The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1885-10-14
DR.. Woodrow's Case.

represented the attitude OF the Southern Presby-
terrain Church. II is published in the Ncto8 &c
Courier of September 24th)
To the Editor of The Ne1Os and Courier :.
In an editorial of the 18th inst, you ar
raign the Southern Presbyterian Church
for an alleged act of gross inlustic to
one OF its most prominent ministers, the
Rev Dr. James Woodrow. This gentle
man sustained two distinct relations :
One, that OF a minister OF the gospel. in
which he was primarily responsible to
the Presbytery of Augusta to which he
belongs, and finally to the General AS.
sembly OF the Southern Presbyterian
Church the other, that OF professor in
theological seminary, in which relation
he was accountable, Immediately to the
Board of Directors of that institution,
and ultimately to the Sypods of South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and South
Georgia and Florida. These relations
you have contounded and allow me to
say that your unavoidable want OF &C
quaintance with the circumstances and
facts, necessary to be understood in order
to a correct apprehension of this case,
might have restrained you from uttering,
with the tone Of a censor of public morals,
dogmatic judgment in regard to it, and
your secular function might have pre-
vented your pronouncing decision upon
an ecclesiastical question, especially one
which yet awaits ultimate adjudication.
Bat as you have Illuminated a sentence
with reference to this matter from the
editorial tripod your sense of Justice will,
| cannot doubt, admit me to address the
same audience with yourself, and to sub
nit to 1t statement OF facts from point
of view different from yours, and from
that OF those writer's by whose ex parte
representations you have confessedly been
guided. | shall endeavor to compress
what [ have to say within as narrow
limits as possible, that 1 may not trespass
upon your space.
With regard to the Presbytery of Au-
gusta, l have only to say that it refused
to impeach DR.. Woodrow of heresy, and
OF course as there was no indictment
there was no trial, and his official stand
ing as minister of the gospel is undis-
turbed. Whether it should have tried
him on the charge of holding heterodox
views of less ofensiveness than heresy.
is question with which I am not now
concerned. The members of that court
are competent to speak for it. But your
| thunders are directed against what you
term DR.. Woodrow " expulsion" from
Office. You affirm that &c he now stands
to all intents and purposes convicted of
heresy," and that he has been pur
ished as he should have been punie'
only in case of conviction" The /.
that he has been removed from on
tsimply as professor in the Theological
Seminary at Columbia, by the Board Of
Directors of that institution, and that
that acts awaits confirmation or reversal
by the controlling Synods. How was
that result reached
Previously to May of last year no
charge was preferred that DIR. Woodrow
had from his chair inculcated any hypo-
thesis Of evolution in regard to man. Up
to that time, then, no trial OF him was
posolble, since there were no actual
! charges against him, and no charges
were deemed possible. In May of that
year he delivered an address before the
Society of Alumni of Columbia Seminary
and a promiscuous audience on "Evolu-
ton" The address was submitted to
the Board of Directors for examination.
and was also published. In that produc.
ton, and in subsequent expositions of It's
contents, he announced the probable
truth of the descent, with modification,
of the body of the first man from pre-
existent animals. The hypothesis of the
transmutation Of species was treated as
probably applicable to the body of the
first man. In the succeeding fall the
Board of Directors as then composed, by
a majority pronounced this view con-
sistent with perfect soundness in the
faith, and, consequently, permitted its
incubation in the Seminary. This &C.
tion Of the Board came, by review, before
the controlling Synods for approval or
disapproval. Dr. Woodrow's published
address was before them. In one of the
Synods which he could not attend hehad
able friends to represent him. In the
other three he was personally present
with the amplest opportunity extended
to him-and he availed himself of it--of
stating, explaining, and vindioating his
position, and in the Synod of South Car
DINA the right of reply was accorded
him. Not one Of the Synods alleged
heresy against him. Neither did the
Board Of Directors. This is expressly
admitted by his advocates from whom
you quote. Yet you remark: at is
within the limits Of truth to say that Dr..
] Irr.I e.. il !