The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-09-29

on and prescribed by the constitution
neither DR.. Woodrow nor his friends
have cause to complain.
His emphatic disclaimer of having
taught his peculiar views in the seminary
has not relieved the Just anxiety of the
Church in regard to them, and the evil
dent misunderstanding of his position in
this respect is largely due to his own
publications.
While the Church should insist kindly
but firmly upon her rights in this matter,
she should not desire to deprive him OF
any right that the constitutions of the
Church and the seminary give him. If
he has not had such trial as these guar
antee him, or if there is any doubt that
he has had it, give him what the civil
courts allow to tie meanest criminal, the
benefit of the doubt, and let him be tried
by the proper tribunal. Far better this
than to disregard the safeguards which
the constitution has provided for every
member.
The Assembly evidently acted under
the belief that the agreement as to Union
Seminary made in 1926 was still in force,
and did not have before it the agreement
Of 1869. The language of the Assembly s
resolution is almost Identical with the
Sth article of the first agreement. 1t,
however, only authorized the Assembly
to require the dismissal of Professor
where he "inculcated" doctrines repug-
nant to the word OF God-for an act done
as Professor. But the Assembly goes
much further and recommends his dis
missal for views held by him as man.
a very different thing. have no doubt
the Assembly honestly believed it had
the power to do what it did, and that
the action was not taken from unkind
feelings to DIR. Woodrow, but from want
of full information. Nevertheless l be.
ieve it erred, and the right way to bring
peace to the Church is, as far as possible
to repair the error.
| voted for the deliverance on the ere.
alton of Adam and 1 do not think DR.
Woodrow has any just ground of COM
plant because it was made while case
was pending against him in his Presby
terry. The right OF the Assembly to make
dehverance must be conceded, and
think that commissioners assembled from
all parts of the Church were more com
petent to decide whether the interests
OF the Church demanded it at that timt
than DR.. Woodrow or any other individ
ual. And it would be strange if, wher
the Assembly deemed it important thai
such action should be taken, it should
decline to do 80 because forsooth, there
was pending in some one of its Presbyte
ries or Sessions prosecution involving
the same question.
DR.. Woodrow's rights in this respect
are Just the same as those of the humbles
member of the church If this rule were
adopted, the Assembly would frequently
have to sacrifice the interests OF the
Church to the interest, real or imaginary
of some individual. And I am unable
to see how the fact that the prosecution
against him was commenced short time
before the deliverance was made, can af
feet him any more than if it had beer
commenced afterwards. The fact of the
tendency of the prosecution did not, il
my opinion, influence the Assembly il
any way. The deliverance was precisely
the same as it would have been haC
there been no prosecution, and it is un
just to the Assembly to charge other
wise. JAMES D. ARMSTRONG.