Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-10-31
JOHN JOHNSTON
Answered by the Three Divfaes He As
sailed in Yesterdays Appeal,
And Full and Completely Met at All
POints-End Of the Controversy.


Mr.. John Johnston, your correspondent
OF October S0tb, is go far in the rear OF the
recognized leaders of his own side OF the
discussion Of evolution that he will think
it no disrespect to him if we decline to
attempt to bring him abreast of the gen
eral argument as it nov appears before the
Presbyterian Church. Waving all the
personalities in which he would represent
us as being sin the camp Of the Philis-
tines" as having made. an "astute and
willy attempt to plaster over an ugly spot"
IS having turned aside from the great
work that was expected of u.s." as being
'apologists" of an employe who "essayed
to run his employers business in secret
violation of his known Wishes" as at
tempting to "force swine's flesh into the
mouth of the church ;" waiving all this,
in consideration of Mr.. Johnston as
a good, but. evidently, very ex-
cited man, we merely indicate the
reason why we cannot pause to
answer his letter, which is simply this:
He is SO far behind his own ein oil, m ,nts
discussion thai viva the limited space in
t""SS APPEAL at our disposal, we can never
hope that he will regain his lost position.
That he does not understand the present
aspect of the discussion is manifest from
these considerations;
IL 1i12s OiA-obOl OSIlAO W llldt
DR.. Woodrow taught evolution in Colum-
bia Seminary. and that the action of the
synods was condemnatory of what he had
done in the past. 1t is in evidence that,
as DIR. Girardeau says, the action of the
synods was "wholly prospective"
2. Mr.. Johnston believes that DR.. Wood
row concealed" his teaching of evolu-
tion. 1t is new known that he did not
teach evolution, and, conseq 1ently, had n
need to conceal that teaching; and, fur
thermore, that, as to the things he did
teach, all were brought by himself to the
attention of the Board of Directors every
year in his examination of his classes be-
fore that board.
8. Mr. Johnston declares that DR.. Wood
row had "nial." He does not seem TO
know that the leaders of his side of the
| discussion abandoned that ground long
ago, and now contend that mo trial was
| possibie,' because there was no "alleged
offense in the past" See DR.. Girardeau' {
article in the Charleston IS. c. Nelcs and
| Courier of September oath.
Mr.. Johnston strangely confounds g
running debate in the synods with a jul
| dicial trial. His own allies Justly repudi.
ate that error. And Mr.. Johnston, as &
| lawyer, ought to know the difference be
tween things that SO widely differ.
3. Mr.. Johnston clearly is not informed
as to the action of Augusta Presbytery
Had he been acquainted with the facts, 81
great is his honesty in discussion that ht
| would not have failed to mention in hii
statement this: That in Augusta Presby
terry this resolution was offered and voteC
down, namely: THAT we find nothing il
| the matters referred to in DR.. Woodrow
letter to warrant Judicial process" ant
that the presbytery which, by voting dowI
this resolution, refused to declare him in
Docent, Immediately turned around ant
denied him the trial which he demanded
as the right guaranteed to him by the con
stitution. Manifestly, Mr.. Johnston di'
not know that essential fact, or he woult
have stated it in his too concise account o
Augusta Presbytery's proceedings.
+. MIR. Johnston, clearly, is in the dark q
to the very prime fact in this discussion
He says: "Dr. Woodrow, in his attitud
before the controlling synods and tn
church, hss assumed to himself, as Pei
kins Professor, the double character c
:. teacher OF science and expositor of Script
ure." The fact is that he assumed t
himself nothing of the kind. He wa
chosen and called by the church to thi
position, with the expressed understand
ing: UntTammeled freedom of inquir
must be allowed; we must neither be gov
erned n our views OF natural science b.
what we may have believed to have bee
taught by the Bible, nor, on the othe
hand, must we do violence to the word
of the Bible under the influence of on
belief in sny supposed teachings of SC
ence" Assumed to himsefp' says Nj
Johnston. Evidently he thought SO, c
he would not so have spoken. But he wa
mistaken.
These are but few specimens OF hi
honest errors. 1t would be alike tediou
and proftless to correct many others whic
even cursory glance over his article mul
reveal. In ons thing, however, he is yer
exact. In his praise of the Christian o.
serUer, whose general reputation is so full
made known by US in another column, b
judiciously says "One of the most popt
lar and widely circulated papers in tn
Southern Church." and adds no NOR
Without discussing whether his "speec
is silver" none will deny that his ''silenC
is golden"
Z. DANIEL,
JAMES L. MARTIN,
| L. W. B0GGS.