Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-10-25
WOODROW WINS APPOINT.
THE SYNOD RECOMMENDS THAT
HE BE GIVEN A TRIAL.

Vote of IL TO 1.-the South Caro-
lima synod Takes slmilar ActiOn-Ev
Olution Discussed in Tennessee.
When the Presbyterian synod met yes
terdsy morning, there was n general I'm
preston that the day would bring forth
wordy debate on the Woodrow question
The impression proved TO be well founded
for nearly the whole day was consumed
ia the discussion.
There was noticeable hesitancy at frs
TO engage in thediscussIon. Each side held
back, waiting apparently for the opposi
ton 10 show its hand. When the debate
did get fairly under way, one might have
supposed that it was some old council oil
churcbmen, away back in the fourth OF
attn century. discussing some grave prin-
piple OF church law, SO earnestly was the
debate conducted
All through the discussion there was a
careful avoidance OF thel question
whether d.. Woodrow ia right in his be-
lief and one would have said that there
were delegates In the synod who mold that
"the doctrine OF evolution is probably
true" That point was not brought out,
but was more than cnce alluded to under
cover of the ord Inexpedlency."
Rev. Luther Link was the first speaker
He declared that If Prof. Woodrow was
incompetent the board had ample power
10 remove MIN, but if be was charged
with unfaithfuness be should have trial.
MIR. w allace stated that Prof W oOdrOw
was guilty either of heresy or mental
weakness. If hereto he ought 10 have
3 trial.
When Rev. J. ". Rogan took the floor
the discussion warmed up. 81 consider
this a most important question: he OBJ
served. "We should 20 slow and con-
slider the subject oanddly and dispassiOn-
ately. 1t might be thought thGt !, having
been the author of the report adopted by
this synod last year ia reference to this
matter, might through pride defend 1t.
OPPOSING THE SYMBOLS ACTION.
''Three Of tie synods by majOrties, and
perhaps a fourth. decided that evolution
should not be taught IN the seminary. If
this synod should decide in favor Of the
majority report would not be adverse to
she report of last year. | want 10 see
ius'ice done. / think there has been too
much bitterness and personalities in this
discussion. We are trying TO arrive at
principles. The great cry for months
after Dr.. Woodrow WIS removed was that
he was not legally suspended. The point
that the board did not ask DR.. Woodrow
trine Of evolution did not arise for months
after the action Of the board.
Il hold that the board was under no
legal obligation to put that question to
DR.. W oodrOw. II might have been asked
him through courtesy. ! would rather the
board had gone to DR.. woodrow and
asked him; but when they did not, hold
tdat their action was not invalid. Had
he not had a hearing before three Of the
.Hr 4fs-D D 4
to be made by a trialf Was there any
thing to gain by going to Dr.. Woodrow?
Were MS views not well known Had he
not publicly and privately declared that
he would m the future nave to teach that
the doctrine OF evoiutionis probably true?
DIR. wOoDRow's POSITION.
"No man was ever more leuiently dealt
with than Dr.. w oOdrow. The board con-
ciuded that there was only one thing 10
be done. The Perkins professor should
either resign or be removed. He put up
mis- opinion against the ruling of the four
Eynods. aud did not recognize the right OF
the board TO remove him until be was ac-
cused and convicted Of heresy. He has
got the idea in his bead that the board
cannot remove professor unless be is
convicted # heresy or unless the professor
is Incompetent.
"If Or. Woodrow is reinstated the board
will have 10 meet and ask him if he is
willing to teach the doctrine that the
theOrS OF evolution is probably untrue.
Would that be advisableg
The voice Of the church is against
him, ana in this discussion he has made
great many enemies. IL would be impos-
sible for DR.. Woodrow TO reinstate him
self IN the confidence Of the Southern
Presbyterian church. Would he agree to
a nm ha ha afE NJ fF,a
tiOn OF the truth OF evolution? | answer,
no.
LIKE A coQUETIE.
"He wants the board TO ask him tho
question in order that he may have the
pleasure of giving negative answer. 1t
Is not necessary that be should be sub
Jected to q judicial trial. IL the actiou OF
the board is annulled he will be given a
hearing, and the case Will come up again
before synod next fall
"rhe second exception made by DIT.
Woodrow is that the board did not pro-
coed in a legal way ~ removing him. The
power If appointment and removal has
Slways been IN the same body, aud the
constitution says that the hoard has the
power TO appoint and remove. Synod
only sits IN review, 10 is true thai DR.
Woodrow was removed without judicial
PROCESS.
INC one claims mat Dr. w oOdroW is in.
competent as TO intellect. ! think that
the last part Of the report charging him
with uniaithiulness could he substan,
tiated.n
ModeratOr-"I beg TO say that the re-
port docs not mention unfaithfulness.V
The report WAS read, but the word did
not appear.
NOT INTELLECTUALLY INCOMPETENT.
"Well, we will 20 back TO the question
OF incompetency, ana / assert again thai
he was tried" resumed Mr.. ROgan. 81
take the position that DR.. Woodrow was
entitled 10 six months salary, but not "a
his position after he was removed.
think it just that he should receive his
salary up 10 June because the constitution
of the seminary SAYS that a professor
must have six months notice. Was he
removed without trial! The board got
the l-ea that DEW OOdrOw was teaching q
doctrine contrary 10 the principles Of the
church, and tCok into consideration this
subject ln September, 1854, and they de.
clced that there WAS nothing dangerous in
hls teaching. Two OF the members OF
that board entered "a protesting voice
The action OF the board came up Ia review
before th synOds, and they decided thai
the board WAS wrong, and some OF the old
board were removed and new members
we're put In who represented the synods
In revie wing the action " this new board
] cannot see how any one can claim thal
pr. Woodrow did not have judicial tria
a.N 81 81 Al