The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-11-18

this wemade rel Iinder in he APPEAL Of
NoveAaber 29tb, showing that in said
reply they bad uttered or insi ouaied
several falsahoods TO susl ain falsehoods
previously ut cred. In this article we
iltormed them that we knew thet a
IN mber Of their Pfesby terry intended
- call the attention Of this body TO
the matter under difcuss' on. We
then received from your Moderator, as
we supposed, topy OF the call for the
meeting Of the l. nuisville Pesbytery-
meeting called at the request OF
The Mtssr5. Converse, for full investi-
cation, and inviting ard vir ,ually chRl-
Longing US by nrmB 10 come and pre-.
sent our accusatiOns in the form oil
legal charges; we came upon their in
vi alton and ind c,ed them.
Ny published writings as to the sad
troubles now sRitating our church are
comparatively few. 1 have thought
80 little Of what l have published that
have taken no special care Of any
thing. Ali that l have published is
hereby offered in evidence il 1t can be
produced. L remember a brief open
letter to DR.. Woodrow, published in
the fall Of 1884; also letter published
in answer 10 DIR. Guardian; also an
article In the Southern Presbyterian Re
view for July, 1885. In this article l
had no intention
! TO DISCUSS EVOLUTION,
and do not think did so. l did in
tend 10 discuss the legal aspects Of DR..
Woodrow'e case aud vindicate his
right 70 trial before his Prssbytery.
/ wac DESTROYS that as many people
ss possible should read that article, for
/ believed, and sill believe, that it
contains the truth. l was espec ally
anxious that the people in Memphis
should read il. knew that very few
copies Of tho Revew were taken in
Memphis. Dri. Bo4gs and Marin
kindly assisted me, and We, by paying
out OF our own pockets TO the edi 'or
(DE Woodrow half the pics Of fifty
copies OF the ReweU, succeeded In put
ting them on Gale in Memphis az 50
cents copy-half the regular rate.
DR.. WoodroW's relation TO US in the
matter WIS simply one Of business.
He did net suggest or advise, so far as
remember, the circulation OF the ar |
ticle. presented a copy of the Re.
uieW to W. M. Doak, the editor of the |
Avalanche, member Of my conRrega-
ton and my psIslnal friend, with my
compliments. He, OF his own motion,
very kindly reviewed IT, A copy was
given by me, l think, also to Col. |
KeaiiDg, who also published an
editorial review. II / ever asked Col. |
X. to review that article / |
do not remember the fact. |
] W uld not have hesitated to do
80, however, II l had wanted to. l
testify that did not know what he
WIS going TO write, and / did not then,
and do not now, hold myself in any
way responsible for the utieraDces OF
editors OF secular newspapers. What
ever part of Col, Ksating's article de-
Tended DR.. Woodrow's right to trial
bsfore conviction l did then, and do
row, heartily indorse. Whatever part
OF 1t reflected upon the Presbyterian
Church or sny OF her doctrines | did
not then in1orse and do not now.
Whatever part Of it was speculation
upon evolution came from his brain
and pen and not mine, either by sugges-
tion or indoTsemsnt. Whatever part
Of 1t furnished q weapon for a brother
to use Bgsinet Dr.. Martin, or DR..
Boggs, or myself, l, Of course, deeply
deplored, not rs thing for which we
were responsible, but for something
for which 1t vas possible for
MALICIOUS HEN
10 represent as responsible. did not
correct any part of the editorial Of MIR.
Hating for these reasons: First, / do
not deem it wise, ordinarily, to run a
tilt against the edit OF a secular
newspaper, especially about such mat,
ters as evolution and predestination.
/ had given nobody occasion TO think
that believed in evolution. / bad
given all tho world TO knowvior ffteen
years tina, | am q sworn believer in
predestinst did not expect that
Dol. keating's statement as 10 either
OF those things would be- regarded as
conclusive. Particularly Except at the
hands OF the most msliciouB), / could
not have thought, and did not think,
that his edi orial would be, in whole
or Ia pat, made the basis OF q widely
circulated slander to the effect that l
was cognixlnt OF, or in sympathy with,
scheme to split the church, which |
now testify / have always been loyal
to, 10 thprght, in feeling, in word, in
deed. Moreover, testify to the fact
that the judgment OF the most sober
and influential citizens OF Memphis,
and their advice to their pastors hes
ever been that ministers OF the gospel
should controvert secular editors in the
columns OF their own papers rs little as
possible aud this, especially, when
the doctrines of theology are TO be
discussed, whole volumes being re-
quired for each discussion. Col Keat-
ing 70 frank, and for years his editori-
ais have shown that he is no Presby-
terrain. The prosecutors in this cause
are equally outspoken, and for years,
everywhere, have preached the doc
trines OF their church. We supposed
that 1t was impossible for him to be
responsible for us, or US for him. Ger
taiDly W. did not dream that any of
our brethren In Christ, without con.
shifting us, would publish us ne schis.
mates beoauseIof what Col. Heating
hou paiNs tooblAy buhb III Ouiy Tbh-
son, go far as ! remember, for consult.
ing DR.. Martin as to the advisablen ess
OF correcting anything in Mr.. Keat-
ing's article, was my fear that disin-
genuous opponent, such as / know the
Oblerper to be, might, as ! said to him,
make capital out Of it"
DEFINING HIS POSITION.
On the 30 called evolution contro-
versy, my position is this: God wrote
the book OF Nature. The same God
wrote the book OF Revelation. God
will not contradict Himself. Atcer-
tained truth In nature willnever con-
lIadct aecertained truth in revelation.
But man, as interpreter OF these two
books, 10 fallible, and makes many
mistakes. There have been many
false interpretations OF naiure-ard
many of the Bible. But truth in one
never contradicts truth In the other
never can. l believe that there are I
MANY different Lhanriaa aa IN avolu