The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-06-01
WOODROW'S COMPLAINT.
THE EXACT FACTS AS TO THE GEN.
ERAL ASSEMBLIES ACTION.
A Memphis Clergyman Reviews the
-Disepprobation but No
Censure- How DR.. Woodrow Regard.
ed the Result-His Expressions.
To the Editor of Tho Appeal.

OF the Baltimore Amricdn, which enables
me to correct the strange error as 10 the
votes contained in the press dispatches Of
Sunday, and TO say exactly what was done
rs to DR.. Woodrow's complaint against the
Synod OF Georgia.
To understand exactly what was done it
is necessary 10 remember these facts. o.
That the Presbytory of Augusta tried the
charges brought against him as min
lister of our church holding TO serious err
rors, and that by vote OF II 10 Q the
prcsbytcry pronounced him innocent. %
Against this acquittal Dr. Adams, the
prosecutor appealed and complained" TO
the Synod OF Georgia. Ills complaint was
sustained by large vote and the finding
OF the lower court was "annullcd." (3)
Against this.acton of synod DR.. Woodrow
complained TO the General Assembly con-
tending that il should reverse the finding
OF the synod and thus sustain the prcsby-
terry in IL aciuittal.
This the assembly refused 10 do by the
following votc-"ro sustain, "a; "to sus-
tain In part" ?; mot TO sustain" 100.
The press dispatches, therefore, were
wholly In error, and the assembly did not
send the case 30 the civil tribunals a
thing which 1t had no authority whatever
for doing
Many Of your readers will desire 10
know exactly what form OF action was
adopted by the assembly, and for their
convenience beg leave 10 transmit the
official paper.
MINUTES REPORTED nv rnE COMMITTEE AND
ADOPTED
'The committee appointed TO bring in
paper expressing the judgment of the as
scmbly In the ease of James Woodrow, u.
d., against the Synod OF Georgia, recon-
mend the following us the judgment
therein:
Whereas, Tho Prcsbytcry Of Augusta
did find the Rev James Woodrow, u. D.,
not guilty Of the charge preferred against
him by the Rev VIM Adams, u. d.,
wherein lac was charged with preaching
and formulating opinions aud doctrines In
conflict with the sacred Scriptures, M In.
terprcicd in in our standards, the Comics.
sion Of faith, the larger and shorter cate.
chism oi the Westminster assembly. that
lac did ON divers occasions mentioned in
said charges, teach and promulgatc that
the body OF Adam was probably the pro-
duet Of evolution from the body OF some
lower animal, and,
Whereas, The Synod Of Georgia did.
upon the complaint Of the Rev VIM.
Adams, u. D., annul said action Of the
Prcsbyiery OF Augusta, which Judgment Of
the Synod of Georgia is brought 10 this
General Assembly by the complaint Of the
Rev james Woodrow, u. u.
Now Therefore. II Is the judgment Of this
General Assembly that Adams body was
fashioned by Almighty God of the dust Of
flata
pacntagc OF any kind. The wisdom of
God prompted him 10 reveal the fact,
while the inscrutiblc mode oi his action
therein he has not revealed. While.
therefore, the church does not propose 10
touch, handle or conclude any question Of
science which belongs TO Gods kingdom
OF nature, she must 10y her divine consti-
tuition see that these questions are not
thrust upon her 20 break the silence OF
Scripture and supplement u by any sci.
--epilhc hypothesis concerning the mode Of
God'strfrEef acts IN creation which Gro
inscrutiblo 10 ~. II IN, therefore. ordered
that thus complaint la this case bo not sus.
tanned, and the judgment Of the Synod Of
Georgia be and the same ia hereby In all
things affirmed.
william RRowS,
H. X. SNooT,
g. A. RmDEwELl,
J. H. GRAHAM,
:. 4. GRKENE,
A. II. CuRRY.
Against this action Of the majority "pro.
test was entered ON the records Of the
court, which WIS NJ follows
We whose names are undersigned do
enter our solemn protest against the lie
cision Of the general assembly refusing IN
sustain the complaint Of the Rev. James
Woodrow, ID, against the synod VI
Georgia ior the following reasons
!. The second specification of this indict.
ment is expressly excluded by the consti.
tuition of our church, inasmuch ~
nothing ought 10 bc considered by any
court ~ an oil,nsc, or submitted ~ u
matter Of accusation. which cannot bc
proved a. he such lrnm Scripture, ns
interpreted in the standards"
=. In the view of YOUR prutcstants the
Holy Bible does not rcycal the form Of the
matter ont Of which. the time in which, or
the mode by which God crvalcd the body
oi Adam, and therefore the hypothesis Of
evolution as believed 10y nr. Woodrow
cannot be- regarded In conflict with the
Teachings II tie sacred Scriptures
The Westminster standards simply ~
produce, without Interpretation. the state.
mcnis Of the Scriptures ln reference ~ the
creation Oi Adams body. and ne the views
al the complainant are not IN conflict with
the statements II the Scriptures, ~ neither
can they BE- with the teachings Of the
standards.
The action oi the assembly In refusing
90 sustain this complaint b. equivalent to
Ironouncing NJ certainly FALSE the theory
oic,oluiion ~ applied by Dr. Woodrow To
Adams body, which h purely scientific
question, entirely foreign Ia the Legitimate
sphere Of ecclesiastical action. Your pro.
tes,an,s, Therefore, are unwilling that this
general assembly should c1pusss any opin.
bon whatever respecting the hypothcsis of
evolution 90 any other scientific question
i. Z. Whaling &. W llciskcu. 10 lind.
cay, J. J. Davis, y. J. Brooke. X Adams 1
N.Monigomcy. ]. q. Namedoc. II Wilson.
CT Gocichius, WV. Dickcy. 5. VI. Ncal. d
j. fiiEgcmld, {. ". Robinson, J. W. Ken.
ncdy, T. u. Fraser.
The question naturally occune "What
vii be- the effect Of this ruling upon
Dr WOoduw's ecclesiastical stand.
ing and his relations 10 the church," To
this reply that during the discussion Of
The matter Dr. Stncklor, ~ the official
representative IT the synod against which
pr woodrow was complaining. fully nc.
bnowledrcd that nothing WAS contem.
plated looking 10 the deposition Of Dr..
NoodfoN from thc ministry, hut merely
10 nay that the church deems his opinion
"a .NaN.