The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-10-20

II would seem that South Carolina is
still the storm center OF the Woodrow
controversy. AT late meetingof Charles
ton prcsbytery. TO which the Revs. j. b.
Mack and ], l.. Girardeau belong, the fol-
lowing paper, after stormy debate, was
adopted:
"The committee on the minutes OF the
general assembly call the attention Of the
presbytory to the judicial case decided by
the assembly (see Page 1881, and recon-
mend the adoption Of the following rcso-
luton:
"Presbytery hereby informs its minis
tiers, ruling elders and deacons that the
general assembly has judically affirmed
the decision OF the Synod OF Georgia, de-
clarng that the belief Of James Wood
row, DID, as TO the origin of the body Of
Adam, was contrary TO the word Of God,
rs interpreted in the Standard OF the
Churh. and,
Therefore, that this presbytcry regards
the holding of said form of evolution as
contrary TO the word of God ms in,erpre-
ted in the Standard OF the Church, and
forbids the public contending against the
decision of the assembly"
The next day the following protest was
offered TO the above report.
ave, the undersigned, beg leave TO offer
the following respectful protest against
prcsbytery's action which iorbds the pub
lie contending against the decision OF the
assembly, and would assign the following
reasons:
81. Because said action implies the un-
charitable suspicion that there are persons
under its jurisdiction who would publicly
contend against said dclivcrance' in nm un-
lawful manner. Such suspicious are re-
gardcd by your professionals as unkind and
harsh, as having a tendency to produce
disscnsion rather than promote the peace
and harmony OF the church.
'2. Because prcsbytory's action goes be-
yond that Of the assembly, and adds IN
interdict which the assembly declined 10
impose, although paper containing
similar injunction was presented for its
approval. Hence, presbytery's prohibit.
ton is unwarnnted by the asscmbly's nc.
ton, though proiesscdy based upon il.
80. Because presbyiery's action is an
attempt 10 practically seal the lips OF every
one under It's jurisdiction against even
respectful and temperate criticism Of the
asscmbly's action. II is, therefore, in our
humble judgment, an invasion of our God
given liberties, unwarrantcd by the fncts,
and in violation of our constitution.
"W. A. CLARK,
"NEANDER NJ. Woops, |
az. Mel. SEAngooK,
"E. G.. MURRAY,
TOWNSEND MIKELI."
To the protest the following answer was
made
81. The prcsbytcry disavows any intcn.
ton 10 use offensive language or 10 inn
putc dishonombc intentions 60 tie pro-
tcstanis, and those whom they may rep
resent; aud II Is gutidcd nj learning that
the professionals rcpudiato IL rs an unkind
and unchariiablc suspicion that they could
publicly contend against the judicial de-
liycranccs Of the general assembly. The
prcsbytcry Is glad TO know that the pro.
tcsian,A thus virtually pledge themselves |
TO pursue an opposite course.
- Tbs s.---~s..A4. L--le.. i-slssss>.'a !,
cailci upon 10 forbid resistance Ia H.
judgment rendered in judicial case The |
constitutional law Is sufficiently explicit In |
regard Ia that matter hut inasmuch as |
there has been, since the meeting oi the 1
assembly public contention against TO-
judicial decision within the bounds oi the
prcsbyicry the prsbytcry deemed II iusii.
fable and necessary Ia forbid such
course 10y those belonging TO H.
20. Upon the thirl point heprotcs,anis
answer themselves when thcy declare that
Il would be- mkiud, uuohshlablc aud |
harsh To imputo 10 them the intention 20 /
unsCnl their lps iu public contention /
against the judicial dolyUmucc oi our |
supreme court. They themselves thus
seal their own lips la rcgnrd tn the doing
OF What alone the pfcshytcry forbade,
namely. publicly contcndug against the
said Judicial dcliyrmncc Ut the assembly.
Ihc professionals misslntr the terms OF the
picsbytcry's action when they say that Il
seals the lips Of any one under It's jufis.
diciion against even q respectful aud tenn !
pcmio criticism 81 the asscmbly's action, /
II they mean hy such criticism what il |
made Ia constitutional manner The |
professionals recognize the judgment Of the |
suprmv court IN q concrete judicial case |
70 be law touching that ease Hut such u |
law, like any just Law, necessarily limits |
freedom 10 certain oXtcut, aud ubcdi- |
cncc 90 this law, like Obedience 90 all tut |
law, IL true liberty
On thu sabbath after the meeting Of the |
prshyicry thc Rcy. y NJ. Woods. pastor |
ol the fint Presbyterian churrh iu Colum. |
hia, declared, in lhe presence of large !
congregation, that, although hc had never |
before spoken from his pulpit on this mat |
Ter, hD now felt constrained m conscience |
wsuy that thr ag,iun at the prUsbytyry OF |
lhrurriun "mJglUi free FppUrh," aud |
iHa' hr 900 not approve 10. anu hc destined |
~ congregation 60 know whore hc stood. !
lie h,.d that lhv dvly,nuca ul the pus.
hll'fN WHs ruutUry tn thr constitutional
law ui ihy .hyivnlu uhurh. and. CON.
ecquUuill, hD declined 90 hr bound by IA
The syuuJ 60. south Curihua, to which
Charleston IW.lyIry lUiuAH las ina
closed o. meeting, a.,cr adopting tao iul-
lowing papcE
This synod condemns this action of
Tie Charleston prcsiytory ~ uucun,tlu.
uon1l, irregular aud uuWiso, ipr the iul.
lowing reasons iir-i. ih,- a,tiup iss
ut-pasf upon The sacred anil uulipuahlr
night OF private judgment which belongs
TO every court aud 40 tho anaiu and
mcmbvu ui tliu church Second. tnB
action Imposes o. restraint upon thr isht
OF freedom in ihn uEUu-s.uu ui rUuian
which b uuvIrgUul by law Thrill
this action nssuwvs 'hc iulilIhuiy of tlr
general assembly iu Dos du.syuurps ui
judicial decisions. which isa doctrine ion.
.ign TO The constitution aud spirit ui
pWsbytcrianism.
Tho synod directs the uresly,ory Of
Charlcsiun Ia convene as soon as possible.
aud reyicw aud correct these proceedings.
which thc synod hIs nov ,Uul,uu,d
Tho common impression Is that Ia this