University of South Carolina Libraries
fcrr urnm-m. - 1-1Tie Wlwmll ail ike Taflpole.j THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD OF lOffTIT CAROLINA SITTING IN Jtt&aMSNT ; OH DR. WOODROVT8 THEO*EIS8 OF EVOLUTION. Tiisir PtofeeWr et Natural Science and their i Teacher of Theology pwrs bo Far Into Ww Unimportant Secrets d'f tfifttre that Many of the Plo?6 Brethren Become Alarmed and Think It Time t? Call a Halt and Put an Embargo oh Utterances Which may Discover to the World Some of the Hitherto Hidden Secret* Cf the Great Ruler of the Universe-. Many of the Jlpaibfr* of Synoii fexhinst tlM>m??lve? lit lihctoricnl Gracc* Hud Oratorical Flight* on Etincr siae 01 ibih l.u-iuu^ tion, in which Sonic of the Brothyen think the Very Troth or the ScriptnrcH 1m Involved. lirccnviile JNVu.*. ( rkr.nvxi.t-f, octobei 23.?the presbyterian synod of .south cnrollmi convened in wash)n-ton street church la>teveningnt 8 o'clock. ki-hiyscvon ministers auu sixty-four elders nnsvvorej to the cull of the roll. the proceed-' lugs of the synod were opened with prayer j l>y t-h?* ilev. pr. j, h. muck, the retiring mod' erit'tor, who at<o preached an uble and ex- j hnu?tlvi! sermon on the wicriflclnl work orj christ, after the rcrinou itev. j. s. white, of b<-li?ol presbytery, whs elected moderator, | ?vnd s. a. webb, temporary clerk: THE GAGE OF BATTLE, Majority Report or Committee. Tbe Moderator called for reports from comtnlttee^, a: d. alter a brief pause, the Uev. J. S. C-.zby presented tbe following majority report : llosnlx'eil, First, That in*?mucb is the hypothesis tit t'Vuluti 'ii concerning the earth, the lower aniuuls ami the Iwdy ol man. as advanced bv the professor of Hal irat science In connection with revelation, Ir a p'irfly sol ntifl'j and extra r.Tlp;atat hypothesis, the e'mrcli uk Kuch l? not called upon to make my lie-1 liv.rancc concern In if it* truth or talsity. Second, Tiint in view of tbe deep interest In thin matter experienced l>y all. and the fears expressed by j Koine le?t this doctrine nl evolution should become an j ftifcl- of church ?h, the Synod deems It expedient I to say that the el. -h, belcg get for the defence of the ' <io.'p*l and tbe promulgation of scriptural doctrines, j can never, without transcending her |'ro|wr sphere, | itic rporate into her confession* of faith any of thej iy|Hithosts, theories or systems of human science. "Third. That while the'presentat'on of the hypothesis of evolution In relation to scripture falls rieces-ardy within the scope of the duties pertaining to the 1'erklm professorship, nevertheless, neither this nor any other M-leiitiflc hynotbcsls Is or can be taught In j <i:ir theological Seminary rs an article of chnrcfc talth.! Fo-irth, That In View of the above considerations,' the Synod se s no sufficient reason to interfere with th.- present order of our theological seminary as determined by the boa-J of directors, J. 8. Cozbt, G. H. Biuckstt, Silas Juuns.on. Minority Report of Committee. The Rev. Mr. Webb presented tbe minority report as follows: The undersign* a, metnwrs or synous committee i "en the theological seminary would respectfully present the following resolutions as a minority reiiort. Fii?t: Re*olveil, That the question whether Dr. Wi-udrow's view m regard to erolution Involves heresv. is not b-forethe Synod. Sec md. Ketolvecl, That the Synod Is called upon to decide, ii?t ii|*in the question whether the si' view or l)r. Wo-Hlrow contradicts the Bible In It*! highest and absolute sense, but upon the question ! whether th y contradict Interpretations of the Bible tiy the Presbyterian church nf the United State*. "Third. IU#^\cH, That the declaration of the board I \.f directors that Mherelattonssnb-dstlng between tn? | Inching ot utrtpture and the tea-bings of natural science are plainly, correct'y. and satisfactorily sot forth" in Dr. Wo-xlrow's add: ess on evolution was tuexp- dieni and injudicious. KourUi: ft'.'solveU, Th\t the action of the board of directors virtually approving the Inculcation and defence of the unverified hypothesis of evolution In the theological seminary nt Columbia, Is, the majority of tl.e Synods of Georgia, Alabama, South Georgia arud Fiord* cor.eurrlnir. hereby revereed, and that ibe in'culcttlon and defence of the said hypothesis, even as -a piob ibie one. In the theological seminary, as being 'Contrary to the Interpretation of the Scriptures by our Thurcli and to iter prevailing and recognised view, is, majority of the a^vciated Synods concurifug, hereby prohibited. R. A. W IBB. F. L AKUKKSO*. STRIPPING FOR THE FRAY. 'Test Vote as ( the Strength of the Parties. After ft brief delay Mr. Webb rose and moved the adoption of the minority report. Mr. Martin moved the adoption of the majority report as a substitute. A briefparllunientary discussion ensued, Dr* ^Girardeau contending that under Ibe custom of Synod the last resolution ought not to be entertained. The Moderator overruled the objection and i>r. (ilrard'-au appealed. His appeal whs sub. initted to Synod and tbe ruling of the Moderator was sustained on a viva voce vote, evident" ly by a large majority, no division being called for. Tb's was tbe first action of the character of u test of the question at Issue In the rontrovfrsy over Dr. Woodrow s address, and Ihc result Indicated that a large majority were, on tbe threshold of the discussion, dis. posed to sustain Dr. Wood row. Dr. Cozby Think* Evolution Involves 1'ttcranre*. Dr. Uozhy,chilrmau of the committee on the seminary and the introducer of the ninjorIt.v report, opened the debate. The evolution theory, lie said, was only u hypothesis. It was not from the scripture and Involved no in:erpi elation of scriptural utterances, and In the opinion of the majority there was no rca?on why the church, as a church, should exoress any Judgment about It. If thechunb enteted on a discussion of evolution?a purely scientirtc hypothesis?and passed Judgment upon that, It ml^ht with cm j nil propriety entertain and pass upon any titlier question of-" or hcttnun ? poiltTo or nn>thing else. The church, he said, had no scli'iititic faith. Her lalth was only ot the things in tlie scriptures. That vn^ the only safe position for her. It was realized that many regarded the doctrine ot evolution as an attack on the truth ot the scriptures and fcaied that it would be taki nns the spirit of the church. To meet *lio-e rcclniiss the second resolution of the timjorlty hnd been constructed?that th?* church, set for tlie defence of the gospel and the promulgation of scrlptu al doctrines, o.uld never incorporate in tier confession of faith uny si-lentitlc hypothesis. Ilezardlng the ihlrd resolution, the speaker snld L>r. Woodrow could not have avoided the evolution question. It was properly tiefore him und in any event would have for<ed lts-rlf ap >n his attention as u legitimate scientist* hypothesis. It wus tils duty to meet this tlrng and test Its position in relation to the scriptures. I)r Woodrow held anil believed that the position of Uod and His word was impregnable and could not be Jeopardised by the re?-v suits of auy accurate d>-ductions from facts. ^either this nor any other scientific hypothesis comd or would be taught in the seminary. Dr. \V mhItow taught that the hypothesis of evolution was probably true and that there was nothing in the scripture to prove that It was not. und nothing in it to contradict the teachings of scripture. Dr \V?>odrow believed and taught that whenever a dlreet contradiction between an hypothesis of science and the scriptures ocourred, tue hy pothesis mu?t mil to ttie ground. His belief of evolution whs simply ns to the mode of creation und In no way opposed the scriptural statement of the fnct. Inhls view the Bible w as silent us U> the mode. In view of that, why hiid lie not h right to study and Indicate his belief regarding that mode? A member Inquired If Dr. Cozby meant to say that the doctrine of evolution did not touch Scripture on one side or the other- that ?t neither confirmed nor contradicted? Dr. Coz?y s.tid the enquiry was whence this doctrine came. Dr. Woiodrow did not ) retend to llnd li or anything about It in Scripturc. Dr. J. B. Adger asked if the Church Should Stiuid in the way of Science mid Truth, nnd now Persecute Dr. Woodrow ns It Perse* I ruled Collleo Centuries ago. TheRov. .1. P. Adger, D. D., said that lnfl-1 Oelitv hx<l been loud of changing its forms j biid thechureh had met and overthrown It tin many ditlercni fields. For seventy-five | years it had I'onght on the flehls of natural I science, and there Infidelity had obtained! many of us strongest weapons. From that fact had come the erroneous opinion that science is the enemy of religion. But Gtnl in nature wns the same oh UoU In the ISible. There was im> routes lion between God in His word ami God in hiK work. Often times, however, the tit-fenders of the laith had been overthrown because they were not informed nr the arguments of infidel science and the realities of science, and they had become latighifg stocks because they put lorth fancilul theories contradicted by established scientific lads. The 1'erklns professorship was founded to do away with these troubles nud avoid disasters by equipping the young brelht? n with knowledge oi science In Its relations to the Itlble and tcacliiug them how to meet the attacks cl Infidel science. For twenty.IK<xo?t's Dr. WtM-drow hail been teaching 111 ' _?' tite seminary, as lils duty required him to do, the iclatlons between natural science and the script tires, nnil now of a sudden this cry arose ?loud within the Synod and among those directly interested, but loudest among those who had nothing to do with the seminary or the Synod. Members had come here with their business ail done and settled for them by the Nashville nud Kentucky Synods, and he fi uted some brethren would yield to this cry from the outside and maintain that this chair Is a nuisance and a danger which shotilii be altolished. If that idea should he ttcte'.l on I he loudest shouts of triumph would rise in the camps ot infidelity. They would say that tliechrlstiiins bad picked their man kiiiI set iiitu to teach, and tite first time lie said anything his mouth was sealed and he fnibidden to leach the coming ministers and nreuchers anything on the subject of the relations bet-wet n the scriptures on which Christianity rested and the facts, deductions pud suppositlonsofscience. There wos no more iruliful source of infidelity than the policy of placing the cl.urcli in the way of science and teaching that the church -Is afraid of it. Dr. % oodrow was not so much on trial bel^re Synod os the church wae on trial before the world. The world was looking on to see If the church would re-enact what was done centuries ago when Galileo was punish<>d and jvrsecuted because he taught the truth that the esrth revolves about the sun which was then supposed locontradict the teachings of scripture. Was the church, beasked, to be put in the way oI science and compelled to retreat vith shame? Brethren committed the error lilt let) into in the days of Galileo In believing 1 -it the scriptures taught science and geoginpbv and astronomy. Instead of underslandli g tliut they taught only the relations of God to man. Jle iCHred that the southern church had boasted too much of Its orthodoxy and piety, now that it proposed to put Itself In the position of tlghtii'g light and Interfering with the sacred, fundamental, universal right of private opinion. Where was the s'udent of the eemlnary who, durlug the twenty-five years of Dr. Woodrow's teaching, had become an Jnfldel ? Where was the student who followed the leaching he received there and had preuchcd eclence from his pulpit? Dr. Wood row did not teach that man was Ihc product of evolution?of descent with modifications?front tl lol,P "no Inferior animals. Iiegiimini! with the same minute tnid Insiiii.irhant ri'iinlsin. lie taught that Jli<-body of n-an-hU earthly tabernacle and <iisemcitt- n tgt.l l e the result of such a process af d :l.at i <>thingin the llible forbade the n-si-ti pilot., bul tharthe soul and mind ot ii at 1: d l.tcti given htm directly by God,and ? ti^il .J:v litfcl woman was dircctV) creatcd by j / I--.-: - vr _ - .1 <1; ill I God by ft supernatural net. It was not tlie ' I n:au mnde tc the ininue of liwd who might n have resulted from a i>rocO!>s of evolution, bat' I merely tlio body of man. Science told us li thai ti e various oruaulzed bodies were not;? created separarateiy but thai from a ft-w orlg-| Innlly created forms the various orginUm* t ?' ? uv>viujn:u ** fjrwuw* ui ucovfui v with modifications to meet varying clrcum- c stances ami nc? ds. It was certain that among 1? all vertebral tiniliiuls three Was a wonderful j c similarity of nervous digestive and clrcula- \ c toryaupi.rutu*. Tlieconstruetfon otthesktuls! of men, hor?e& ami ilogs was exactly similar,' . and toe forearm of the man and the fore lcti.~ ja of ihe quadrupeds were almost counterparts ol each other. The embryonic life ot ull the j, animals was similar. All b^gan In germs <?f j . the same size ami shape ami took theii varied 1 forms us tln-y developed. The eyes of seicn-1 tiflfl men could not be closed to thestf things it l?y the church or any power, and they couhl j li not be persuaded that an evolution had gone ! tl backward, beginning with man and descend-1 v ing through all the stages of mammal quad n rupes, bird, fish and reptile. The Hlhle sal<J I I <iod made man of the oust of the ground and v that might l>e repotted a? a very particular ; t and definite description until we discover, f j th? 1-ict that many different construction ' I prove that we can not adopt, "dust" as the p inly and literal translation of the wurd It 1 repre-ents. Scripture did uotln any case e (attempt to give the exact process of find h I works. The speaker did not believe Chris- a tain* are reqMlrcd to believe that (?od made 2 Adam Mf actual dust any more than theyj" were to be ieve that II- actually doomed the serpent to eat du.st, which \vc know it don't-1 do. i J It could not he denied that there wrs doubt; 1 about many of these matters and that, they :t were legitimate subjects lor enquiry and sup- j a position. . I s T.,n Atl.nrcMrt T1t? X ,!irr?r c-?l?l. iirnclnimpu I that there was no charge of h erf say against c Dr. Wood row and that they did not Charge I him wath contradicting the Hlt.le. What. >e then, was the trouble? The protest told. lt:c declared that evolution whs nn unproved jt nypothcses utid that the Seminary was not; / the place to tench It. What kind of a thins!51 was an mere opinion, a supposition, nn open : t question?a thiugadrnlttlng of debate. The j piotest said that only what wus provenshould ; J he taught unproved hypotheses would not do : t at all. They might give the young brethren 1 moral dyspepsia. There was to be noenqulry. | c no examination of old theories. Wlint nn t amazlngstatement that was! The theoloj:!-1? cal seminary was no place for the discussion j and consideration of unproved hypothesrs.il He tooK issue with the protest and the brelli- j *' ren Just there. All there wn? to do with proved and settled fuels was to explain them. The ! 1: protest declared that the genius of the semi-) s nary was dogmatic. The speaker contended, o that Its genius was an enquiry into truth, tl would not do to teach men to fear and shun e irilin. 11 WBS 11111111^1) lllf uinvusniou VII nil- I I proved hypotheses for long years that thejf' church came to know the cleir and positive e teachings of theology. Men had Intellects give them to think with. When the light of f Inspiration w?s withdrawn from the church k she considered unproved hypotheses for long ! I ages before she reached the settled doctrine of i tl the God, the Son and Holy Spirit, and Trinity. 11 Then the discussion of Adam's Call and man's b was protruded and In th? dark Hires all the*e ! I fundamental doi-trlnesof the church were all j unproved hypotheses. Afterthc reformation the flrst ft<-t of the reformers was to bring the S consideration of unproved hypotheses. But d we were now told hi;said, that the only ques- t Hons to be considered In this age are the doc- r trinesof the church nnd young brothers must I be tenderly guarded from hearing the discussion of unproved hypotheses. Oh these unproved hypotheses! What n nionstrons t dream they were to his brethren! Were no j v unproved hypotheses to be taught In tlio class , room. Were the young men to be forbidden I ' to discuss the unproved hypothesss of orig-! j Uiai bill, Ol CUIIM Ul IMC UIIIIUIMl.!, Ul UIV baptism of the Romish church or or the question of pre and post mllleulum? Was ? professor to be Instructed to teach or speak of nothing except whnt he knows to tie true anil is uuiversally accepted as true? Was the church absolutely settled in her doctrine of the functions of ruling elders. The revised . form of the church government whs known * to be a compromise, the result of mutual con- , cessions unci sacrifices. How about the use of u that case of weasle* (pointing to the organ; in P divine worship ? He did not believe theehureh I' had the right to use any Instruments in the L worshipot God except those used by the Sa- f vlor and the Apostles, but he submitted and " sat under It as gracefully as lie could, (laugh- ? ter.) lJ Every Thursday evening In the semlnnry * professors and students assembled and illseu>sed unproved hypotheses. Uut It should j v be remembered that l)r. Woodrow did not c. actually teach this terrible unproved hypoth- u eses uf his. It was only spoken of t>y him . as a suggestion,a supposition which might be j] true. He taught that the scriptures weretrue " and that whatever contradicts them Is false. 0 Would Synod consent to punish tills brother J,' hodmen 111' Inn) Hint and doin- n ulnin mid una voidable duty, and send him forth with "luflUel" branded on his forehead? , It was charged that Belief In evolution * change* the received Interpretation of ninny * passage? of scripture. Was that a crime! Wnb the church not to reelvenew and belter L Interpretations when lhey were ottered her? It sounded like ihe church of Home?the J claim that tbe received Interpretations are ' Infallible and must not be changed. In this Mine of lightaud liberty, In the latter part of I the nineteenth century would the church commit Itself to the sacred, fundamental, j| God given right ol private Judgement regard- (, Ing any passage of the re%-e .led word? Out- |] side or tl.e confession of laith the church had n no received interpretation. Was light to be g shut from the sacred page and what had been ? said by poor, feeble, errlt>g mortals crammed g ruthlessly down the throats of the people? The church had always steadily refused to adopt a commentary or to establish any "received Interpolation". Syond told the breth- 1 renofthe minority that the view that the c body of Adam was evolved from the lower c animals lnsteail of being created by a mirac- " ulous act was hurtful lo the church. Hut l>r. n Woodrow had smid no such lliing. It was J1 cuiimeu ill.ii uie uieury urni .vutun wus evoi veil and Eve created by a miraculous act was J' contrary to the confession or faith. It was >' not tine that Dr. Woodrow denied that God ' created Adam. ? When l)r. Woodrow was first installed ns ' Perkins professor by the .Synod at Augusta c he had told thoin that he was not able to ac- " cept that portion of the confession of faith J1 which declared that the world was created In ' actual days. He was permitted to quality on J those terms, the assembly of Georgia ruling * that he wasouly required to accept the sum- " mury of the confession. IIow many of the 11 ministers around him when they accepted 11 the confession of faith Intended to bind their 11 consciences forever t o h human production v and regard a thing which hud recently been ? amended by striking out an entire section K (lorhlddlng marriage of deceased wife's n sisters) as equivalent to the ftible. M Dr. Adger tlten took up the protest of the _ minority of the Board of Directors a id com- 11 mented on it caustically. Dr. Adcer denied that Dr. Woodrow's teaching had rent the church. It was not the hands of Dr. Woodrow or of those who sided with him that would Introduce the wedge and drive it home. Dr. Woodrow had simply and quietly performed the duties he was appointed to perform. H? had been put there to tench what heiound true and believed, and now it was proposed to torbid him to do it. r Or. MUCK Axr.r-d *..i(l Atnaned at tjc J Arffnment of hi* Brother, Dr. Ad- w C<>r?TbU Dlnensslon In to Decide P Whether the Southern PrCNbyterlan Church In to Mand Beantlfnl, tl Strong; and Pnre, as In the Bygone u Days, or Whether She In to prove a " Degenerate Dan^hter of her Xoble ti Mother. t( The Rev. Mr. Mack rose, and In the clow and i j,! deliberate tonescharacterlstlcof him,proceed- n ed to answer Dr. Adger: n He said he had been amazed and amused at l! the argument ol the brother who had J usb sat down. He said in one breath that if Synod sustained the minority report it would brand Dr. Woodrow as an Infidel, nnd In the next showed that the minority had not even aecus-1 h ed l)r. Woodrow of heresy. The discussion " was a vltel one for the seminary. Its Issue would decide whether the institution should die and be burled or whether It would con- 5r tinue to stand a faithful witntss to the faith ,! of God. It would decide wiiether the South ern Presbyterian church would stand beauti-1 till, strong und pure as In the bygone days or , : whether she would prove a degennratedaugh- ', ter of her noble mother. What was the position of the minority It ^ did not charm* Intidlelty against Dr. Woodrow i. and the assertion that it did was unworthy ot *' men Kecking the truth. When a man believed ~ In the inspiration of (Jod's word he was not an lntidfl whether he was Artnlnlan, L'nitarian or P.esbyterlan. The I'erklns professor . ' was not charged with heresy: his resignation !' was not asked for. Tho minority had careful- ? ly exclued everything personal from the controversey, anil sought to settle It on prlnclpies. The Perkins professor sunk Into utter lnsin^nltlcance In comparison with the great question at stukc, and even the life or death |:{ ot the seminary was a small thing. The char- j " acter of the Southern church was on trial te- ., fore the world. That was why The minority I had earelully avoided personalities and i 1 sought to place the issue squarely before the board. ! [V The hypothesis of evolution war c!int. God j. had created one or a few tonus and from them evolved all the various organized beings on |:* the earth. Hy the natural law ol evolution i J. forms more com pact and various were grail* J ually evolved, and were not created t>v any }, supernatural act. One application of tlilsl!! principle was that Adam was finally evolved j!! Horn a brute. Dr. Mack ouotod from Dr. Wood row's ad-1.! dress, and sa:d its teaching was that Adam | was the son of a male and female brute and!" was b? rn a baby brute. | It belonged to men ot science to ascertain | faets, base a theory on them and to present,}' them for the consideration of logical minds. ,, Hut could any man say that this hypothesis 11 was true,and could it be taught to the chil- I ., dreu of the church us truth? I!" tlu-y could!'' not ca.v whether a thin;; whs quinine or iirse- | w nlc should they mlminister 11 In their house-; ? hold*? If the Synod hud 110 power over this; proiessorsnip ii. mkuiui never nave ot'i-n ere | a ted lor, none could tell whether truth or error i whs being Inugtit. The Southern church had boasted that it ' kept the crown pure and bright, while the! northern church descended to consider political and other questions. Now it was propos-j ed to cast that crown down to be trampled un-' der the feel of Caesar or science. If this theo- ! ry dealt with the Bible, had Synod no right. 'P us ministers. and the church court to doalj" with it? Whut was a minister but un author-1 r' Ir.ed interpreter of God's word, what were the 11 church courts but the>ame? Dr. Adger hud (| declared that the seminary was the place to |" teach unproved hypothesis. The speaker's10 Impression was that the seminary was the1., place to teach young men to preach the woid and say "we believe and therefoie we teaclr"; ' He denied that the church had required.^ centuries to tlnd her God. She knew Him In J' the II ret century, finding Him by reading the''1 word and having it liitrrpreted by thc.Spirit? ! *' not by the study of unproved hypotheses. | Woe tie the day when theColumbla seminary ] r: would be a place for trifling with unproved;., hypotheses. It would he a very plague spot, i What use would a minister have lor unprov-1 ed hypotheses ? When men came to him to I" know what to do to be saved, or fur com tort, or !'. wnen their feet, irod the verge of Jordan could or would he minister unto him with anun-!? proved hypolhes's? Prof. Agassi/. had pronounced the doctrine j {' of evolution a scientific blunder, untrue in ? facts, unscientitlc In It-achlngs and ruinous in ? tendency. The evolution of Dr. Woodrowj" was the evolution of Dr. Darwin, modi Hod. I " Darwin thai both the body and spirit of man j J! were evolved ; Dr. Wood row in his explnna-1 Hon of his theory explicitly excludes mention ,' of tlie power t>y which the thing wa- done Seven jtolnts of similarity showed that the doctrine of Darwiu and that of Dr. Woodrow j " were alike. i J, The theory contradicted the interpretation given by the church to several passes of ' Scripture. The church Interpreted the word ' "dust" In the Bible literally. Every man's interpretation of the Bible constituted his " Bible. The Presbyterian Interpretation of the ' Bible was the Pre;>byterlan Bible. Nobodyi wanted to Interfere with the right of private j; Judgment, but Synod did have the right, to interlere when its authorized representative Instilled doctrines in its rising ministers I which the church could not believe. The teaching or future ministers that Adam was evolved and Eve created was contrary to the confession of faith and the larger cate-' chlsm. The confession set lorth that, alter God had created all other creatures He created man male and female with Immortal and tl reasonable souls. The catechism taught that s( God created man male and female; that he created man from the dust and woman from w his rib and gave thein living, reasonable and p< immortal souls. The interpietatlon of the jj siorv of creation by the church was that God by a supernalual act created the body and ^ m>u1 of Adam and Eve. He creatcd man entire body and soul. .o! 'J hU confession of faith is the bond of union cc i ii the church. It could only be interpreted in ! \ n hlsloiieal sen^e. Could Hynod sa> that an t nterpretatiou different from the historical i nterpietutlon could be taught without dls-:t olvin>! the bond ot union. I) l)r. Mack ??ld no >nau could have been given j I lie IVrkiiis'proie-sorshlp without accepting | lie comesslon ol' laith. If Dr. Woo: I row ex-i I <-p!ed to tile paits of that confession treating 11 f the creation lie should have saltl so. llell I'i tjilnl.x had not the rlzht to teach doctrines i! oniradiciiug the cuiiicssion. ] I At tbi* point Syuod adjourned until .Satur'.J ay morning. I Synod met promptly Saturday morning nt I alf past nine o'clock, and quickly wonf J lirough its routine business. , l>r. M<ick then resumed the discussion of he reports from the committee on tie thro-I. apical seminary. After a brief recapitula-1 ion of ills openimr remarks lie said ho agreed i l itli l)r. Adger that I>r. Woodrow was not so , nuch 011 trial before the Synod as the Church | <: before the world. The question lor Synod I cas whether the church should stand by her i line honored standards and adheie to the i aire principles announced at her very organ zution when she declared that she would trench nothing but the Gospel, or whether, i n the language of the distinguished and veiltable Dr. H. M. Palmer at New Orleans i where the presbytery adopted u resolution igalnst the teaching ofevolutior? by a vote of i 4 to 2) she should leave all and run after this i 'new departure.'' i Dr. Mack then took up the resolutions of i he minority of the board of directors. There I ras no charge of Infidelity or heresy against i jr. Wood row, and no request for his reslgnn- i Ion or that he should cense to tench the probbllity ot'the doctrine of evolution. The is- i ue piesented was wiiether an appointed encherofone ol the two seminaries of the lunch should teacli the doctrine?the unloved hypothesis?the purely scientific and xtrn scriptural theory?that the higher speiles were evolved from the lower and that i:e body of our federal head and father, Idam, ?'u? derived from a brute. All person- I .1 praise ol Dr. Wood row was out of place in i his discussion. He Ivid wondered at the action of the tnaorlty of the board, but had come to believe lint God permitted them to be blind that the i natter might be taken squarely before the hurch. lie hoped it would not be contended hat the evolution theory was the view but i lot the teachings of the Perkins professor, lueii a claini would pat him in a very bad laht, for the address was elicited by u request < fur Ills views ns tauirht." I The Russian minister of public Instruction lud recently Issued an order saving that tne cliools were not proper places for the study if Darwinism. Asa Gray did not agree with Mrwln, contending that niati was not I solved from the monkey hut thut a certain i oltit In the proeej-s of evolut ion there was a , irk, one branch progressing to man, the otli- i tr to the nmiikey. The entire theory wn?J contracted by the i lihlc statement that God made man aft'-r his I' :ind, (>irds after their k lud and every creeping i: hlng after Its kind, l'aul said there was one1! lesh of birds and unolher of man?not thatji hey were one flesh. Should the Scriptures,' e a nose of wax to be bent about by the sup- i tosltlons of scientists? i D-. Mack clo-ied with the w.irnlne that the i etion of the seminary's best friends in other Itfctcs indicated that they looked on thl? new loctrineasa breach of faith and a betrayal of I helrcontidcnee and that If this evil was not ooted oat thechurch would be divided and i he seminary Irretrievably injured. |< [Tlie rcmnrksof the Rev. C R. Hemphll and j he Rev. Dr. Jtinkln, who fallowed Dr. Muck, i ( rere omitted from the report of the Greenville 1 \'eus, and hence we cannot give them.] , lev. W. E. Jordnn thought it (Jnwlse !J and Wrong to Shock Deep-Neatw) I nntf Earnest F eellugs?In til the Truth of Evolutiou In Proved he Thought the C'hnrch Should Unit. At tlie afternoon session the Rev. W. E* I ordun resiimtd (tie discussion. He claimed liat the very opposite of evolution might c e the true doctrine, and tlie received Interrelation of I lie word oi God could not be i nude to acrep with thedoctrlneof evolution. ' 'mil the truth of that dt>ctrliie was clearly < stnbiished and (lie Tact demonstrated that It ij armonlzed with scripture, he thought the * i liurch should halt. Suppose a professor might lu his class room tlint there was no irarlous sacrifice of sin. Would the church ibo ttio nosltlnn flint fl lisul nothini? to do >*itli tlic doctrhw Uuifcht there because Its I' ontession of faith and known beliefs contra- , icted the teaching In advance? The brother who proceeded hlin (Dr. HetnpIII) had called the minority report a piece of , [logical pntchwork. Th* speaker read pnrt I that report and defended It. It wax not : os-lble for IJr. Woodrow to be brought before ynod for heresy. The real question was whether Dr. Woodrow had tanulit doctrines ( ontrHdlctlng the received Interpretation. , )r. Woodrow when before the Synod of Geor- I la bud by the plain Implication contradicted , h?? theory tlmt the church had no received iiterprelutlon outside of the confession of tlth and the catechism, and Dr. Hemphill in Is remarks had let drop expressions showig that ae realized that there was a generally ecelved Interpretation of scripture. >r, Hemphill t'orrcct* Dr. Jordan. Dr. llemphlli corrected this statement, snyras; that Dr. Jordan had misunderstood im. He knew there was no generally received uterpretation, remembering that the West [UUSier Ul vine* liu'i rciunt-u IU HIIICUUII any enTal interpretation, conflrlng themselves' u the interpretations presented in the confer-! Ion of faith. Dr. Jordan nesnmos Ills Speech. Dr. Jordan said there could be no doubt;1 tint there wns among the people a widely hp- ? eptcd nnd earnest belief In the accuracy of! ertaln interpretations. He thought It umvlsc | nd wrong to shock the deep sealed nnd ear-: iest feelings growing out of this interpretalou by inculcating doctrines contradicting | U If u student could go to the seminary be- ' loving that the earth 1? flat tie would inevltnly he taught to abandon that belief whether )r. Woodrow tried to teach 1( or not. Dr.; ^'oodrow with his mind filled with tacts nnd j1 neorles of science could not avoid communlatlng them to his students. The question \] .'as not whether this man or that man w.is to ! t" Mini it'll. IIIIIK nuaiiciui liUk HIV UIUIIII t jved the truth well enough to meet nnd re-1 1st tlie slightest danger that appeared to,1 lireaten It whether there was certainty tliut i Lendangered the truth or not. Something ad been said of the rejoicing and taunts of]1 iibelievers when the church closed tliei louth of her picked and loved man. That 1 rasjust what the church wanted and Intend- ] d to do. She should show the world that 1 lie was ready to cut away her dearest and iost cherished sons when they taught that | "litch threatened the truth. i tev. Mr. Pratt Held that the Theory ,J that Man Descended from a I.oiij; i Line of Animals was Inconsistent with the Words of Ncriptnre? If! ?od Worked only Through Nature'; onr God was no Better than the j God of the Pagan*. I, The Rev. II. B. Pratt spoke next. The theo-'1 y of evolution as held l>y the Perkins pro-; 1 >sor was that It. dta not touch the seripiure ;' ne way or the other. But that theory whs i' 'rong. The assumption of the majority re-1' ori was that it was extra scriptural That!' ssumption was false. Theevolvtion theory J nsigucd on the scripture. It was argued j ' Hat the Bible re'att d Hie tact but not the ' lodes of creation. That argument was: Iso false. The 21st verse of tlrst Genesis;1 ijs the Lord God hade the fishes of the sea 11 > spawn forth and multiply. Thosumechap- j :r declares that God created the birds, and ' lebeasts and the fishes "after their kind." Ivolution denied this statement and claimed latall life sprang from a few germs, not lade "after their kind." The translation int God made man of dust was not accuralc. /hat Mo'-es said was that the Lord God made inn of dust out of the ground and (iod told .dam that he should eat bread out of the i > iveat of his brow until he returned to the I round Irom which he had been made. Paul ] t id not say really that man was of the earth I f irthy. The proper translation was of theft ust?out of the ground. We were told ill j I enesls that God made man ol' the dust and j i real lied into his nostril* the breath of lite, jc ml he became a living soul. This did not 'I lean that lie became a living ?oul, using \ soul" as we understand. Moses called all an- 1 >iulu u llviniT wcinl ? t 111. i prm ti'iiM urniltcd to i t tpret-8lift*. Jdsepbustold ustliut the word s dam meant "reii'1 and that the first man as socullcd because he was male of red dirt. 1 lose* related that man was not a living soul ml had no animal life until the breatli oi od wa? breathed Into tils nostrils, the iinpilition being that at thesame time what we aderstand as soul and mind were breathed itotheni. How could the theory thai man as the descendant of a lon? line 01 inferior iilmals, and was born itlivingnnimal.be remciled with the words of scripture? How >uld It be urced that the theory was extrarrlpturai and did not interfere with or con adlct tlie scriptures? How could the theory ml Adam was the descendant of a long line ' ancestors be true when the Inspired Apos- t e In bis geneology traced to Adam and there 11 opped siiort. s If we relinquish the supernatural of the ist wliat- Hfisurunce have we that it will be ? le future. Would there be a real resurrcc- ( on of tlie dead or redemption of the body if I tj od hurt never worked except by natural i \ lethod*? Gray and Dunn, quoted as Chris-1? an evolutionists, did not believe in the res- j ^ rreetion ol ihe dead, and there was no ques- ( on of Christian doctrine so shaky as that of; ( le resurrection of the body. Disbelieve in , lesupcrnntural in the past, led to disbelieve ( i the .supernatural of the future. The tjues- ] on was between creation and procreation. L Id tlio ti-hes, the birds, the animals and man , ime hy creation or procreation? Could we j ly tlint (Sod worked only through nature? jj ' wedo, the old l'agans could laugh at us and < 'II us that ourtiod was no better than theirs, , at wecoull do nothing outside of nature . nd had never controlled any of her opera- j, ons. If Hod worked only through nature't here was the use of a God ? r. Sheppard, ol Charleston, Rellev j c?l tn Evolution of n Certain Kind t ?He Hoped never to see the Time I when the Teaching of Science will f be Banished from our Theological ( Seminary. | > At night the debate was resumed by Dr. j { hephei'd, of Charleston, who said he up- ' i roaehed the subject in a purely disinterested t nd dispassionate way, and was induced to j articlpate in the discussion only h> the feel-1 [ ig that the elders should speak on this great > ueslion. He believed, lie said. In evolution ;i f certain kinds?the evolution of languages,! j f laces and of other things. , t Was evolution In its restricted sei.se, as be-1 ( eved by Dr. Wooilrow, taught as a dogma !, nd Impressed on the in I nils of students, or ( as It simply described in its history a"dj( liaracteristlcs? That was a very important |( uestion. He would like to have it under- j j oodthat he hoped never to see the lime ! > hen Ihe teaching of science will be banish-, / J from the theological seminary. He had j sen too many ministers put to rout by unbeeving scientists. U The speaker said he was notnn evolutionist s nd did not believe it In Its narrow, restricted f nd technicsil sense, ltr. Hemphill had cited j le opinion of a professor in Kentucky who t lade the tirst open and clear statement of H|V elicf in evolution that had been introduced ; c i this discussion. It had been stated that llie! r rofessor was believed to have been educated (| t Johns Hopkins university. If lhat was so. !0 Is position was natural, for there was not a j r lore prolitie nursery of Inildelity In this, juntry than the scientific department ol! r iat university. Darwin, the most Illustrious I, tiamplon of evolution, hud followed It to lis i iglttmnte conclusion and wrote "As for me I i> not believe there ever has been luiy revela- h on at all." Max Miller, Dean Stanley and lany cithers had been led to pantheistic posl- ^ ons by following up this same theory to Its Imost inevitable conclusions. Dr. Shephcidln ireed wilh Dr. Junkin In feeling a natural, e istinctive repugnance to the thought that | v jr bodies are evolved from the same materl- i I us the brutes, ami that the body of our Sa- j i: lour was made of the same gross material. 11] ldcr Clark Hoped that Synod woniil! jj be put in Posscditioii of nil the j ,| Facts Before taking a Delivcrancc ' F ?The Address of Dr. Wood row i J Showed the Relations Between t Science and Religion. I ; g Elder W. A. Clark,of Columbia,and one of'tl ic majority of the board of Directors of the j t ?ml nary, followed. He had been impressed jj ith the feeling that Synod should be put in j s issesslon of all the facts before making a de- [ veranceon tbis great, grand and glorious j* uestion. |d The minority report relieved Dr. Wooilrow ii ' heresy and then relieved the subject of nil |P nitradlctfon of the Bible, following tliatjl' villi nn Injunction not to tench evolution i: lie seminary. It criticised the Helton of lb joiird ol directors. What *vui the action < lit- lionril ? ltrciiui.-Kted Dr. Wood row lo nri jure h statement of his belief and teaching ic hud done so ami tlie bmird flunked tun jnH-ed resolutions, limi expressed the opinio that the doctrine us tau^lu was not coiitrni to any declaration oi Scripture. Tue truth n ralslt\ of tlie doctrine of uvoiutlou had nott lug t'? do whb the question belore Myiiod. J mid been widely circulated that Dr. Woodro' taught evolution In tiicseuiluary. The stall, men I was untrue. It Was understood b many ol the members and by the signers i tlie ininorliy report tlmt Dr. Woodrow w? 'teaching'' evolution In the broadest s*-n-e ? the word. The Synod of Nashville bad actc an that belief as shown by Its minutes. What did Dr. Woodrow t-ay hlune'i? ITei Mr. Clark read correspondence between D Woodrow and himself in which Dr. Woodro' <tated that when Ilrst Inaugurated be had ai nouneed his conception of bis duties. Tii purpose of the chair was merely to expl il to students the conncctlon between hypoih sis or facts of science and religion. The ei uddress dell vered at the request of tlie l.o.u was devoted to showing the re'atlons betwee this new science, or branch of science, ar llie tenchlng of scripture. lilt was true, i had been stated, that evolution was a iltrca enlng and dangerous thing there was all II more reason for ministers of (jod to unde stand It fully and resist It or ward off I from the church. The question was narro'. f./| ?4r,u'n in t h? p.hnrire tnnt Dr. Woodrow wi culpable In that lie had expressed the opinio Ihutthe doctrine of evolution was probubl true. The minority seemed to net on the ill nry that Dr. Woodrow Inculcated evolutiu with zeal und put his students into the worl enthusiastic evolutionist*. The minority r Rort churned that Dr. Woodrow. while free < eresy or any opposition to the word of (>< was to be censured because of Ills opposltin to the received Interpretation of tlmt word i the Presbyterian church. Mr. Chirk theii briefly reviewed the addre which ended with the conclusion that evoti tlon "as defined by the address" was probubl the true theory of the origin of man and coi lradlct< d no statement of the Bible. lie wi notable to mocl the charge that Dr. Wooi row's teaching was contrary to the rewivt standards because neither he nor anybod else knew what the received standards wer The theory of the literal creation of ti parth In six natural days had been dccldi long aiio. Nobody denied now that the un verse was developed from chaos by the slo operation of millions of years. That evoli tlon was now an accepted fact; yetthemlno Ity report condemned even the diKitrltje < the evolution of the earth. Mr. Clark the proceeded to nrsrue that as the confession < faith was taken directly from the Bible, ti hypothesis that failed to contradict the Blbl could possibly contradict the confession i lalth. l)r. Woodrow had either taught do trines contradictory of scripture and wi therefore guilty 01 nere?y, or ne mm now traiilcted tlie conf'-ssion or any oart of I Hie action of the Wcsimiiilsterassembly wi reviewed, anil II was slinwu that It had refu pd to fix any general Interpretation to be r celved by tlie church. Why were we to tie r ileved from the literal Interpretation of t.1 creation of the earth and held by an Iro jrasp to the literal Interpretation of the ere; Hon of man? Unless It could be proved tin word "dust", In the account of the creation i man could mean nothing but dust, every be had the right to his Individual Judgment of I meaning and signification. i)r. Wood row system of evolution was the product of h own thought and study and Investigation, was not Vhe evolc tlou of Uarwin. l>r. Woo row believed that. In the process of evolutlci pvery link from llie lowest germ to the hlgl [ st type was the work of God. Why cotil not we worship and glorify God for the wi 'loin ami mercy In developing man link li link as well as wo eoiiiu wouuerai me miuui ureal Ion of man from the ileail earth? O* process was as miraculous as the other. Dr. Sheppnrd Rises to n Question 4 Privilege. Dr. Shepherd ro'o lo explain Hint In Ills r marks lie had not intended to Intimate thi i)r. Wood row's evolution was the evohtlio Df Dnrwin; what lie had Intended to say wi that there was daiuer that young men In a sorhlngthe doctrine of tnodifled evolutlr might be hurried on tint 11 they carried the e ulmlon doctrines far beyond their tcachc lust as the (iermnn students of Darwin h? uccepied theories which he would probabl not huve approved. I>r. Clark Resumes. He then defended the mojorlly repot There eonld be 110 question thai the doctrli of evolution was extra scriptural, ns the r port said It was. n was an nypoiurciH um up on nelenee, entirely unconnected with tl scriptures, and Synod hnd no rl?ht to go b j'ond tin sphere of church work and denoum i? purely scientific theory as true or fal* Mr. Clark read from the work of Dr. 11 o< I j the declaration that evolution, and In tl fame shape ns believed by Dr. Woodroronld only be regarded with the most frlen ly interest. Mr. J. Adgrer Sm.vlhp sniil the Tend in IT* or Evolution Could not t Kept front our Yonn? Men-W'hc ever they Went, or Whiitever the Rend, the Subject is Mire to com up? Keiier i?r mriu iu atvct >ai QucKlion tndop n Nlrone and Coi NclcntloiiN Guidance. Elder J. Adier Smythe followed. He sn the point welching on hl? mind was uhetli it wiim falrand In accordance with Presbyiei an law to expressly disclaim any charge heresy airaliiKi a man and then In the lie: breath to reeommend that he tie pniilslu and ceil en red Tor the ofTence. If the hrelbrt believed the plain Implication of their o\v words and felt that I>r, Woourow was gin n of hrresy, the proper way would have been bring him to direct trial. As lie stands noi he was to be virtually tried lor heresy befo five eourts?the four Syi.ods and the board i directors. There had been much talk of Dr. Wood row view being contrary to the accepted Interpri tntIon. Dr. Mack, one of l)r. Woodrow strongest opponents, taught, said Mr. Smyth the theory of t wo resurrections. Surely tlx was contradiction of the "received Interpret tion." (laughter) Mr. Pratt who hail spoken < oquently and w?-ll in behalf of the Inviubt! ly of the genoral Interpretation of scrlptu and had gone against It himself by conten ing that when God had created man It wi meiely thecreatlon of animal life and thatn anlma's were spoken of a< '-living souls Dr. Mack translated the sentence to read thi Rod blew two souls Into man. That sure! contradicted the generally received lnterpr tation. Another wave of subdue<l Presbyterin laughter lighted up the grave faces of cide and ministers, none seeming to enjoy tl |oke more than Dr. Mack himself. o i ill l~l ~ I ? fnn*. * I, l .ui.ninjuiruni imi, juh. ..i*> .v.. .... young men would bo led into danger or for pd Into Infidelity by the teaching ofcvolutio: It was proposed lo hide this doctrine from tl > 011111; ministers?to tell them them tin miist'nt hear about It or think about it tint they got awa.v. Hut It could'nt be kept froi them. Wherever they went they would hei >f 11; they could not rend books or pnpei without liciTinL' of It. It would surely I t>est to let them lenrn of and examine it 111 tor strong and conscientious guidance. K< the first time, lie Bald he had hung bis hen ind been ashamod of the church lie had lo . d and been piond of all his life. The exhlb Jon of bigotry, narrow-mindedness an ivoldance of light had appalled and grieve iim. He believed the adoption of the niino ty report and the censure of Dr. Woodio rvould put the church baek lOOyeiirs. Dr. Brnckctt. of Charleston, In itc Prepared lo Accept the Theory < Evolution, but He Reprobate Cheap and Vulvar Wit at It* E.i penac. Dr. Rrnekett, of Charleston, spoke next. II iald while lie was not prepared to accept tl lieory of evolution, be opposed and reprob ed the cheap and vulirar wit so freely pi 'ortli at the expense of the theory. He coul lOl NJ mpit I lll/.e Willi uic mill kuiiiv 1 lis brothers had felt at the Idea I hat the bod )f the Savior was composed of the demon >f the bru'e Iroin which Adam was evolvei I he excitement over l)r. \V<>odrow'sdoctrlu< vas caused by the t'host ol dem and burlc )aru'lnlsin. I)r. Brackett urged the ado) Ion of the majority report with great fori ind earnestneHs. Itcv. It. A. Webb Thought that we hn Better Hear Shout* of Triumpl from the Cainp of Infidelity thai a Universal Wnil from the Cam of the Saint*?Synod should nc Sacrifice the Peace and Harmon of the Church, and the Life of th Kcmiunry, Tor an fnvrrlflpd II] potliOHiM, u Shadowy, I'ncertiii: MuppoHltion. Tlic Kev. R. A. Webb addressed Synod o he reports of the committee on the Tlieoloj cut Seminary, he having been one of th tuners of the minority report. The speakc aid he agreed with Dr. Adger that the eliure ind not Dr. Woodrow was on trial. Tho ml lortty report was trained carelully t?? draw listluctlon between Dr. Woodrow and Di ,Vood row's teachings. The minority on I; i"ked U)at Dr. Wood row's views as publishei >e considered. It tiad t>ecn said that tlie ado] Ion of the minority report would elicit shorn >f triumph from the camp of intidelity. Th idoptlon ol the niaiority report uould elicit inivcrsul wail fioiu the eatnp of the saint! rile charge that the ininoiity had sought I ttainp science with infamy was false. Th var cry of the supporters ol the majority wa 'Remember (ialileo." Ttiey forgot thatsclenc rlcd, condemned and punUhcd Ualllco. Set ?nce had led tlio church So adopt the Ptoli mule theory and induced her to oppose an persecute the truth. The majority was en teavortnu to <lo the same thinii and coin nil rlio church tothctHK-trlneoi evolution as mix lieil, expounded and Inculcated In I)r. Wood ow's address. It was claimed Unit I lie quel ,i<>n <it evolution was extra script urul and tha lie church had no more to do with It than sh ad wlili a problem of Kuclid. liutthc lilbl md science both talked ot the creation ol iuhi I'liey intersected each other there and contn licted each other, lhe majority report wa tart 11 tig inasmuch us It looked Into tnefutur ind endeavored to guard against theintrodui Ion ol the hypothesis of evolution in the cor esslon ol faith, l>y declaring that, it couli lever become part of that confession. Hut I t was worthy to be taught in the seminar jnder the au hority and with the sanction < ?ynod. It was worthy of Incorporation in th onfes-lon of laith. The resolution in the niu ority report that the theory of evolutloi :ould not be taught as an article of faith wa i dodging of the question- Dr. Woodrow wa lot a private person ; be did not speak on hi >wii responsibility With authority of th 'hurch behind him, he reviewed before hi 'lasses the arguments for and against evolu ion and declared tha' he believed It to b irobably true. Was that, not teaching It nn< neulcuting it ? The chair called for the teacli ng of the connection between scripture am iclence. The majority report proclaimed tha here was no conncctk n?(hat the doctrine o ivolution was entirely extra scriptural. Tlicr ould he no connection between parallel llne> Mr. Webb explained that he was not the'au horof the minority report: that young as h vas he would nut attempt to guide the actioi if a body like Synod. He had drawn up tin ninorlty report. Ulackstone defined lieres; >s a denial ol some essential truthor doetrlm if Christianity, publicly avowed and obsti lately maintained. Dr. Hemphilienquired whether the speake neanttosa> that if Synod adopted the mi lority report It would adopt Webster's o Jiackstooe's definition ol her sy. Mr. Welib said he Intended that Hyno< houkl adopt a correct definition. Dr. Hemphill said there was a Pretbyterliu lefinlllon of heresy. Mr. Webb said be would never vote for an* ctioit that would accuse Dr. Woodrow of her sy. There was no purpose to charge bin nth heresy. If every man who ditl'ered will he confession of fallh was to be accused o icresy, a large proportion or the church mem lership w?uld be under ban. The minority lei)led that Dr. Woodrow was guilty of lieres; >r Infidelity. They charged that he taugh loctriiiOK contradictory ot the liitdc as Inter reted by Presbyterian standardsand reeetve< iy Presbyterians. The doctrine of evolutloi fas not. extra scriptural; It was contra scrip ural. The word "dust" was used In the Ulhli 07 times. Inl>3of them it was used as luor ante dust. The passage "who can count tin lust of Jacob" might he regit red us referrini 0 organic beings, but examination showeu hat it referred entirely to the immense until ers of his descendants. In two other in tances it was used to express humility an< Dwlinoss. In tlnee others it was used as de crlhlng ltic lood of serpents, and was there are regarded as meaning flesh and blood. Iin Istingiiished coiiunentntois find decided tha 1 could he construed as meaning that the ser cut ato dust upon his food. The speaker be leved, however, that the expre?slou "dust' n 'was a figurative one applying t> the extreme J! e humbling of the devil, typified by the serif pent. Ol the remaining three Instance* In > which "dii!?t" occurred two were in Genesis ;; and one In Kcclealiihtie?, and all obviously rei, ferred to luorganlc materials. In 104 cased n j^'dusf' was clearly meant to express Inorganic y material and In the other three the probabl lr ty was the sante way. Anplyln^ the ordinary t-1 rules of Interpretation, the preponderance of It use and genur*! acceptation, the conclusion >v j was inevltnnic tnai"oust, iu mc uiuigu><i<?t. ! I li.org-inlc material and that Adam whs lit<-rv ! ally made of Inorganic dust instead of being if evolved from the loins ot a brute. 18 j livery figure of speech must have some ba?!s >f of reality. Dr. Woodrow In hlH addresM bad d alluded to dust as probably a ilgmeof speech. j According to thai the reiif meaning or "dust c thou art and to dust ih-iu shall return" was r.) "of organic matter art thou composed and In iv i organic matter thou shalt be decomposed." i- [The grave told us how we went and proved to I e 1 us that we must letnrn to Inorganic dust. The n i speaker contended that Dr. Woodrow w is not) e- guilty of heresy bul 1 lint lie had luught d?>c-1 11- trine relatively contradictory of Scripture?I d contradictory of the Scripture received by the !ii Presbyterian church. id Tbo minority report steered clear of the is charge of heresy and the allegation of Intalllt blllty. It directed the prohibition of further le teaching of doctrines believed to l>e contrar dictory ot the received in lerpretatlott of God's ts word. Mr. Webb closed with a jussionate esv hortation to Synod not to sacrifice the pence ih and welfare of the church and the llf<> of the 11 seminary for the sake of an unverified liyly pothesis, a sbadowv. uncertain supposition. ejJJ Dr. tilrardean had AilvUcd Dr. Wood* ^ row that the Beat Coarse for the nf Instltntlon and Himself, would be 1,1 to Withdraw from the Neinlnary? [J The Board was at Faalt Tor Pro* nouncinjc the Doeament Plain,! =s ?'nii. Correct and Natlafactory. u* I ly Dr. Gtrnrdcnu explained that lie lmd preparii ed a paper to be uttered as a substitute In ease I in the majority report should tamtam tne action | j. of the board ol directors. At Mr. Webb's ro j d quest he hud given hi in the note' to be used i ly as the basis of the minority report, e. Dr. Girardeau then alluded to I he warm and j ie friendly r-latlons between himself and Dr. j d Woodrow personally and professionally. He I I- had advised Dr. Woodrow that the best course w for the Institution and himself wou'U bo for u- him to honorably withdraw from his position r- and pursue his scientific Investigations apart of from the seminary. n Heresy was of two forms?one a departure of from some vital teaching ol Scripture, the id other of departure from some essential fealc tore ol Calvlnlstlc doctrine. Suppose he (Ibe nf speaker; held that Dr. Woodrow Had opposed c- certain teachings of Scripture. There were is degrees In such opposition and it was cle irly u- set forth that Dr. Wood row's contradiction it. was notof a character to make it a heresy, is It was the board of directors that was before s. S> nod. Dr. Woodrow und his teachings wore p. onlv indirectly belore them. It was not neeese sary for the board to go Into the difficult ie question of evolution, and declare offhand m without investigation or study, that Dr. rt. Wood row's exposition of the doctrlnp of evit olutlon was plain, correct and satisfactory, of Could Synod endorse that statement and give I </. tho uinri.i n iinuitiiit.il> declaration that Dr. ts Woodrow s hypotuesls was plain corrcct nnil *s satisfactory t Theexposltlou of the difference Is between lion contradiction and harmony was ft. not plain, correct, or satisfactory. Dr. Wood-j j. row's position wus that so long as non conm tradlctlon between the Bible and science exI). 1st ml the cliurch should be Mulshed lil I without requiring absolute harmony be* 8. tween them. It would not do to etlect this 'A' complete illvorce between God's words and h ' w.irks. There was a certain harmony beit. tween them, the Bible telling of the glory and g'e.itness 01 God and the heavens above, the I earth beneath and the waters under the >f earth conilrmlng the story. The day would come when science and Christianity would kia> eacli othttr and unite in the harmonious e- praise lo God and declaration of Ills mighty it power. Tne speaker did not t Ink Synod in should undertake 10 put apart what God is had lo aciTtuln'extnntat least.Joined .together, b- He Was not prepared to say that Dr. M'ooil>n row's theory was contiadietory of the real v- ineanlliK of the Bible. The position assumed rs I in the address regard in* harmrny and non id contriidlctlon wn? a violation 01 ru es of ly thought Dr. Woodrow Imd not said what ho i leaily intended tosav, and Ills utieiance was | an error which could not bo endorsed by Hynod as plain, correct anil satisfactory. Ur. { Girardeau then proceeded lo analyze Dr. | " Woodrow's exposition of the doctrine of evollltlcn and to Indicate its delect* and faults. I, There was uot. a sulflejent definition ot the ' meaning uf the word science; there wus true p science and fa.se science and thai laet should ' have been explained. He did not rind laoll ? with Dr. Woodrow lor omission* an J faults of I' his address. Tlicy were unavoidable In the li ml ted space he used. Bui i he bom d wus at. fault for pronouncing the document pluin, 'V correct and fiallslaciory. Theeontllct In this case was between the churcn's Bible and a scientific hypothesis; It was between theology and the science or the slentltlc man. Tne resolution of the board was inconsistent, declaring iiim mu r- tion ofllie relations between science was full, >y correct and satisfactory, while the exposition of the iclallons between the Bible nnil Dr. \Voodrow's hypothesis wms not concurred In ie unci vlrlually prononneed not full, correct or g. satisfactory. The bourd luid refused to concurln Dr. woodiow's address while declaring ihut there was nothing in It eontrHdietory to I,] (lie received word of U<>d. The boaid had !>r Kindled out the view of the evolution of I. Admit'* body mid refused to concur in It, of thereby virtually endorsing the other views Kt. exnresHed in the address?the nebmar theory ;,| and the tlieoty of the transmutation of the I, lower animals. An endorsement of the ? hoard's acMou was virtually an endorsement tv of the nebular hypothesis nud that of the to transmutation of animals, lie did not bev> lleve Synod was prepaied to endorse the de I uni-intittn r,r t it 112 11.. f (.< 11 vp it tul irrl ii ij Hildrevs 0r as' full, correct and satlslaclory" or to endorse fcnd adopt the glaring Inconsistencies s and reckless endorsements uftbe board. >. .Dr. Girardeau said lie was not prepared lo s say that Dr. Woodrow's theory contradicted c the Scripture In Its highest and absolute sense. A(' Hut in Its relative sense, In Its general ac,i. eeptatlon, It did. The revelation of God was !j_ as grand and extensive hs the universe itsell'. |. liccausc the mind of man could not eompiiss rc the universe, wecouid nut say there is no unl- i j. verse. So with God's revelations In which ,8 there were heights and depths not lo be II reached by human minds. We could not tell whatthe Bible taught or said In its highest ^ and ab olute sense. We could accept our Inly tci | rotations of it, and that was as far us we e_ couid go. A scientific hypothesis which has I not been proved so as lo be an absolute law and whicn contradicts the chuich's illhle and m |KT (jcneriilly received views and doctrines rs ought not to be taught in the theological Sem,G inary. To permit such teiiching was to permil the overthrow of tiie church's doctrines. The seminary was created for the purpo*e of it teaching the church's doctrine and views, c Even a proved hypothesis of science should n. not be Inculcated when it contradicts th<; >e standards ot the church. The church should y tuke from her standards the teaching dlsII proved, but until she did that the standards in were the law and no teacher had the right to ir go against thetu. lie should submit lo the rs church or withdraw from her service. Much )e bad been said of the church law and Dr. ii- Woodrow's appeal to It. How could lie apsr peal to the church law for protection nfier id having violated Its fundamental provisions? ?- Dr l!liiir<l..fiu I'uvlnuii I n:i?t. conflicts hp >1- tween llie church interpretations of Srriptuie id and scientific theories, aud urged that the <t church should clirijc to her standards until r- they wore known to be wiong and forbid any j w of her representatives teaching contrary to j tho-e standards. .Synodhad no right to Interfere with a man's private judgment or to tell it him what ho shall believe flut II had the tf risht to say that man should not, as it* representative, teach or Incuicute doctrines 1,4 contrary to the standords. It hail been said f tliat every professor In the sen.lnary taught views contrary to those generally held In the church. N<> man had a right to do that uu[e less he was very suro that he was supported te by the standards. When i lie standards uusPl. tallied n view contrary to one generally ac,1 eeptrd In the church a man had a right to |,| iruui ii. i"c r-'iiu vw v........ i.iiu "j Br the latter during his remarks on the previous v night. J ?r. Woodrow had clearly and distincttH ly aunounced his purpose to teach in thefuj lure the probable truth of evolution. That Is s what he should be forbidden to do. Dr. Glr;,'l anient) denied that the methods of the chair j. of metaphysics (his own) resembled those of .( the Perkins professor. There was no analogy between them. In the chair of metaphysics hypothesis were inculcate 1 which were In abd solute harmony wUh Presbyterian standti arda. That destroyed the ami logy for from the chair of the Perkins professor unproved " hypothesis were taught contradicting Presp byierian standards. The standards were the ,t Impregnable fortillcution of the church iicrninut r>rror. and violations and conirndie 5 ticin of tliein wlilli* they stood was destructive e mutiny und sapped and overthrew the walls r. thiit the hosts of sin ml;; lit enter. n Here a recess wur taken until 4 o'clock. After rccess Dr. Girardeau resumed his arn Rumrnt. It made little difference, he suld, r. whether the creation occupleJ six literal days e or six periods of time. But the teaching ol x ihestandards was that God created gradually, I) beginning with nothing. l)r. Woodrow's . theory was that lie created from nnlilng a only it few forms in the beginning and then r, I left ihe completion or the work to the process y I of evolhtlon. I)r. Wood row was to have ali I Iowa nee n'ade lor him lor his teaching that >. the world was not created In six literal days. h He bad given notice of Ills exception to that e | passage of t he standards before he entered the ] a service or the church. J Dr. Wood row rose and said lie did not bee lieve and had never taught In the seminary 8 IiIk belief that the six creative days were long I. periods. !- Dr. Girardeau snld If Dr. Woodrow believed d that creation was accomplished in six natural i- days his theory of a gradual process of evolut lion was absurdity. Dr. Girardeau then prol-!eecded to recite the points of contradiction I- between Hie Presbyterian Intcrpretntlon of ?'the creation and Dr. Woodrow's theory, it There w-re five points on which they were e diametrically opposed. The church taught n that Adam was a mature man ; Dr. Woodrow i.; tankIii that lie grew up from an Infant brute. i-iDr. Woodrow taught that Adam w:is alone ,s ninny years before the creation of Eve; the e church taught that hut a short time intervened between their creations. i- Ortaiiily the overwhelming sentiment of tl the church was against the docrinc of evoluIf tlon. Vone of Dr. Woodrow's fellow profesy sors agreed with lilm; six of the seven lead>i i ne church papers opposed him; not one of e the board of directors of the seminary would i- endorse Ills views 1 If Dr. Woodrow taught that Hie theory of s evolution, which contradicted the Presbytes rlan standards was probably irue he could s only teach that the standards were not true, e If the tueory of evolution was extra scrii>s lured, as the board of directors claimed, the i* church and the board us representing the! e church had no business with It. at all. Then J the majority of the board said In one breath i- that the church could not teach science and in :1 the next that she was necessitated to teaeli It. t The theory advanced by some of the speak- i 'I ers ttint protestantism and tho church were, e the produels of a process ol evolution was not j i. j true. The advance of the church was a pro-1 i- cess of development under the Immediate su-1 e pcrvislon and with the continual aid of God. I i Dr. Girardeau attacked the position of Dr. s Adger that the church had reached the knowlf ediio of the truth by the discussion of une proved hypothesis, Dr. Adger rose and reiterated his opinion, r and said that he was astonished that his r brother did not know tho truth of it, . In reply to Mr. Hemphill, Dr. Girardeau , 1 sa.d the bill of rights so eloquently describod , was not only Intended to guiird the rights of , 1 individuals but to guard the rights of the j Synods and the church. Suppose the board ,' f was enamoured of a teacher or minister who . * committed heresy, and refuses to present him I ' to Synod? Would Synod be Jiisiifled in ai- |. ! lowing justice to be bafiled by constitutional I. ' technicalities. No; Synod would sweep away ! j ; the teaeiier and the board. Dr. Girardeau . thought the matter had been properly brought;, f up. If Dr. Woodrow had been tried before ' 1 the Presbyteiy of Augusta, as lie would have . to be iried, the power of the Associated Synods over the Institution they created and , 1 maintained would be reduced to zero. A number of precedents were ouotcd to show that written and published documents could be brought before the Judicial bodies of the church and tried without the personal presence of the writers. He had never believed heretofore that the, foundations of the seminary were seriously endangered even In its darkest days. Hut now he felt that the institution was on the edge of deadly peril. II Dr. Woodrow was endorsed, Hie seminary would be known as ' the evolution seminary. Students might come, but Hie chief attraction would be It. :r \\ oodrow's teaching, mid the majority of 9 r j Christian people w otild avoid it. 11 Dr. Bracket? BUh to a Point of Prir- hiu ileifo--- Bleeding Heart* And Team Sbed?Hcylia and Chwybdl*?Ood | Known Which In the Rock and thl Which U the Whlrlpool-The I?ord Je?ui Christ will Guide the Ship ros Tbron;h the Troubled Waters and ed the Church will not Spilt Upon J the Bock or be Engulphed by the poi WdVCM. c^' Atr At tlio conclusion of Dr. (iIr;irdinu'snddro'iB ter Dr. Br.ickett arose ton point of privilege and said: as Mr. M'Kleralor; In my brief iind hur- 1 rled rciniiiks 1.-st nl^ht I made a statement sni which I fear has been misapprehended. It do wub In reference to the connection beiween In science und revelation, I s.ild that m-lencc ?>d pursues lier Investigation* independently Its and with the scriptures closed and that theo- he loglnns puiHued tucir Investigation* with Hie sir voiumes of science closed and when the iacts li wore ascertained that then tno results could av< be ascertained. If there Is an unproved hv- the pothesls before them, It should not be taught fro by a professor lo ins Huiueni* huu mcy pi1uuiu | wiiv not uttempt to harmonize It. They should h>iI turn down that leaf until its truth has been Uo ascertained. chl I wax also very careful In my statement as gra to Ihe principle of selection. I carefully rer avoided the word "nature!" believing that I It Is Uud hi mself who makes that selection. the We are not coldly looking on attheconse- pn quenees of the result of thin discussion. NVe 1ft too have hearts (hat are agonizing nt this he time. We too have tears to shed but we be- tie lieve that there Is danger on both sides. We i are concerned for the attitude which the be< church Is to assume towards science, and we he too are concerned to kuow, as my brother lias He said, whether her banners arc to be trailed In wa the dust. There Is on one hand 8cylla, and ev< ? % il.n nlhnrl'ImrvhldlK. fJOil knoWS Which He Is tin* rock noil which Ik the whirlpool. The llg church Is being tossed on the surging Sen, her 1 canvass is stretched and tier mists are strain- die e I. I did not say that we should leave the reti consequences to themsolves. The Lord Jesus ex] Is In the ship und 1m not sleeping. He will of guide her through the troubled waters and chl the church will not split upou the rock or chi engulphcd In the waves. or de< Rev. J. It. Martin Said thl* wait the ?tt Mont Important Question tbat hs4 been Before the Synod In Fifty for Yearn?Five Unanswerable Qneii* wl tlon? which Should be Annwcrcd Before Condemning1 Dr. Wood row (je Evolution an Open Door In P1* Science Through which the Child tlj( of God mny go in Search of Light del Our Saviour ate Bread and Meat, which were Asslmnlated to Ilia ce| Flesh and Bone, which Became tin Part of the Actual Body of the Son |>el or Clod, which Body wan not Ensen* |J" tliillv Different from Our Own kn 'Dnsty" Tenement* of Clay ? No lo* Conflict with the Scriptnrea and "!j I>r. Woadrow'n Theories or Evola? nil tiou. h,J Tlic Rev. J. L. Mirtln spike (or the majorl- hsi ty report. He said the onepolntof difference J-r*j between ihc contending parties was that one >tl side claimed that the Holy Spirit probably met Inorganic du?t while the other claimed that the Holy Spirit probably met organic "hi dnst. There wi.h nodoabt that the word dust 'J*1 often meant Inorganic dust In the Bible. All tn? admitted lhat. Tiiere was some dispute as to I'" whether It was ever used to stgnlfy organic W<J dust. The woril w;is an ambUnoiiB one used "el In the letter of the Great Father to His chll* ?f dten giving ihetn an acconntof their own or- I** Igln. There was no Inspired Interpretor to tul tell us the moaning of the word now. Each 1 reader must interpret It In the light of Its It own context "Du*t" shall thou cat," wax r,K Mild to the serpent. What did the serpent w-' ?..?* Ilrinml*. fln.il. Ir it wus rlulinrd ttiat eh I li>* serpvnt represented the devil he chal- 1 tenged any man tu show that the devil ate In- p>" organic dust. In other parts of God's word 'al: tlie term dust mount orjunlc dust beyond ",l i><iSHlltlllty of doubt. In tlie confession of I" ji.ltli there was not u scintilla of evidence to I"* nli iw thai "dust" was not oruauic dust. I hei "Dust t Ik?u nrt" said Mod to the father of the j Jl,r human rn c. What was he then ? A rational J.'" animal with an Immortal spirit derived from Ior t he breath of Gud. Standing before God with hands and feel and eyi and teeth and tongue, 1111 was Adam then Inorg mlc du?t ? that was a l''H nort of God's word they were told It was l,u heresy to expound. If Dr. Woodrow couldn't! J1'1 teach It iu tne seminary. none of them could hli teach It from the pulpit, "Unto dust thou shall return" did not mean a return to Inor- ? ganlc dust. When, In the language of Job, 1,11 after a man's skin worms destroyed his flesh, r0' lie became assimilated with the wormsand or w.iR organic dust When the eneiniesof Dan- J'" lei were ch*t Into the lion's d*n they did not j1 become Inorganic dust. J->b said "1 also am I rn?.Mail A?" tl?n fllnu" tinft tit unttfhnr I " ( j be nsks If he shall tie relurn?-d to the dust. ha Job said God formed him of cliiy, of dust, ns 110 Hi-did Adam?lormed him of dust from the!. } loins of his rather and mother. Was Unit In* j organic dust ? Dr. Wootlrow's oppenent* did I exactly what they charge him with doing.! he They look ti context and f irced It to mean J"-*' everywhere what it meant once. Dr. Wood J*1? row did not do that, if he hud done It he "x would never have written that the hypothesis | Pri of evolution wn>? "probably true." If h?* had . K" donenshls oppon.ent* did anil violated the i n'* rules of Interpretation by forcing u word to j(" metui In one plai-e wlint it did In another, he | 001 would have written that evolution wasadein-jas onsirnted hypothesis. Dr. Woudrow's posl-1 . 1 lion was that the expression "dust" was an "J ? - niwi. i..,-, ,i.?'nn aillUlgUOUK (llir. AD 111',' UIUIU I HI'I lull. HIV , question an open one, Ilio child of God could 1 no through that open door Into the donioln of jj science to seek light. If the the knowledge ' of what material innn was made ot was ne'e- Pri es<ary for the saving of so Is or an essential * m uter of faith the Bible would never have lh" left the question Involved In doubt. That * shut and silent Bible was his passport into I dlC the regions of science and gave him pertnis- Pr' nlou to Investigate nl? nnceniry for himself. Itreihreuon the o her side objected to the J* words "cxtriiscrlpiural;" If they dtdn'tj like that they could take the logical reverse call it K'<J ' Intra scriptnnl," and udmlt that evolution "IS was In the Bible. They ob|ecl?d to non con- "8! tradletlon as applied to the theory and seem- *>' ' ed to be equally averse to contradiction, fie i > might say for hi* side that it had piped unto K"?1 their opponents and they would not dunce!1"1 and mourned unto them und they bud not lu-1 n" mentcd. | He did not see, he said, why an Immediato !,l" vote should not be taken. He wax as anxious j ol< I /? tr.x lir?.i.r? iiw Iinvluill v hllfc hp t?rntl?>MM?l Irt I J stand by tho>e guns uiuii the ship went ??: down. Synod might murder and bury this 'I" truth If it Raw lit. He would stand by the wl grave with streaming eyes but with contl-!?l> dence that (jod womd give It strength to rule i Pri lu 111!) own good time. He challenged nny j coi man to say that the theory ot evolution wiusjp1' not extra scriptural-- J01 The Kev. II. 11.1'ratt: "I say so." <m Dr. Martin : "Put hlin on record Mr. Cleric |al Put Itawny In the archives that my brother I h? while believing that the doctrine of evolu- ,e lion Is In the llihle objects to having It taught in tl.e theological seminary!" Dr. Martin tei went on to say that because there was some- ml thing about man lu the Bible any study of Je(< man was called Intra-scrlptural. It might as no well be said that because the sun and moon Dr and stais were In the Ilibie wc must go there c'<3 to study astronomy, that becauMj the earth ten ; was In the Bible we must go there to study geography. It wax claimed that the doctrine the was exira confessional. The science ol geolo Jul gy was extra confessional. The geology of ' ?> the confession did not agree with (lie geology <?? of God in nature. Therefoie they were told P" that they must try and make the geology of to the lilble?the account of the creation In six (>f natural days?and the geology of the confes- 80 .-ton harmonize. Then men would be forbid- ?pl den to say that God occupied more than fix 'o natural days In creating the world. There were some parts of the confession of faith he never had swallowed and never expected to. It. Whenever science contradicted the confes- "P sion It contradicted the Bible and he did nolju'i beuevc there was any such contradiction, it-1 had been declarcii that the doctrine of evolu-j w1' lion shocked the Instincts of the human ?1' heart. Instinct was ofien not from God but | Th from training. It was said the sensibilities of; I1," the church were shocked. The sensibilities j Hi of the Jewish church were shocked when h"1 they heard of the llabc of Bethlehem. Illstlnct was freiiuently opposed to common h< sense. He had wondered how any human ;eVl mind had ever originated the Idea that there 1 }ut was some hearing ot the evolution theory on | hat the human body of the Savior. There was | [Ic; nothing In that. Ihere whs no connection h;v between evolution and the human body of I"0' Christ 1 hat should shock any properly educa- ,0 tetl Bible studont. The first promise spoke of ' "the seed of the woinuij"?the wumuu who the was not descended from the brules but crea- J1"1 ted by God from the body of Adam. Jesus 'ru Christ lu His human nature did not descend jw from Adam by ordinary generation. He was ! ^re not a descendant of Adam buLcamcfrom Evelon to Mary. These non-conductors of common 1 m' sem-e would suve all men from any such j *n< shocks. I Bit When Christ was on earth He ate bread and | ']>: meat ni'd they were nsslmllHted with His|tly tlesli and bone and became part of the actual | I body of ttie Son of God. Was that a shock- ,ni' ing statement)' It was true, however. He w" did not see the use of such talk us had been I "n< heard about shucked sensibilities from that j coi platform. It was a substitution of rhetoric;'1'' and stage acting and figures of speech for pluiu . tali scripture Informed common sen?e. * | " I.. ti>A .if lila nmniiiaiiiii nn Pr/if |thf Shepherd'? speech Mr. Martin said Unit after | JJ'j hearing Unit speech he hail been amazed lo W learn that the brother hud uetu.illy rend the n"| address. i ln ' Mr. Shepherd rose and said he had read the I nni addess carctull^'and dispassionately and had i #"'! reached his opinion of its dun^ers after inu-1 1 lure consideration. eIU Dr. Martin, who oratorlcally hits from the the shoulder and In dead earnest, had said "p that as he hud interrupted nobody hedldnt propose thai anybody should Interrupt him without sutlerlng for It. Commenting on this, Mr. Shepherd said he could not lie Intimidated by any personal)lies. l)r. Martin seemed lobe arranging himself to open tire when the Moderator hoped there would be no personalities, and the speaker dropped (hat part of (he discussion. Dr. Manln argued that the .Synod had Just as much right to discuss how Dr. Wood row will vole at the next election as to discuss his cxlra scriptural views on evolution. The x question ol his vote could he brought up Just j reel us tl;ts question hud. It might be argued thai the as the Southern Presbyterian church Is dem- ing ocrallc to the core and the seminary lssup-j|nt ported by democrats, Dr. Woodrow'8 state-1 and menu ha l ha would probably vole lor Blaine fe>g would tie taken as likely to Injure ihe Institu- fine lion and he could have been investigated by ers the board and brought before Synod to answer stai for his extra scriptural polities Just as he had con beeu brought to answerfor his extra scrlptu- ntai ral opinion on evolution?because both were the opposed to Ihe geueral sentiment of the dar church. It v Dr. Martin contended that the purpose for in t which l?r. Woodrow's chair wis established No wus for teaching the connection between scl- mal enceund the Bible, and that he hurl done that jng and nothing else. He had not taught or In- uge culeated the theory of evolution. He had ghli taught, as he was bound to do, the connection D between the probable hypothesis of evolu- tloi tion and the revealed word. There was no poll Inconsistency In Ihe action of the majority of ma the board In endorsing I)r. Woodrow's course ! was wlille repudiating his theory, for his teaching tec wasat the Inevitable ar.d direct demand of m his duty. He had been brought before the wa* |uiy and tried and a verdict of "not guilty" tea< rendered, and yet Synod was asked to sen- dea tetiee him to have his mouth sealed. but Dr. Adger moved that Synod adjourn until prei Monday morning. the The resolution was voted down, but was Im- nec mediately renewed. Dr. Martin announced bce< that he had still fully two hours to speak (he was liud been speaking for llitee) and was ready to opli jo on. The resolution to adjourn was again cert k-oted down, a number of those who voted In It the negative Immediately taking their hats not uid leaving. The motion was renewed on t until on the fourth trial enough of the op- ted ponents of adjournment had left to give those wltl who favored ita mojorlty of two. Synod then will idjourned until half past nine Monday, with row [>r. Martin holding the floor. The long-metre he t loxology was sung and Dr. Boggs ottered the Di . losing prayer. hav M E7e Nynod Adjonrns in th? .ifMat of whe Mr. Martin's Npcerh bllng of Nyaoil on Monday lug That Body First pat on j and Drakes, and then Consider the jsom Propriety of Making Arrange* i the ments for Going into Winter ((iibp ! The ters? After which Dr. Martin Pro- j feeds with his Kpeech. lame In Synod yesterday morning the first busl- - ni>U less was a resolution to limit all future'that peecheson the evolution question to tilteen I trad nlmiles, excepting Dr. Martin, who already' 1 the floor. Dr. Wooilrow, and the members 1 Hit* board of director!! aud ruculiy ?>f the ! I ilnury. i here was much ncatterins discussion over < s durlntc which home member* Intimated < u'iiiipv Ih? liruiiilr. ilifv nf;1 Lk OJ ll"u <X>KU> ?--- , ' people here, whereupon the Rev. Dr. Nail i e nnd In behalf of the community express^: < the pleasure It would give the people here' Synod to protract Its stay Indefinitely. | t whs uiged ihatas tins wa.i the most Im- 1 rlunt question that hud coino before the i in-h In firty year.", ihoe should hoi very; IIIty for Cull itud elaborate discussion. AC-1 asom-wiiat animated de"ate. It whs reved Hint Dr. Wood row should cli.se the de- 1 leat night with the privilege of speaking :ousr ? < lie pleased. i >ri Martin resumed hi* speech, continued lurday. He mild the Greenville yew* rcrtofhls remarks erred in two Instances, one it reported him as saying that IfMynshould bury this truth he would stand by grave with streaming eyes. He had said would "not" stand by Its grave with earning eyes, etc. [e hail been reported ns saying that he jided the shock caused some by the Idea or i Savior's liaman body being descended hi a brute because he had held in his hand : nou conductor of common sense. He had d It was because he had held in one hand d's word and In the other the shorter catesin as non conductors. (The official su-nopher's notes confirm the Oreeniille New* ?ort.) >r. Martin resumed the floor and expressed ? hope that he would not weary Synod, noising to be as brief as possible, although le said all he wanted to any he feared that would occupy fur more time than the pance of his hearers would grant him. le said that us his view on evolution hod ;il extensively iniuiimicn if mi wwnjn had not thought It necessary to define It. : thought It well, however, to Miy that he s not hconvert to Dr. Woodrow's theory of jlution. Ho neither believed nor dlsbeved it. He wui an hutnule enquirer after lit, le further explained thnt when he said he 1 not accept the con tension of faith he rcfer1 to three point* which he thought well to plain. The first was the supposed attitude the old book as to the relation of baptized lldren to the technical discipline of the! urch. Second, the expression creatrd out nothing in "six (literal) days." Third, the :eased wife's sister. The first was in the v Book unabridged and accepted by l*lin. tot lie second, no one, he supposed, Mould roe to Insert literal before "six daystherehe agreed to It. As to the third. dec**ase<t fe's sister, he had nevrr adopted that part of 3 Cllliri'll H I'UIIHB-inu >11 Iclllll U II IB irilUICT* n of faith, and lie supposed after tli- next nerul Assembly H would no longer be a rt of the church's confe iclon. le then proceeded lo describe the effect of ? adoption ?if the minority report. S(uDtM In Dr. Woodrow's class room asking 11 lor Information re?ardlng the evoLutlon L*ory or the meaning of the jrord dual" In tain places In the Bible would be Informed M persistence In such requests would be re11 Ion against the associated .Synod.', which j d forbidden the discussion of those subjects the seminary. Dr. Martin said he did not, ow whether or not the student would heal-: ved to ask the information he wauted iron) 1 y of the p.ofessors. At any rate the man to had been et-peclally selected and cotn-i s*loned lo investigate such sucjects would I ve his mouth closed. r.uol nt Ion wan n 11 v I n r nupstlon. Tn the nd? of Intldt-i scientists It wus used to couidlet the Bible ana by the article regarding n secular papers lite Impression was left the mlniis 01 thousands that If evolution s true the Bible was false. Dr. NVoodrow awed and taught his students that if the ilh of evolution should be demonstrated, i Bible would not be contradicted. It evo.ion should prove to be false science It iuld still not contradict God 8 word. He 11 ttiem forth armed against nil the assaults i the scientific Intldellty. The minority rert proposed to tie his hands from supplying s armor. Jr. Martin said he could never forget that was the lectures In Dr. Wood row's class >m that had checked him In n wil l downrd career to Infidelity and atheism and ecrlcss, blank despair. ['lie speaker then pntceeded?if nctlon In nod may be described In anti-My nodical Ullage?to put up the most rem rkabl** lob Hynod ever devised by human Ingenuity, i proposed to have uii iniormui vote tiiken sre and then whether the brethren hiul xrdenough to convincc thcin that the malty report should be adopted. If tbe malty voted that way there would b* no u*e lilin to talk tiny more. Otherwise, he mid complete tils remarks. a brother rose il mild tin* wns out of order, nnd nobody e moved, whereupon Dr. Martin with the >?t absolutegravity thanked Synod for Its antmous invitation (wlili one exception) to ii to proceed, hauled a huge mass 01 note* m his p >cket nnd took a good start. le ciaimed i but the other:Ode acknowledged it they could n.>t prove that Lir. Woodv's teaching contradicted tlie word of O.id departed troin any esseiiital principle of ?go-pel or vital principle of Calvinism. If iva8 totiiid that the church standards conducted Hie ltloie he dlil not see why Dr. jodrow should be made lo suiter fur if by vlnjf his mouth shut. The Ktundard* ought be changed to agree witii the truth. Jr. Wootirow, Bald Dr. Martin, had taught i students of the hypothesis ol the specific /ersliy of the races and had dl.-proved It; had given them the :ypolhosis of the sun mi; the ciMiiieitiiu mm proven u. rs?? outlon was made to either. The only fault i minority seemed to tlnd was with the tinjven hypothesis?one Mill In doubt and d neither proven nor dlsproeen. He de d that Dr. Woodrow "taught" the doctrine evolution. He handled It to show It In Its mention with the Bible and presented it as tmproTcn hypothesis. n order toH.jcure the p.issnge of the nilnor1 report Ave qucbtluhs ought to be answered d proved: ' ir.-t. What Is the accepted Intcrp'ctation ? Second. What is th'.- Scripture so Interpreted? riilrd, Where Is the C'iiurch'g accepted inter3tHlilll> ? mirth, Is this "accepted" luterpretatlo . 2 true Interpretation ? 'ifth. Wherein doe* Dr. Woodrow contrait either, 1st, the Church't accepted InlerL'tutlon 7 or 2nd. the true interpretation? U Dr. Woodrows inuu^uintion he ob.nined special dispensation fiom the Mynod of oigiH to except to <1ne p.irt of the Confesm of Faith?something tlnu .Synod had no ;IH to^raiit wltoout the concurrence of Its loclate*. there had been great hue and cry cause Dr. Woodrow taught ucolouy against the six literal day theory of creation as ntaincd In the Confession of Falih. Bui in u course of twenty-five years the exclte *nt hint nittifllilt*ij and the nubile ?e.>8i; now reed With l)r. Wood row's touching, but it U not been louud necessary to ciiunge the I standard:1. Jr. Martin claimed that there was <> Innsistcncy in tlic action of the majority of i'board. It bad perfect riijut to Miy ill .t lileit did n-t ajjrco wltii Dr. Wood row's inlon Unit ilie hypothesisof evolution wanbahly true. It approved of his ti-uclilng Hie iinccclon between that doctrine ami tiie (11?. He contended that the action of the tnu Ity of the board placed the church In the ly utiRolutcly satis posltiou she couid ob n. If the hypothesis of evouitlon shoald dlsproveii, the church would not have en committed to It In any way: If it should proven she would do), have been commitI against it. In either cane the Church's r.UterH would have knowledge of the sublimit mwlfi-stjiiifl tlniL Llit> Kcriiiturc was t contradicted. The question of how far . Woodrow'sscientific views should while with those of the church before lie (should ich them in the seminary was no question all. J)r. Woodrow could not be Judged l?y :: stondardH of the oilier pro lessors who light theology, 'l'he church hud a tiieo :l'Hl creed and the divine right to shape e, but she hud no scientific cieed and no $sible l ight t? make one. she had no'hing do with science as u church. No member Synod would vote toamviid the ivnfesHlon as to declare a belief that the world Iw a here. Why? Because they would have go outside the Word of God to prove It, It s so with the evolution theory. The church a church had no right loan opinion about and no right to Inquire Dr. Woodrow'* inlon about it. so long as he showed that It I not contradict thr Scriptuie. Calvin had igiit thiitiheehurch should investigate only lere the Bible guided her anu stop short iere Its llijht. fulled. "Preach the Word.' eSavior's last command had been to "teach things that I have commanded you." ey were told to icach nothing else. God J fixed agreat gulf between scleni-e and na e. :>n ni di mmBiuuit-u wicmc nnu ; Bible without uolng wrong: no man had ;r tried to save Ills ^oul by the laws of nae without being equally wrong. The church it us much to do with Dr. Woodrow's pollit as It had with his sclcntitic views, and il nothing to do with either. Orthodoxy In lltcs and orthodoxy In science hiu: nothing do with orthodoxy In rresoyterluaism. i) case Dr. Woodrow's mouth was closed on > evolution question wimt would tlie *eml ry do with tho s:udeuis who went there in the ctlleuesnnd universities, or from a irseof reading, eauer to know about this at subject of evolution and seeking light Itand on its relation to revelation T Th>-y ulit silence such enquiries by telling the julrerto content himself with reading his >le, but they would have an enquiry living nn activemlnd which might find a destruc0 or a dangerous answer anywhere. f any man fell that he knew absolutely the anim; of the Holy Ghost in the use of the rd 'dusi" in the second chapter oi Genesis 1 that It must be inorganic dust then he ild vote for tho minority report. If lie had uuhton the subject he would have to susn the majority. ified down and run through the crucible to last analysis, that whs the substance of 1 whole subject and the point of difference ' ween the two rewortv. fine of them, the norltv, must take the ground that the dust lie 2d chapter of Genesis ineantabsolulely I Invariably Inorganic dust. The other .1 it was piobaply organic dust. he mnjoilty report was entitled to the benof the doubt. . W. J. HoKny, One of the Board of Director*. Rineft to Hid Feet, i when the Firing Become* General , All Along the Line?The Atnio*- i phere In Charged with Electric- 1 ity, and the Whole Concern Seem* to be Hitting on a Mountain of < Dynamite, Waiting for the Explosion. he Rev. W. J. McKny, of the Board of Dllors of the Seminary, enquired what were j constitutional limitations on the teach- , of the professors! They were laid down lie constitution of the associated synods, , I Ihe Board was required to hold the pro- , ors to them. Theonly limitation lie could ; 1 was that on being inaugurated the tench- j should bind themselves to accept the , idards of the church and to teach nothing ; trarytothem. All were agreed that the . idards were the church interpretation of j Bible. But who was to interpret the stan- ( ds ? What whs a received Interpretation ? pas the interpretation of popular sentiment , he church and of the lower church courts. f authority should interpret the laws It , kes, and surely professors in their teach- t and the board of directors In their man- j m?-nt ought not to be controlled by such a j j rt'nE thing its public feeling. j i r. Girardeau rose and said the whole ques- ( 1 wop, In his view, one simply ol executive , icy. There was no demand for any dog- t tic declaration on any theory. The Board ? i In the position of an executive commit- f of My nod with Its acts subject to revle-v. ( r. McKay next asked how far the church t i responsible for the teaching of any of Its ? jhers, professors or preachers. Dr. Glrrar- , u tauulit certain views of the diuconate, the church did not endorse thein. In this | sent case the church was responsible for ( fact of Dr. Woodrow's teaching the con- t Hon between evolution and the scripture | nunc he taught It under her orders, but she ^ i not responsible for his private scientific L itons. or for his expression of them. A I r aln nmouiit of latitude was demanded, had been stuted that Dr. Woodrow was on trial. His principles and belief* were j c rial, however, and he could n it be sepani- ^ from them. He must stand or go down v li them. Dr. Glrardeiiu had expressed his ? inunens to put a shield between Dr. Wood- t and the charge of heresy, but the paper t lefejided did not. r. Girardeau said ho was willing to have j c the paper amended to do so. r. McKay said It might be, but those [ j, > prepared It had not Incorporated any <j i amendment. And It was needed, One'c pr assuming to represent the church had j v ounced "Heresy In Columbia Seminary," t had not only sought thereby to Injure the 11 I nary and Its professors, but to put a black ! 0 It on every student who had come from : j Institution In the last twenty-five years.! y were also on trial. [ tl the action of the majority of the board j, sustained I)r. Woodrow would s'lll be r 'liable to trial and Joulrt be brought up for ( I In a regular way. The cry of "danger".H "heresy" had softened down to a whisper the teaching of Dr. Woodrow might con- ^ let the Interpretation by the standards of n ;ht? Rcrlpture*. But It did not ovaji do tbat, ? 'or tlie only mention iiy tiie nLanduriU of the maierial coui|KMltlon of A<lum \va? In the aitechlsm where the Bible's language, "the dl junior the grounu." whs simpiy reproduced without comment, the Westminister compll- * srs having wisely omitted to say whether the 1X1 iuxt watt organic nr inorganic. Mr. McKay proceeded to defend the m^Jnrl- ' ty of tne bourd or directors from tho charge* "J thai II had been lullticnced In lu action by *' urn table weakness or had taken a snap Juilg- 1,1 meat. Dr. Junkln submitted ft polnl of order that t!iat mutter was irrelevant as It referred to J' diaries not made on the tlo >r of Synod ami ' to pennons not present. There was a sligljt 11 sharpness In the brief colloquy ensuing, Dr. *' McKay maintaining that lie had the right to ?' defend the board from charges puiilicly made. J' especially as the member who liad cliar^vd 14 the board with taking snap Judgment was then present. " Enler J. Adg?r Smyth said that as Dr. Jun- f kin had not been present In the honse during l< nil the meeting he hud probably not heard ail' , that was said. The point of order was Anally overruled * and Mr. M<-Kay proceeded. After he con- i eluded Dr. Girardeau said he was Informed * thai be was alluded to us the accuser of the r.' board of taking snap-Judgment. He had not J| meant to acuuse the board of snap-Judgment 11 In It- n_ T- %? ... ? >v(mi.uiiis jLit. nuiAirim. Ill ^ using the word* he referred entirely to the " Judgment regarding the evolution theory and '' the Hlble. k The Rev. Dr. Frlerson nnld mert wore not P ezpeciiHl to obtain any absolutely certain }' knowledge of Scripture, being wlso.y pre- " vented from doing ho Ihnt they might be kept ? continually enquiring. He maintained that P the first use of the word "dusl" In the Scrip- P lure in 1U plain first wn^c and In a straight- H forward narrative forbidding the use of fig- J] uresof speech gave as near an absolute eer- * talntyol lu meaning an could be obtained. a He further claimed that as the evolutionary ? theory came a stranger and from ?ery bad J" company it should be regarded by the chnrch * with much suspicion and kept at Its distance. v Or. Hemphill moved that Dr. Woodrow be ? requested lo speak at half past seven o'clock }' and that after that the debate be cat ofl. 1 So ordered. ? afteksoonjjessio.v. A( ine anernoon session Elder Russell, or * Cannel Church resumed the dlxeiiSHton. He;1 contended Ihut If, us contended by the other," side, thechu.ch Imd nothing to do with evo- 1 lotion or Us teachings because H wwi extra | J" scriptural, IIcould be maintained with equal j * Justice that she could not interfere with an v-. * thing that was untl-i-orlptuml. lie thought J' the church should speak out plainly and |' cleiirly against even Or. NVoodrow's theory ol, w evolution, although he earnestly hoped that! * some arrangement would be made to keep c him In the chair be graced so well. 0 E.der eilas Jonnsiono, ol Newberry, said he j? did uot think ttyuod properly had anything 1 to do with the matter under discussion. If It J wab a cliarga of heresy by nod hid original ?' Jurisdiction; Ifit was a matter of science It \ win equally certain this body bad nothing to 1 do with it- The only ground on which It f could be brought betore the Synod was as a * matter of teaching, but tuere Synod was es- 1 topped by the legislative, Judicial, executive * and general powers granted to tbe board. 1 Synod had no power over (ho board as a tiody, v IU onlv power being over Irdlvldual memhers of IL The board wan required to report to the Synods, but there wus-no provision for disapproving of the action c.f the board, or for ordering any change in the manner of teuch> Ing. A member Interrupted Mr. Johhgtone, by consent, to auk If resolutions disapproving of Ihe action of the board "the other associated Synods concurring," could not be properly ad<M)ted by 8ynod. Mr. Johnstone thonsjht not. Tho entire management of the i-ominary had been delegated oy the Synods to a board of their own selection and they had no rlaht to recall that power except by direct and formal amendment to the organic law or to comment adversely on their managmcd of the seminary. In case of a charge of heresy the proper place for trial would be ihe Presbytery. Ho auld he went much further than Dr. woodrow. He not only bellevid evolution probably true, but very probably true l?r. Adger wild he had be<*n misrepresented when he was reported by a brother as having said Dr. Woodrow was not on trial. He wa* not formally on trial but he had all the rilft- . Iiituunfuuau norlla nn.l V, ..ml II.. ! -?..? 1 without the possibility of a direct acquittal. 0 The minority report wild the questions of Ur. J Woodrow's heresy whs not before the Synod. J It wax before synod and before the world and It wax proposed to inlllct the wor<t poutula 1 punishment by condemning him to thence. c br. Ad*er furthermore ?aid tie could not ap- a predate the shocks caused tiy the association of Christ's body or our own bodies with lower anlmais. The glorious and Holy S ivlorconld undergo no xreater humiliation than that put upon him by Ills shameful death. As to members themselves their bodies were chiefly 1 composed of beef mutton and chicken (laughter). J)r. Aduer reiterated his statement pre vlously made and disputed, lhat ceuturks of discussion of unproved hypothesis were required to settle the church In her faith sod iioetrlncs. Dr.. Girardeau said It was not proposed to siic:ie?* Dr. Woodi-ow. It was only asked that he he forbidden to teach the prohah!e truth of evolution. The mutter of his former action was left optional with him. The Rev. Mr. Bean made n strong fifteen minutes speech. He contended thai If Dr. Woodrow was driven from his chair?us he ? surely would he?by the adoption of the ml* norlty report the valuable and superlatively important chair be occupied would be left vacant. for no sell respecting scientific man would be found to take It and have the result of hi* researches and his methods of teaching watched and leviewed by IhU unscientific body. lie did not understand how mnnib-r* could Insist on a literal translation of du<t while rejecting the literal trim-latton, for lustance, of "this .s my body" sale* by tbe Savior when giving to His dlsclplos the bread inJ wine. It wa- maintained Hint the theory of evolution rob'iod the act of creat on ^>f Ita supernatural ehaiacter. What was a supernatural act? It was something done outside the course of nature. The term nuturxl or supernatural could not .be properly applied to , un iil<t (Intin Kafnru n-ifuru /?r onw e\t Ho luurk bCfc'iin (o be and lonsNiini; of th? creation of 1 nature and the de?kn an 1 putting into op- t eiallon of tlioso Inw8. Kldcr. J- T. Walsh, of Cheratv, spoke stronicly against the constitutionality of the ?c tloti proposed l>y the minority report, und a , recess was then taken until nkht. DR. VOODXOW STRIKES BACK. Iff Spcnkc in Hi) Own Botanic and In Vindication of His Official Ac? , tlon. At the night f>e<slr>n D-. James Wo^drow i took the platform and spoke In tils own dcfencr. He said ho had mot the Synod nineteen . years bi-fore during the dark I tines thai tried men's souls. Then he communed with hl> brethren touching the same InKiittitton they . were now considering. Pr. Wood row r>-- " viewed briefly the circumstances of that tlnte j when lis nearest friends were ready to give up the ship and retire. It was a source of I comfort to him that at that time he had been able to do something to restore hope and re- < animate the beloved institution. F?r thirty-two years he hud been their servant. They had known hltn, known his man- * n'er of lite anil tried him, and knew If they had ever known anything in hlui worthy of distrust. 1 As he had sat In the body and heard the J discussions lie had sO"it lines wondered of whom they were speaking. When he < heard wonis 01 praise ne Knew tney were n>?i I deserved, when he heiiril words of b>nme he felt tint he luid not meilted them. He wns not guilty of the things said and reported conceriilng him. He hud heard It said that he wits not on trllul. lie knew lie watt not. There was no Indictment agaln?t me as , against men oil trial, lie knew that the church was u law abidini; body and having thrown Its protecting arms around him li would not take his ecclesiastical life from bini hy lynch law. Hut Uiinu* hud heen snld that mlgnt have . pronounced to him that he was on trial. I There had been talk of offence, and dls- I piuttldhv nf \vlipfhf>r nr nnf Iih i*nu1fi hr> oc. " cuscU ofheresy.J II had b?* n lake nfor f run led that there was some accusation against lilm. lie hud not been Munitioned here ai he ' would ha\e been If he were a prisoner at the Oar. He had c<-me voluntarily. He knew not bow 10 describe this?should he call It u process? What Is a prowss? lie asked pardon 11 he misused urms. He was In such profound Ignorance of whether he was a prisonur or nolthat he could huidly selcct the proper terms. The board of directors had asked him to deliver an address explaining the connection between evolution and the Bible us taught in his clans room with the statement Hint the assaults of Infidel science by evolution and other Inslduouserrors were Injuring the cause ot Christ. For years he had been teaihing that the theory of evolution, true or laise, did not contradict the Scriptures. The board had reported of the Synod* rejoicing that no evolution or other tnslduous errors were taught In the seminary. I)r. Woodiow then read the resolutions of the majolty of the board adopted alter considering his address. Such words, he said, from such men, the re pri-seniauve 01 uicoymiu were rcwuru enouxii lor the laborsof twenty-lour ye.tra. They isiled him that he was nut walking far astray in the paths of Infidelity and liereny. In ttie year l*o7, the initial ?tep? fop the estahlliinmeiit of the Perkins chair were taken under resolutions reciting tlie attack* of science on religion and recommending the creation ot u chuir of natural bclenre in connection with revealed religion. He was called i to ttiat chair without his solicitation, anil ? without word or act of ills to secure it. He was taken from other woik Tor the church. They knew ills principles and bis opt Ions. ? He had then been teaching before all men j things lie had heard denounced here uduii- * gerou* and heretical. What was he to tea^h? To what was he (31 Ilea 7 niu frJiriieia mumt'iiir lie iijci ciiu directors to coiihiiI t of what lie wuh to <1o. The chair was n new one. No other seminary hud one like It. How was he, a youth, to know wh-it to do without iTie guidance of the church? lie hud (old them his plans tind vlew^, and what he proposed to do, and hud received their approval. Since then he had followed those Instructions and walkedstrictly In the narrow path pointed out to him. Heihen read from his nUdres* setting forth hl> conception of his dules In which ne had said that one of these would be to show that when sclenceand Ihe Bit.le were, or were sup- f posed to be contradlciory It was either false ^ science or a false Interpretation of the Bible. V Now that he taught that certain popular Idea* flouting In the pubic mind of the meaning of certain words were wrong, would they punish lilinforit? If he was to leach only what was _ pronounced by some ecclesiastical body an I jstabllshed and proved dogma why had they |J not told him so twenty-1hreeyears before. In that twenty-three years he had learned lometlilng?the chief thing?the entire abicuce of discord between true science und the -evealed word. He had not been handling * cieuce for its own sake. In no case had I le taught.lt but for ihe purpose he wasordered I ,o teach, handle, It b> the voli e of the church ? epresentiug the voice of Qod. The only hlng he had ever told his students that It vim their duly to receive from him was that ,hey were to bow to Ihe Jxird God Almighty ma to nothing else. That (hey were to be 'reemeu in the Lord. He was to b?* foi bidden o Inculcate? He had never indurated ex-;J. ?ptin the sense lie hail told Uiein. Toscience; is science nobody had ever heard him allude: vlih In the wallsof that seminary. T The chief purpose of the chair as expressed J. n the resolution creating it was to "refute : . he objections of Infidel scientists." When wo witnesses contradicted each other did a awyers endeavor to make them say the same , hing? Did they not rather appeal to Judge do md Jury with some reasonable hypothesis to j ]j( emove the apparent contradiction? He warned the church when he took his slows that he would tench that the teachings f geology regarding the antiquity of the vorld were true. It wa* understand that he th vould not teach that the world was but 144 in tours older than Ad^m. That he would say hat he knew that the world was so old that th he minds of man could not grasp the years >r the centuries or the thousands of years ol tsage. Hut he had never sought to teach hat the confession of faith meant anything | iut that the world was crcated in six days. ra 'here was not one word or syllable In all Ihe , onfesslon of faith or catechisms that he rottld wish to have changed, evolutionist hough he might be. There was nothing in ( hem to contradict his beliefs. In the word f liod there was not one word or syllable he -l. Id not believe. Whatrluht. had the church to tench any. th lilng regarding natural-leleiice? What right . ail the church to do anjthing? He would lel ead the commissions? As Christ was about of it leave tills world In Ihe body h<> said to the js( ssetnbled eleven. "Go ye Into all the world nd teach the Gopel to every creaiure." 'here was the constitution. If the church uthorltatlvely undertook to touch anything* < ] italdethe Bible ?hc ww tmn?icrM?li?* th? w und adding to It nnd brinKing upon her:lf ibc phigue* written In tlie book. Wb<M? jty wu< comiiinndml or * right conferred tiff J ?mpvtent *uthorityv ever^ihlit* # lu vol I in Ifltf IUIUH monk VI tuuuuv v. ...? ?v, . leniof tl.iit right, went with the command I 'tie grant. One of these duties wu U? train ] id iduinii- men to preach the Gospel by ail J earn devised by the wisdom und knowledge 1 ven uh by G?d. The church might not only I ijcb tuone things that tend to prepare and - J (iilp urciie. en of the Word but It might do "J 'iytiling tending and aid the preaching of m ie ?j<Mpe. it might buy land <?r exchange, fl inmtit build huuiir*, aii with the limitatiuu A lat the net* done were to promote the pi aicli- ^ if of i he (jo*pel with the greatest power. I :? teach ng wax not limited tothe seminary I l might go Into the Sumlay schools and I sach the children their alphabet; it might I Mid boy* inschool and coliexe*. The church I light an truly tench mathematics as theolo? J y, provided it was for the eqoldaienl of qrin j uie.uh and leash the Go*pel. What was the responsibility of the chnrw^^l >r his teaching? was it to examine every I rord he said to see If It wu stilctiy correct? I lid It examine i lie chemistry taught by Prof. I lurtln In Uuvidson? When cbemisiry was I evulutlonlMd a few year* ago was that pro tsoi expecied to come before Mynod and tell ictn lie would teach the new cheiuutry? Or 'an be to teacii the old chemistry that Its new wax wrong becauae be bad be*an teachig It? Wltnaildue respect, wbatdld Synod iiowjibout cbemWtry ? W ben any nian einloyeu a lawyer did he require hi in to aabmlt ) blm all his pleadings and tell him the de<11 or management? When a pat*tor wag ulK-d to a cburch was he instructed how to reacb aud whether be xhould u#e prose or oe<ry? The oniy right the church bud to Insrferewith any of Its teachers was when Hey taught that which was contrary to the rord of God as Interpreted by the church tandurds No man ?ittlng as a presbyter ould dare have an opinion on any sub* set except as that subject U related to the rord of uod. They had no right oranthorLbfM 9 discuss or consider any of hu opinions ex^ eptas they related lo the Word. No author? ly wiisg'ven them and when they took It lie* stepped beyond their rightxand graoped t things which the Lord, the King, had kept ut of tbelr bands. Dr. Wood row then proceeded to analyse tha eport of the minority of the committee on he seminary. He knew that every word'of tfectlon and respect for himself uttered by be gentleman who drew that paper (Dr. Gt? ardeau) was sincere and trne. But the ranntb of hU heart bad on this occasion In* erfered with the usual clear operations of his lead. Where wu? the necessity for saying bat the question of his bercoy was not befoie lyuod ? if It was not, what was the use of ay lug anything about it? Yet the fourth reslution charged him with teaching doctrine, onlrary to the leaching of scripture ms inter reted by the church standard?thai is, eoti-^H rary to the right and true interpretation ofH crlpture. Dr. Wood row read from the chnrela^l arm of government defining as an offeuco^l he holding or teaching of anything contrary* n I V\o Af /1a<I unit lha flaMnlli, in r\t k i/uio ninuvt uuu( miu vuv UVUWI?I?/II ui HCI " *y hs tolse teaching likely to do much Injury, le cited the declaration* of his opponents hat blrttelM teachings would do rant harm. ,ud acknowledged, be Mid, that he had ?prei.<| hem lnda?trlou?ly. The charges against him rere the gravest described In the rhnrch form if government, and If they could be made oo would require his deposition an lew l?? oold use the excu?e provided In the form aoir !mi? blinnelf a- a person of feeble understandng. There wan comfort In the thought that" iIk nccuHer knowing his fanrt had never r??. iroved him for It. He bad known for twen*; y-lour yean of his grlevloui fault, being nuch of that time In the same Institution.> n<l ?r t l.oin I,. UltM *#! ?*J >IIU UUU IIOI Ol VI l>UCUI kV U1UI UUHI n the post few duy*. Was Synod to publish it* shame to th? rorld by iipeitking of the Bible In "|u high* st ?txl no solute cence," thereby Inferring hat there was a higher Hence than the church) t and arils contained?thai the standards weife lot true! When s moo who bad learned k*> ~ ilogy came to IHc minister to enquire iu rny of life but distrusting the Bible because le knew the statement that the world ** * nude in nix days was untrue was the ininl>- J er to be silent because the confession sealed lUlipsT Or was he to say "the Bible does , lot tcach tout lie. The Bible Is true. It dor*tot teach that th? world is but six thousand? ear* old. At 12.15 Dr.Woodrow, having been speaker steadily and holding the close attention-: if bUaudle.ice since 7.3>i. refreshing himself uMHialAnullt* tat H K illn rt An 1*Im I mKIm rvuiBiuuauj ifini wi'iicv ^inic^i vu um ?nu>v ?y some friend, closcd mid announced that w wu exhausted and could not resume on* 11 morning. Alter some discussion nboot" it her business Synod adjourned until today itlVWTHE LATEST. rh? BcmImUmm Endmlaf Dr. Woodrtw BcjMteil by m Vote mf Flfty-Tw# to r?rt7*Frar?Thc lea* oloilons CtatiritiK Htm aha It* J?t?d-Syood la Oreat CmIMm Xoek Feeling Akmc Ike Krn> bert~Inp?Mlkle to Forecast nit. Oukkxvillk, 8. c., Oct. 28, 1884.?0 P. X. Tl?l* evening after the conclusion of an ad* Irexx of seven hours und three-quarters by, )r. WcKxlrow, which extended through three e*sluns of the Synod, a vote watlaken on tbo nujorlty resolutions of the Committee oft Seminary endorsing Dr. Woodrow. These -esolutions were rejected by a vote of fifty:wo to forty-four. The minority resolutions, condemning Dr.; iVoodrow, were put and rejected by exactly Lhe same vote. The sentiment?eight holding balance of wwer?seeniH to be that both sets of resold* .luns are extreme on the respective fides. The Synod In now Involved In tbe greatest ttnrnKion, trying to reach some compromise, [t Is geueraUy believed tb?t It 1* Impossible o forecast any result at this boor, or eveo whether there will be any satUbetory result at nil. New Store!: NEW GOODS! 0 WE WOULD CALL THE ATTENli>n of the mihlie to the fact that we Iiave ust completed our new store and haveH -eceived a good assortment of S| Dry Goods! Potions, Sho a,I Sroceries, Hats,fl Domestics, &c. I 300DS given in exchange for COUNTRyB| PRODUCE. Give us a Call. , vS mi i ntiiiu la nnnV jALLUW Ai fit SUN,| Dae West* S- C. H October 22, 1884* 3m ciiilj I 1 TEMPLETgl Hre Opening rru~:_ rAM? W.I? l iicii uaigc ituu wmw Selected Stock of H All Kinds of A GOODS. I And are Beady to fl IERVE THE PUBLICl AT THE flWEST POSSIBLE FKICEsB Will Advertise More in Detail tfext Week J Sept. 17, 1884. tf Master's Sale. H R. Mattison, Plaintiff, against B. W^R^ MattUon, etal, Defendants.?Partition^H 3y virtue of an order of sale made e above stated case by the Hon. A. P^^B ldricli. Judge Second Circuit, on 15tl^^H ly ot September, 1884, I will sell at pub-^^J : outcry at Abbeville C. H., S. C.. or^H| xtli day of October, 1884, that beln^HE lie Day, within the legal hours o?~tia1efl^^ e following described propefty| sltuat^^R said State and County, to wit: Al^^B at tract or parcel of land, containing Hi ie Hundred and Twenty-Two Aerosol ore or kss, bounded by lands of A. PH|^ lirley, T. A. Hudgens, E. Harris, reir, S. J. 8tone, and others. TERMS OF SALE?One-half the pur^H a.ie money and all the costs cash, ?n<^^H e remainder in twelve months, with in^^H rest from day of sale, secured by bon<^^H purchaser and mortgage of the prem^H js. Purchaser to pav for papers. M. L. BONHAM, JR., Master. Oct. 8, 1884.. |M