The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-06-03
DIR. WOODROW.
His Defense by Judge G. W. Heiskell
The Relation Of Science to the Scrip
lures Set Forth.
A Close Analyses of the Presbytery
and Synod Decisions.
A Plea for Freedom of Thought
Within tho Church.
An Argument that No Doubt Had Much
to Do in Modifying the Views
of Many OF the
Delegates.


before the general assembly of the Prcsby-
terrain Church at Baltimore during the pen
dency Of the case OF the revered and esteemed
naturalist, DIR. Woodrow We present it to
our readers with pleasure knowing that
. .1hether they arc with or against DR.. Wood
row they will feel pride in the excellent pro-
duction Of Judge Heiskell, who has really
excelled himself:
Modcrator---It should be stated at the out
set that what am about to say is the result
Of my examination Of this record, and the ar
guments pro and con before the synod Of
Georgia, upon this record. should say fur
ther, that DIR. Woodrow is In no wise respon-
sible, nor is any one but myself, responsible
for what | now proceed to say.
The question before Us Is, that action will
be taken, or what decision made, upon the
complaint Of DIR. james Woodrow, against
the action Of the synod Of Georgian
What was that action? The presbytery of
Augusta had acquitted DIR. Woodrow on the
following charges:
/. Teaching and FORMULATING opinions
and doctrines in conflict with the sacred
Scriptures, as interpreted in the Confession
Of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Cate
CHlhUlh OF the NtriinllhltT Assembly
Spcciication---"ln that said James Wood
row, on May I, 1881, in an address on eyolu-
ton, delivered before the alumni association
In Columbia, and In the Southern Presbyterian
OF August n, 1884 and %, 1855, and October
10, 1885, and in speeches In the synod Of
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Ala
bama, and in an article published in the
Southern PrcsJytcridn Reriew Of January, 1855
did teach and promulgnte that the body Of
81
from the body OF some lower animal"
Charge 2-"fhat in the above speeches and
publications he did teach and prOmulgate
opinions which are Of dangerous tendency
aud which are calculated 30 unscttle the
mind Of the church regarding the accuracy
and authority Of the Holy Scriptures as an
iniallible rule Of faith"
Specihcation-"That he taught aud pro-
mulgatcd the opinion that the body Of Adam
was probably not made or created Of the
dust OF the ground, as Is universally under.
stood by the church 10 be the declaration OF
the wofx 49, ont " organic matter, pre-
existing In cnebudy OF brute"
From the action Of the prcsbytery finding
him not guilty Of the above charges and
Specifications, the Rev. Vim. Adams com
planned 90 the synod OF Georgia, and that
synod "annulled" the action OF the presby-
terry Ia the following judgment:
''rhe complaint Is sustained for the reason
that the finding and judgment Of the prcshy-
terry are contrary 10 the evidence and the
law, In that the evidence before the presby.
terry showed that the belief '(sic1 OF said
defendant James Woodrow, ID, n 10 the
origin OF the body Of Adam was contrary
Ysicl TO the word Of God as interpreted In
the Standards Of the Church, and II il there
fore ordered that said judgment and verdict
OF the prcsbytery are hereby annulled.'
Against this action of the synod DIR.
Woodrow complains 10 this assembly. We,
therefore. as the supreme court OF the
church, rs Judges Of the court OF Jesus
Christ" upon our Oaths, from the record a.
now made and upon the law applicable TO
the facts Ia that record, we are 10 determine
whether or not the action II the synod
should be affirmed or reversed, arrested or
annullcd.
call particular attention 20 the action Of
synod. IL Il very remarkable.
Observe the prcsbytcry was ON trial before
the synod. Discipline, section l52.
The prcsbytery had acquitted DIR. Wood.
row Of the charges preferred, teaching and
FORMULATING opinions and doctrines In con
ilict with the Scriptures ~ interpreted In our
siandards-in teaching that the body OF Adj
am was probably produced by evolution
from some lower animal"
Now does the synod convict him Of this
Not at all. The synod neither conyicts nor
ncquits. IL 'annuls' the action Of prcsby-
terry because the evidence before the prcsby-
terry showed that the belief" mot teaching
opinions aud doctrines" but the belief Of
Dr Woodrow M 10 the origin OF Adams
lody was contrary, not I'm conflict but
,-Dntrary 10 our standards.
observe again, the synod does not pass
upon the second charge and specification nt
AT and therefore DR.. Woodrow today stand.
acquitted Of the charge Of teaching ana
pr0mulgntng opinions uf dangerous ten
doncy. and which are calculated 10 unscttlo
the mind OF the church respecting the accu.
racy and authority Of the Holy Scriptures ~
an infallible rule Of faith lie stands nc'
quilted Of the specification under THIS
charge, towit: Teaching that Adams BODY
was not made or created Of the dust oi the
ground. a. IA universally understood by the
church 10 be the declaration OF the word OF
God, but u organic matter .pre-sxis,ing 10
the body Of brute And the frcshylcry
als1 stands acquitted.
Therefore the question. and the only qucs-
lion before ~. n what should be our action
ON the Judgment ofthe synod ON the hfst
tharrc and specification.
i.ct 10 d. critically noted that the charge
was "couh.ci' with the word Of God. lie
charge was irgciing aud promulgating opin.
ions and doctrines 20 conflict with the WORT
uf God. Ihc synod judgment was that llr'
Woodrow belief was contrary TO the Scrip
turs.
Conflict means In violent collision-striy'
Ing 90 overcome. Contrary is-opposed.
Conflict y two armies In actual engagement
fighting for victory. Contrary y two armies
standing opposed but not lighting. Now
the prcsbytery had acquitted DR.. Woodrow
of the formcr--striving 90 overcome script
urc. The synod annul this judgment, not
because he Is guilty as charged, but because
he n guilty OF something he j. not charged
with at all, t0-wit entertaining belief con
,rnry TO Scriptures a. interpreted In our
standards. The synod's action docs not re-
,pond 20 what the prcsbyiery did. IL Is;
therefore, coram non judice and void, and
for This reason should be arrested, or an
nullci. And can we convict the preshytcrl
by sustaining the action OF synodI Ihl'
would be extremely unfair 10 prcsbytery
To say that evidence showed mans BELLE
10 be contrary 10 Scriptures IL quite dii
fercnt thing from saying that man taught
doctrines In conflict with Scriptures. Be
sides ask, does the judgment OF synod hnt
Dr. Woodrow or the presbytcry guilty o
any Qnensc against our law7 IL II An ohens'
triablc By our law for man 20 entertain
belief, and no more that Adams body wa
- A.