The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-12-19
DR.BOGGS and THR APPEAL
THE HONORRD PASTOR OF THE
SFO0ND CHURCH
Tahes Issue With Us as to the Ir-
reC0ncllable Attitude OF the
Church Toward Evolution.


Prof. Woodrow from his chair in the
Cumberland Seminary, the APPEAL
took occasion to remark that the
step was rendered necessary in order
10 uphold the Presbyterian creed.
It says: I'VE are constrained to ad-
mitthat tho church Ii. e. as repre-
sentod by the directors) has been
consistent in its course. 1t could
not consent to even the diluted evo-
luton OF DR.. Woodrow without en-
dsngering the scheme of salvation
y The Presbyterian Church
&c right in condemning the doctors
sheory, which is also repudiated by
science" That is, the three great
doctrines of the immortality OF the
sosl, the fall in Adam, and, by
necessary consequence, redemption
In Christ, are one and all swept away
BY evolution, even the diluted" form
Of it proposed by Prof. Woodrow.
Now, Of course no believer in free
speech can question the full right
OF the APPHAI, to express its honest
opinions upSn current events. And
one must admire both the candor
and the kindness with which it
speaks its mind. But, this being
granted, it remains 10 be seen
whether the position taken by the
APPEAL is justified by the facts of
the case. And upon this point l beg
leave TO submit q few suggestions
In doing so shall avoid a formal,
technical discussion Of Evolution"
in its scientific or theological rela-
tions as being uRsuited TO a newspa-
per article, limiting myself to certain
general considerations which may
serve 70 throw light on the matter.
!. And, first, | observe that the
APPKALs position would tend, if
once made good, to place many ofour
greatest theologians in a dilemma as
regards their church and its creed.
Among these | mention DR.. Flint,
professor If divinity in the greatest
of Presbyterian schools, the Univer-
sity Of Edinburgh; Prof Henry
Drummond, of the University of
Glasgow (Presbyterian); DR.. Nc
Gosh, president Of Princeton College,
the greatest Presbyterian school in
America, and tho late Prot. A. A.
Hodge, Of Princeton Seminary.
None of these eminent men has, 30
far as know, accepted evolution as
a scientific truth, save Prof, Drum
mOnd, who, in his famous book,
Natural LaO IN Ic Spiritual World,
openly assumes that evolution is an
established truth. But Prot Drum
mOnd, like DR.. Woodrow, is a sci
enlist MS well az a theologian, and
therefore is more competent to speak
on scientific subjects. And,
besides, the Scottish period
calls announced that Drummond's
election to chair in the Presby-
terian University was due to the pro-
found impression made upon the
minds OF leading men in the church
by that volume Of his which has car
ried his name into tens of thousands
Of Christian households. Perhaps |
ought TO make DR.. MoUosh also an
exception, for I feel sure that the
impression made upon intelligent
readers by his treatment of evolution
is that no admits that there is a great
deal Of truth in il. As | am writing
these lines DR.. McOosh's article in
The Schdf- Hersog Encyclopedia Of
Religious Knowtedge lies before me,
fully confirming this opinion. But
just how far the Doctor would apply
the doctrine in its theological rela-
tions he does not say distinctly. DR..
A. A. Hodge, whose lamented death
occurred last month, has recently
said, | believe, through the APPEAL
that he rejects evolution in all
its forms as scientific truth,
or at least in any an.
plication to Adams body, SO be it.
Yet DR.. Hodge, like DR.. Flint, is
down on the record as maintaining
in the last edition Of his Outlines
on hcoIo0y the far more impor-
tAnt proposition that betloecn "Theis-
tic EvolgtiOn' and Hcoyogy there is
no dntd0Ontsm, that is, such forms,
or such form of evolution would
not, u once proped, interfere in the
least with such fundamental doc
trines Of our creed as mans immor-
tality, the fall in Adam aud redemp-
ton in Christ. | say these facts are
we'll known TO all who keep up with
the current literature OF the Presby-
terrain church in this country and
Europe, And, consequently, il the
APPEAL can make good its position
that the Presbyterian Church was
necessitated to have Prof. Woodrow
removed, bee iuse he had announced
q certain form of Theistic Evolution
as probably true" and as applica-
bic to the mode in which creative
power may have chosen to pro-
duce Adams body, then il places,
among many others of less note.
these eminent theologians and
thinkers of our time in The dilemma
OF not being able to see the alleged
antag9nism between evolution
"Theistic Evolution" of course
and the creed Of their church. of !
which creed they are regarded as the !
most illustriOus opponents Of de- |
Tenders.
Moreover, among DR.. Woodrow's |
opponents in our own branch of the |
church there are not wanting those
who, advocating his removal on Ger |
tain grounds, yet hold that his views |
by no means involve antagonism |
with doctrines fundamental TO our
creed. was present and heard DR.. |
Girardesu' S speech before the Synod |
of South Carolina in 1894, which ! !
believe is commonly considered by |
those Of his side as the strongest |
effort put forth against DR.. Wood |
row. Ia that speech DR.. Girardeau .
said; This is not a question of |
heresy. If il we're | would be,con-
strained TO take my stand beside .
DR.. Woodrow aud to defend him
against such an accusation 1"
or words Of exactly that import
Now, everybody must know that if
DR.. Girardeau, after FIVE or six
months Of close study Of DR.. Wood
rows famous address, could say, as
he certainly did, This is not a cues
hon of beresy," he surely meant that
Prot WoOdrow'a Viows did not Il;