraham. And if you will look back of that time and see what the Bible says, it's merely putting a chronological event into position. But they begin with the birth of Abraham, after that we have biography, we have appointed times, we have history, a history that goes back only to the birth of Abraham. This is an important point. For it's carried down to the teaching of the early faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary by E.J. Young, whom I personally heard affirm this point. It was held not only by the systematic theologians of Princeton, but also by the prince of Old Testament men, William Henry Green, who was one of the arch defenders against the higher criticism that came out of Germany. He said, the time between the creation of Adam and ourselves might have been, for all we know from the Bible, to the contrary, much longer than it seems. I have an extensive quote also from A. A. Hodge's commentary on the Confession of Faith, in which he's stating essentially the same thing that we've just read. It's of interest to note, in addition to A. A. Hodge, that Francis Beatty of the Southern Presbyterian Church taught at Louisville Theological Seminary, whose commentary on the Presbyterian Standards, Greenville Seminary, or the Southern Presbyterian Press, as we now call it, has republished, because it's such a fine commentary. He says, next to the standards, next the standards teach that the world was made in the space of six days. Here secondary creation comes chiefly into view in the way in which the result of primary creation in the chaotic form was reduced to an orderly cosmic condition during a period of six days is described. It is not necessary to discuss the length At length, the meaning of the term day is here used. The term found in the standards is precisely that which occurs in scripture. Hence, if the word used in scripture is not inconsistent with the idea of 24 hours, or that of a long period of time, the language of the standards cannot be out of harmony with either idea. There is little doubt that the framers of the standards meant a literal day of 24 hours, but the caution of the teaching on this point in simply reproducing scripture is worthy of all praise. The door is open in the standards for either interpretation, and the utmost care should be taken not to shut that door at the bidding of scientific theory against either view. Frankly, that's a view I personally had adopted when I was teaching at Reform Seminary, and you'll see it in my own textbook on systematic theology, that really the length of the day is you cannot determine. And that if whatever the Bible means by the word day, that's what our standards mean. And I have followed Beatty in that. I have come to the position now I'm more satisfied with six literal 24-hour days. I believe it's the better understanding of scripture and of our standards. But I was guided very much by Beatty in my earlier teaching. The last of the Princeton systematic theologians that we shall consider is Professor Benjamin B. Warfield. who had an early interest in natural science. By the way, he was a southerner. He's from Kentucky. He majored in physics and mathematics at Princeton College. After attending Princeton Seminary, he served briefly as an assistant pastor in Baltimore and then accepted the call to the New Testament Department at Western Theological Seminary, where he served for nine years. He then accepted the call to the chair of systematic theology at Princeton, where he served to the end of his life in 1921. As a young man, Warfield had embraced Darwin's evolution. That's before he even went to seminary. As he matured in his thought, he abandoned Darwinianism. He taught his students that there were three general positions regarding the theory of evolution. The first is the atheistic view, which sees the naturalistic evolution as the account of the origin of the present state of the universe. Such a view is totally anti-Christian, and thus must be rejected. Second possible view is the acceptance of some Christians of evolution as the way in which God actually created. This view is often designated theistic evolution, and has been held by such men such as James McCosh, president at Princeton College. Warfield held that this view went too far in conceding evolution to be factual. The third view is a modification of the second, holding it only as a tentative working hypothesis as to how God created. Warfield concluded his lectures on the subject of evolution with the following. The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to an extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous interventions in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc., will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. If we condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and the occasional supernatural interference for the production of the new beginnings by an actual output of the creative force producing something new, we may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense. I say we may do this. Whether we ought to accept it, even in this modified sense, is another matter, and I leave it purposely an open question." That was Warfield's own statement with regard to this. It's a may thing, but it's not necessary that we have to. It's of interest to see that Warfield expresses his own doubts about the Darwinian evolutionary thinking. For ourselves, we confess frankly that the whole body of evolutionary construction prevalent today impresses us simply as a vast mass of speculation which may or may not prove to have a kernel of truth in it. He's pretty doubtful about the evolutionary theory as such. Machen, who studied under Warfield and then was a colleague with him on the faculty of the seminary, felt that he held the Princeton viewpoint as he held to the Warfield view. He accepted the possibility of God's having used a providentially guided evolution in developing certain spheres in the natural world. He insisted that the first two chapters of Genesis and the Christian doctrine of sin and fall required the creative power of God in sharp distinction from evolution at the origin of the present race of man. Thus, we see that the Princeton view brought over to the new Westminster Seminary, which had been formative in the thinking of both the OPC and the PCA regarding the length of the days of creation. Cornelius Van Til did not write much about the length of the time creation took, but does seem to hold that Voss did not go along with the concessions of the Hodges in Warfield at Princeton. The following is a note of one of his articles on the subject of evolution. This article demonstrates Van Til's strong opposition to the evolutionary view and his apologetic not merely from a standpoint of evidences, but as being a part of an apostate philosophy. In this, he follows Kuiper, Bovink, and Voss in distinction from some of the concessions made by A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Quote, now if our contention that the evolutionary hypothesis is a part of an anti-theistic theory of reality is correct, then we must do away with an ever easygoing attitude. The evolutionist is then a soldier in that great and seemingly all-powerful army of anti-theists. that has from time immemorial sought to destroy the people of God. We must then prepare for a life and death struggle, if not in the courts of the land, then in the higher courts of human thought." End of quote. Berkhoff commented, Kuiper and Bovink held that while the first three days may have been somewhat different length, the last three days were certainly ordinary days. They naturally do not regard the first three days as geological periods. Voss, in his Référée des Dogmatiques, defends the position that the days of creation were ordinary days. Thus, not all of the Princeton faculty made the concessions of the Hodges and Warfield, but there is very little in Voss's published writings to indicate his viewpoint. His Dogmatique, which had been prepared while he was still teaching at Calvin Seminary, does teach the six-literal-day view. Sad to say it's only in Dutch and therefore inaccessible to most American students today, but it clearly teaches the six-literal-day view. No reason to believe that he changed his position after he went to Princeton. In general, he was holding the position of orthodox Reformed scholars of the Netherlands such as Alders, Kuyper, and Bovee. There's a footnote inscribed to Van Til in Vonson's Van Til's Apologetics, which strongly suggests that he held to a literal interpretation of Genesis' account. Quote, Neo-Orthodox theologians do not take the Genesis creation and fall account seriously as historical narratives in the common sense of historical. events in the phenomenal world. In recent years, some Reformed theologians under the influence of Neo-Orthodoxy are trying to make adjustments on this point." And so he's branding it to make those adjustments to be a Neo-Orthodoxy. Actually, Van Til used to call it New Modernism. It's interesting that he even used the word Neo-Orthodoxy in that text. John Murray, in the unpublished class notes, which I have a copy of, in a lecture speaking of the antiquity of man, he says, the biblical evidence for the antiquity to be found is to be found in Genesis 5. Question whether these genealogies are meant to be taken either chronologically or complete. If they are complete, then from time from Adam to Christ, approximately 4,000 years. Murray points out the fact that on the basis of the analogy from Scripture of other genealogies, that they are clearly abbreviated, it is possible to argue that Genesis 5 genealogies are also, and there you see that same thing coming in, that Abraham is as far back as we can go really in history and be sure about. After considering the evidence, Murray says that we cannot dogmatically state Genesis to be condensed. We may only say that it is possible. After further considerations, Murray seems to hold that it's entirely possible that it is not a complete history given in Genesis 5. He concludes, if we accept the view here presented, we must leave the question of the antiquity of man open. We must respect the silence of Scripture. If we use the analogy of Matthew 1.1, it would not be contrary to allow, in other words, taking how many years are left out in those genealogies as they were brought down into particular forms in the Matthew genealogy, would not be contrary to allow 20,000 years in the genealogies from Genesis 5 and 11. It could be more or less. That's the end of the quote. It appears that Murray is allowing the greater antiquity of man than Usher's chronology allows, but it's still far less than modern evolutionists hold. Further, Murray's additional time would be following the creation of Adam, not before it. He's not talking about long ages, talking about the creation days. He's talking about the creation after the creation of Adam. As to the length of the creation days, there is no direct discussion of the subject in the published materials from Murray. He does discuss the Sabbath as a creation ordinance and alludes to the fourth commandment as clearly referring to a 24-hour day of the human week. He appears to have interpreted the Creation Week in this same way, though it is not expressly stated. You get that in his Principles of Christian Conduct. Neither Murray nor Van Til deal with the issue, even if they did hold to the 24-hour Creation Days. It would appear that they did not deem it to be of such significance as to warrant an intra-seminary debate. In this way, they tended to give credence to the idea that it's an open matter. At Princeton Seminary, then, the bulwark of the Northern Presbyterian Church, bulwark of orthodoxy of the Northern Presbyterian Church, we see then this breach or this moving away from the six-literal-day view of creation. Now, the Southern Presbyterian Church dealt with it somewhat differently. The conflict over evolution in the South took a very different direction from that in the North. Instead of allowing the faculty of the seminary simply to come to their own opinions on the matter, the Church dealt with it in the courts of the Church. Dabney, who was the leading theologian of the Southern Church at this time, being the professor of systematic theology at Union Seminary in Virginia, in his lectures on systematic theology, considers the question of the length of the days of creation. He summarizes the theory of the contemporary geologists to the effect that creation must have been thousands of ages before Adam. He says, quote, modern divines usually yield this geological arguments as a demonstration and offer one of the two solutions to rescue Moses from the appearance of mistake. And he quotes then Drs. Pye, Smith, Chalmers, Hitchcock, Hodge, et cetera. Suppose the gap theory gets into that. And then the second solution to the problem raised is by the assumed long ages of the geologies is what the Dabney calls the symbolic days. God gave Moses a picture in six tableau or six vast series of geological creative changes so that the language is to use Dr. Kurtz's fantastic idea, a sort of prophecy of the past be understood according to the laws of prophetic symbols. Dabney answers this view with the following biblical arguments. First, the narrative seems historical, not symbolical. Thus, the strong presumption is in favor of the understanding of it in the obvious sense. Second, he says, the sacred writers seem to shut us up to literal interpretation by describing day as composed of the natural parts morning and evening. And it's hard to see what a writer can mean by naming evening and morning as making a first or a second day, except that he meant to understand it, that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs. one beginning of night and one beginning of day, one evening, one morning. And he's saying that the long ages, how can you talk about only one morning and one evening and long ages running over years? The plain reading has no trouble with it. Third, in Genesis 2, verses 2 and 3, and Exodus 20 and 11, God creating the world and its creatures in six days and resting the seventh is given as the ground of his sanctifying the Sabbath day. The latter is the natural day, why not the former? The evasions from this seem peculiarly weak. During 1859, the Board of Columbia Theological Seminary, Columbia, South Carolina, received a gift of $50,000 from Judge John Perkins of the Oaks. plantation outside of Columbus, Mississippi. I asked my wife if she had visited it. Yes. Was it pretty? She said, all plantations are pretty. So John Perkins gave this gift to Columbia Seminary to establish the Perkins Professorship of Natural Science in its relations to revealed religion. The instrument of conveyance from Judge Perkins states, and then let me not worry about reading the length of that, but that's, quote, Dr. James Woodrow was the first professor in the Perkins chair. We're going to hear more from Dr. Rankin tomorrow evening, so I won't go into this at length. He entered his work at Columbia. He saw one of the major tasks of that of showing that the objections to the scripture from scientists rose out of a science falsely so-called or from incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Some of the leading points of supposed antagonism between science and revelation are the age of the earth. It's interesting the things he cites here. The age of the earth, the prevalence of death before the fall of man, the extent of the flood, the unity of the human race, the age of man. His conviction was that every part of the Bible is the very Word of God, and therefore absolutely true in the sense in which it was the design of its real author, the Holy Spirit, that it should be understood and that nothing will be found inconsistent with it in the established teachings of natural science. He affirmed that he believed and would teach that there were no errors in the Bible or in nature, and that if we have the true interpretations of each, there cannot be any conflict, for all truth, like its author, is one. Adger, who was a defender of Woodrow, observes that in this inaugural address, which was published in the Southern Presbyterian Review in 1862, but due to the war it got little attention at the time, not until 1884 that the issue of evolution was raised with Woodrow. And you have the board declaring what evolution was not being taught, and he finally came forward and said he was teaching it. And then the issue was raised and he published on it. And you have a number of presbyteries that were not part of the actual supporting, or a number of the synods not supporting the seminary. There were four synods that supported the seminary at that time and controlled it. Overturing with regard to this issue. And the matter was brought then eventually to the Synod of South Carolina. Synod of South Carolina was the first controlling Synod to meet and act on this matter. It was on October 22nd, 1884 that the Synod met at the First Presbyterian Church in Greenville, South Carolina, to consider this issue. Committee was appointed to consider the matter. Majority report recommended the approval of the board's position that Woodrow was all right. The minority of the committee recommended the condemnation of the board's action. The faculty itself was divided. Professors Woodrow and John B. Adger aligned against John L. Giordano. The debate lasted over the course of five days. You think about our shortened debates in our PCA General Assembly. They sound ridiculous compared to this. Five days. They allowed Woodrow to defend himself, and at one point he said, I'm tired, brethren, let me go to my rest, and he picked it up the next morning. There's no motions to close the debate at all. Gerardot objected to Woodrow's position on the ground of his proposition that the Bible does not teach science. He also objected on the idea of non-contradiction rather than harmony. Because Woodrow separated the Bible and science, we are not to look for harmony of identical statement, but harmony of non-contradictory statements. Now, Dr. Rankin is going to get into this more fully, but I think I have brought out some other material, unless he's added it to his paper, that I would like to bring out to you with regard to what a seminary ought to do. I think he spoke very pointedly. Here was a synod dealing with a professor at the seminary, and what was he allowed to do? He spent a good deal of time at the seminary regarding its instruction, and since this lecture is given in the context of a seminary with visiting scholars from other seminaries, it seems appropriate to include something of what he said on this issue. He argued that the design of the seminary is to teach men the faith in the Bible and according to the standards of the church. they must not teach contrary to the church's doctrinal position. Quote, the church has a right to require, is solemnly bound to require that her doctrines be taught and that what is contrary to her doctrines not be taught. Otherwise, the results must be flagrantly inconsistency. unfaithfulness to her convictions of truth, recurrency of her sacred trust, and deliberate suicide. He goes on to speak specifically of the Church's own seminary. Our own seminary was not designed simply to teach the Scriptures. Ours was designed to teach the Scriptures as interpreted by the Presbyterian Church. Having said this, Girardeau raises the question, are then theological professors bound to inculcate in the seminary views which they conscientiously believe to be erroneous because they are not taught in our standards? I answer no. Two courses are open to them, either to be silent regarding these views or to withdraw from the institution. Theological professors are such, as such, are absolutely debarred from opposing by their teachings the standards of the Church. That's a quote from Gyrados. Girdo then enunciates the principles regarding theological education that should be agreed upon, if not in the past, from now on, in the kind of case before the Senate. One, the Church is bound to cleave to her interpretation and her standards of God's Word and to her traditional views until they have been proved to be untrue and therefore untenable. Two, no unverified hypothesis can afford such proof. Three, no professor of theological seminary as professor is at liberty in the classroom or chapel to inculcate views contrary to the standards of the church or to impose any element of those standards. If he conscientiously hold views which are inconsistent with them, he ought to refrain from inculcating those views or else retire from the institution. Four, I add that should he persist in claiming and exercising such liberty, it is the duty of the Church, through means of control, to arrest him, meaning to put him out, to stop him. Here he gets into then the argument with regard to Woodrow himself, Eventually, the synod decided the resolve that in the judgment of the synod, the teaching of evolution in the theological seminary at Columbia, except in purely expository manner, with no intention of inculcating its truth, is hereby disapproved. The other three controlling synods, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, all followed suit and condemned the teaching of evolution at the seminary. On December the 10th, the board had a number of new members opposed to evolution met and called for the resignation of Dr. Woodrow. He refused. He also refused to meet with the board to discuss the matter. The board then dismissed him. He appealed this action to the controlling Senate. They divided. Two of them voted yes, two of them voted no with regard to his dismissal. Charges then, at his own request, were brought before Augusta Presbytery, and the General Assembly happened to be meeting in Augusta before that presbytery met to deal with those charges. And because of the overtures dealing with this issue, they came to the conclusion in 1886 that Adam and Eve were created They condemned the evolution and with it Woodrow's views, that Adam and Eve were created body and soul by the immediate act of almighty power, thereby preserving a perfect human race. That Adam's body was directly fashioned by almighty God without any natural animal parentage of any kind out of matter previously created from nothing. Late in the assembly, a motion was adopted, 54 to 36, to direct the controlling senators to dismiss Woodrow from the faculty of the seminary, thus reversing the action of the board. The presbytery also met eventually and condemned him as well. The Senate of South Carolina accepted the directive and directed the board to dismiss Woodrow. 1888, the Assembly adopted the following. Now, therefore, it is the judgment of the General Assembly that Adam's body was directly fashioned by Almighty God of the dust of the ground without any natural animal parentage of any kind. The wisdom of God prompted him to reveal the fact, while the inscrutable mode of his action therein he has not revealed. Therefore, The Church does not propose to touch, handle, or conclude any question of science which belongs to God's kingdom of nature. She must by her divine constitution see that those questions are not thrust upon her to break the silence of scripture and supplement it by any scientific hypothesis concerning the mode of God's being or acts in creation which are inscrutable to us. It is therefore ordered that this complaint in this case not be sustained and that the judgment of the Senate of Georgia be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed." That was a complaint of Woodrow against the Senate of Georgia for upholding the presbytery, or going against Woodrow with regard to his trial. His presbytery had actually not condemned him. Now, this assembly in 1924 reaffirmed the same action of 1888. in Mobile, Alabama, on April 24th through 29th, 1969, the following are excerpts from the action of the Assembly. Neither scripture nor our confession of faith nor our catechisms teach the creation of man to be direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory. You see the church has moved to liberalism to such an extent, denied and denounced what the scripture explicitly states about the creation of man and what the General Assembly had said before. Scripture states that out of the ground the Lord formed every beast, And of the dust of the ground, the Lord formed man. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the word of God, there came into being light, firmament, called heaven, the earth, and the seas. Then God said, let the waters bring forth, let the earth bring forth. After the creation of light, the firmament, the earth, and after the earth, the waters brought forth plant, aquatic, and animal life. Then God said, let us make man. This man-atom, meaning both man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name atom is simply a generic term for man brought forth upon the earth. Genesis 1 describes creation as taking place in six days. However, it's not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of creation. And then it goes on to say, after quoting the Confession and Catechisms, it may be that the Westminster divines understood the six days as well as such phrases as, out of the dust of the ground, the rib of man, in a literal sense. But as they were merely using the words of Scripture with no intention to argue the theory of evolution of which they had never heard, we are free to interpret their words in a different sense just as we do the words of Scripture. Nowhere is the process by which man made, created, or formed God, man made man, or created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science. Remember, that was one of the first statements with regard to the whole matter. We conclude that the relation between the evolutionary theory of the Bible is that of non-contradiction, Woodrow's position, and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889, and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our church. We affirm our belief in the uniqueness of man as a creature from whom God has made in his own image. The Central Mississippi Presbytery, of which I was a part at that time, adopted the following declaration and overture in response to the action of the General Assembly. It will be seen that the issue of the length of the creation days was not considered an issue by that presbytery. No doubt can be traced in part to the influence of Princeton, Westminster, and Reform Seminaries. Though Jack Scott was at Reform Seminary and would have stood firmly for six literal days, and the action of the Presbytery. Whereas the 1969 General Assembly took action stating that its true relation between the evolutionary process of the Bible is that of non-contradiction, the state of the General Assembly of 1886, 1888, 1889, 1924 was in error, no longer represents the mind of the Church. Whereas the conclusions making a judgment that the evolution is not contradictory to the Bible is contrary to the position of the same paper which states the truth or falsity of the truth of evolution is not a question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competency of the permanent theological committee. And whereas the position of the 1969 General Assembly is one that goes counter to the historic position of our Church on this subject, and appears to be a departure not only from our Constitution, but also from the Scripture, thus confusing our people on this subject, therefore the Presbytery of Central Mississippi makes the following declaration to its members as it understands the Bible on this subject. 1. The only true and living God existed alone in eternity, and beside Him there was not matter, energy, space, or time. 2. The one true and living God, according to His sovereign decree, determined to create and make of nothing the world and all things therein, whether visible or invisible. 3. God performed His creative work in six days. Parenthesis, we recognize different interpretations of the word day and do not feel that one interpretation is to be insisted upon to the exclusion of all others. And so you can see that as we were about ready to leave the PCUS, we were not making the issue of the six literal days an issue. It was whether it was creation or not. Four, that no part of the universe nor any creature in it came into being by chance or by any power other than that of the sovereign God. Five, that God created man, male and female, after his own image and as God's image and as God's image bearer, man is an immortal soul. Thus, man is distinct from all other earthly creatures, even though his body is composed of elements of the environment. We talk about the unity of the race. Let me not read all of that. And then we asked the assembly to adopt it with us, and of course they turned us down. But this is one of the grounds for our moving towards the forming of the PCA. This is 1969. We formed in 1973. You see how close this was to that point. Now Presbyterian Church in America. Question of the length of days as reflected in the action of the Central Mississippi Presbytery, taken just four years before the separation in 1973, was not a part of the earliest debates, thus not directly a part of the founding of the PCA. Certainly the six-literal-day view, with the immediate activity of God throughout the creation week, was the most acceptable view, probably held by most non-ministerial members of the Church, as well as by many ministers. Other ministers, on the other hand, including your speaker, had been affected by Princeton Westminster tradition on this matter and allowed for a certain variety of opinion on the length of days, though generally speaking, no form of evolution was condoned. More recently, because of the number of candidates that have come before us with raising issues about it, you have an action here in Calvary Presbytery, the presbytery of which we now We, the Presbytery of Calvary, affirm the doctrine of the confessional standards of the Presbyterian Church in America, explicitly assert that the world was created by divine fiat literally in the space of six days. Because the confession's teaching on creation is unassailably grounded in scripture, we joyfully proclaim that our preaching and teaching should conform to its contents and emphases. Now it goes on to deal with it and then comes to the conclusion, resolved that we of the Presbytery of Calvary require that Mr. Wright, who had been received with a complaint against his being received, not holding to the literal days, not inculcate any view which contradicts the confession of faith and catechisms in his public preaching and teaching regarding creation. In the light of this requirement, and notice this, and Mr. Wright's hearty approval of the foregoing resolutions, we deem it unnecessary to sustain the complaint of Gentry et al., but he was agreeing that he was not going to teach his views. Now, Westminster Presbytery last year, in 1998, adopted a rather lengthy statement with regard to the matter of creation, and saying that Westminster Presbytery does declare and make known to the world and to all the churches, especially our own denomination, our churches, our presbyteries, our General Assembly, and the seminaries from which our candidates arise, that we will not tolerate these views. They've listed the age, they've listed the framework and gap theory, views that they will not tolerate. Poetic view, as they speak of it. Will not tolerate these views in any teaching elder seeking admittance into this presbytery or any other man seeking to be licensed or become a candidate for ministry under the care of this presbytery. Furthermore, Westminster Presbytery considers that any view which departs from the confessional doctrine of the creation in six 24-hour days strikes at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine set forth in the Holy Scriptures. The minutes of Westminster Presbytery were approved without comment on the Presbyterian's declaring a particular interpretation of Scripture of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. Now, it's interesting, a New Jersey case that was debated before the assembly last year comes to the conclusion, and they've made a statement as to what they hold with regard to creation, but one of the last statements they say, we affirm that one natural interpretation of Genesis 1 is a 24-hour day exposition. We deny that the 24-hour day interpretation is the only only possible interpretation of this. Though thus as an unusual action to allow a presbytery to set down such guidelines regarding its interpretation of a particular doctrine, it opens the doors for other presbyteries to do the same, which we see Westminster Presbytery has done. The fact that two different positions are now taken by PCA presbyteries presents the Church with a serious problem. for ultimately the denomination will be divided by such positions. This no doubt is one of the reasons for the assembly's appointing a studying committee on the subject of creation. Let us pray that the Lord will grant such wisdom to the committee and to the assembly and then to the church as a whole to be able to work out this matter so as not to divide the church. I have in the paper, and I will not read it tonight, Brian Chappell's defense of Covenant Seminary and his statement of what Covenant Seminary holds. It's rather interesting in the history of Covenant Seminary. Dr. Buswell, held to day age. Dr. Laird Harris with us, held to day age. Dr. Robert Raymond, in his most recently published and just come out within the last month, Systematic Theology. He was there at Systematic Theology, Professor, held to the 24-hour day. And Jack Collins, who is here at this conference, holding to the analogical view as he speaks of it. So that Covenant Seminary has not had a single position, they've allowed various different views there. Jack Scott wrote a rather pointed refutation of Dr. Chappell's statement, a reply to Brian Chappell, President's report. And he says simply he feels that Covenant Seminary was wrong, period. And he was at Reform Seminary when I was teaching this other view, and I'm sure he felt I was wrong. And I confess that I think I was wrong. I think I was holding a broader view, but I think that I've come to a better view in holding more of the 624-hour-a-day view. We have in the church, and we've had the announcement about the book of Doug Kelly's book on creation, taking 24-hour view, you have various viewpoints as already indicated right here in this assembly by various people. How sharp an issue it is and how deeply it's going to cut is going to be difficult for us to determine. There are some, I think some of the brethren in Westminster Presbyterian are ready to leave They are not allowed to hold to their view being allowed in their presbytery. I think they'd be ready to leave and divide the church over it. I would hate to see that happen personally. But it is, to me, it's remarkable that this issue is such a sharp issue with so many people. Why? I think because the ruling elders understand it from six literal days. That's what the Bible says. What do you mean that's holding some other view? And they just don't understand preachers holding another view than that. But as I see it, that's where we are, basically, in the conflict and the tension that we have. This conference is seeking to set forth and help us to re-examine, at least, the 24-hour-a-day approach to the matter. But it is a very serious issue as it faces the Church, possibly with a division coming out of it. And I just trust and pray that that will not happen. in our denomination. May the Lord bless us and enable us to come through this with a good solution to the issues as they face us.