Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

June 2, igog. TH! been to push the questions of Evangelism' within the Presbytery through our Correspond* ing Members, a list of whom is hereto attached. (See Appendix "B."). The effort lias yielded most gratifying results, as can be seen from the following quotations from letters received. One brother writes, "It is our purpose to have every church visited by at least two men, and a week's meetiug held in each place. This plan was adopted at the suggestion of the llome Mission Committee of whieli I am chairman (he Is our Corresponding Member also) and will be held under my direction. lOU 1III1J' IIICMKIV iun uuuci iuv nv.. ...... committee us It will lie upon the lines Ink] ilowu by you." Another brother writes, "At the sprlug meeting of l'reskytery we voted to hire n Presbyterlal Kvungelist for one year, and sufficient funds were pledged to cover the expense of- same, oyier than this, no formed steps were taken along evangelistic lines, but we feel that tills uieuus a great deal for our I'resbytery." The above are takeu from a large uuuiber of letters received by the chairman, all of which indicate that the Presbyteries are taking hold of this work with the determination to push same vigorously. While we believe in the large evangelistic campaigns, and especially the simultaneous evangelistic campaigns, we can not but feel that we can do our best srvice as a Church by pushing this work through our Presbyterla) machinery, and thus reach the weakest part of our territory which is to a large exteut untouched by the ordinary evangelistic campaign. Both pluus should lie pushed according to location and condition of work. SteDs have been taken to huve the evan gellstlc responsibility and opportunity or tue church emphasized In the conference at Moutcngle and Montrent during the coining suuiliter. Through the co-operation and courtesy of the Supt. of Platform* Work at Monteagle, the Hon. Allen O. Hall one hour each da^ has been given to Evangelism during the Bible study week, with two of our best inen, Rev. C. R. Hemphill and Rev. W. M. Anderson, on the program. At Montrcat, Dr. W. W. White, who Is charged with the duty of planning the work, has given assurance of his purpose to emphasize evangelism, glvlug the theme an hour each day throughout the entire course, and bringing the program to a "Umax In n practical application of the teaching of the Bible to evangelistic preaching and efTort. During the month of March, your committee was invited to enter a conference with representatives of other Presbyterian bodies called to discuss the advisability of organizing a world-wide Evangelistic Campaign under th? >111 sulcus of the different Presbyteriau bodies of the world. The invitation was accepted and our Chairman attended the conference In the city of New York. Representatives were present from the Presbyterian churches in hte U. 8., the United Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in the U. 8. A., and the Canadian Presbyterian Church through a message from her representative, Rev. Ralph Connor, D. D. After mature deliberation, it was unanimously decided that the time was at hand when a great evangelistic effort, world-wide In its scope, should be undertaken, and that in the providence of God, the Presbyterian Church is the one to lead in this greaf nggressiao movement: That the General Assemblies of all the Presbyterian bodies of the world should be asked to authorise the organisation of such an effort in 1010, and to this end appoint committees to work out details. We would make the following recommendations: I. That the plan of work as outlined above be approved, and that a vigorous campaign be waged in all the Presbyteries with the ?' -M ' ? ?maAhlnnpv r\t t ti View UL UNII1K IUC I'l cocu w umvu...vV ?I Church In " a more aggressive Presby terlal evangelistic work. II. That the- Simultaneous Evangelistic Campaign plifn of work be commended, ntut the churches he urged to orgaulze such campaigns wherever possible. III. Whereas there seems to be an Increasing Interest on the part of Presbyterians throughout the world In evangelistic work, and, Whereas God has blessed our own Church In Its effort In days gone by, and is . continuing to bless her, and. Whereas, there are Indications everywhere of special awakenings, and of God's special willingness to bless us as a people. It is suggested that the General Assembly, with permission of the Evai?gellstlc Committee, to be appointed to move In harmony with other General Assemblies appointing such. Evangelistic Committees toward a world-wide Presbyterian movement, and that from our Committee, a special committee of five should be appointed to consider the whole question, to correspond with the officials of other General Assemblies, to cooperate with committees already In existence and appointed like our own, and he prepared at the next General Assembly to put Into operation such a movement along evangellstte lines as might mean the uplift of the entire Christian world. IV. That a new committee be appointed, the members to live near enough to -Insure regular meetings, and that the Corresponding E PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SOU' Members provided for in the plau of work be urged to n diligent performance of the duties assigned. V. That the Assembly set apart one of her strongest men to the work of loading this great movement in our Church, providing him a competent support, and assuring nlm of her Sympathy nnd prayers. The coinmitte as at present constituted la as follows: Rev. Chns. R. Nisbet, Chairman, Nashville, Tenn. Rev. A. B. Curry, D, !>., Memphis, Teuu. Rev. W. M. Anderson, D." D., Nashville, Tenn. Rev. C. It. Hemphill, I). L>., Louisville, Ky. Mr. \V. H. Raymond, Nashville, Tenn. Dr. A. J. A. Alexander, Spring Station, Ky. The report on the Bible Cause was read. The judicial case of Young vs. tile Synod of Kentucky, involving the questions about the transfer of Central University to a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees, was then taken up. We here present in one mass a summary of the debates which extended at intervals during two or three days. Dr. H. A. White thought the duty of jority report of the Judicial Committee on the case before tne Assembly be adopted, and spoke to this motion. He was followed by Col. Bullitt, counsel for the Synod. Dr. II. S. White thought the duty of the Assembly is to consider this case. The Synod of Kentucky admits that Cen- . tral University has been lost to the Church and that the Synod consented thereto. The University has been the property of the Kentucky Synod for twenty-three years, and has become a part of the Assembly's system of education. The Assembly has a right to inquire as to whether the ^ynod was justified in surrendering the University, and whether, in so doing, serious injury was done to the Assembly. Dr. White thought that the plea to the jurisdiction made by the commissioners of the Synod of Kentucky appeals to the civil law and ignores the cnurch law. A protest signed by Col. B. H. Young, and Dr. C. W. Sommerville, against, the circulation in the Assembly of a pamphlet containing argument on the judicial case to come up before the Assembly, was ordered to be filed. It states that this pamphlet was circulated among the worshippers during the singing of the doxology on Saturday morning, just prior to the address of Rev. Dr. James Orr, and some days in advance of trial. It complains that such a proceeding is "unusual and unfair," and in direct conflict with the action of the Assembly of 1880, when a similar printed document was eireulatpd in th? AaspimKlv in a.l. vance of a trial. Col. Bullitt objected, saying: "When the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Col. Young) begins to make the sort of protest which we hear at this time?a protest against methods which he choses to decry as improper? to those who know him in Kentucky, it can cause only a smile." Immediately there were objections against the speaker's use of personalities. Mr. Bullitt blandly replied that the allegations in the complaint are infinitely more personal in its reflections. The Assembly voted that the protest be filed. Col. Bullitt proceeded to show why the majority report oould not be accepted. His argument was a legal statement In the main. He contended that the As I TH. f7 sembly haQ Defore it a question of constitutional law, of procedure, of jurisdic- i tion, and ultimately of civil law. He said that Mr. Young and others had no right to bring a complaint because the Book of Church Order prescribes that a d'sagreeable or unjustifiable decision is the only ground for a complaint. No decision has been made, no decision is ex- I tant Tho in powers involved in the controversy arose from tne laws of Kentucky, and not from the Church. He citea the threat of the complainants to force the matter Into the courts and hinted of the dangers with which such a course was fraught to th$ Assembly. He described certain allegations in the complaint as untrue and a slander. He informed the Assembly that a condition precedent to the formation of the charter and subscription of ihe University was that there should be no ecclesiastical control. During the course of the argument. Dr. U. W. Grafton was given the floor to read the agreement between the Synod of Kentucky and the Assembly, made iri 1867, which reserved to the Synod its legal right of property. The majority report as amended hv Dr. White was adopted. Resolved, That the report of the majority of the Judicial Committee be adopted, hut this action shall not be construed as determiningthat the (Jeneral Assembly has jurisdiction of the complaint Involved, but that the question of the merit of the complaint and the question of jurisdiction shall be argued together in the time and order set forth in the majority report. The clerk read a remaining part of the record in the case of the complaint against the Synod of Kentucky. On the next morning. Rev. C. W. Sommerville, one of the coonjplairants, addressed the Assembly and said it is necessary to determine what is the Central University case, what are the issues Involved, and thirdly, what is the reinddy for the ?rnn? -1-' J ? ? ...<.uui|)iaiueu 01. tie sketched the history of ihe institution. The interests involved are property to the value of 1800,000 and an ahhual income of about $35,000, with 700 students. The Carnegie foundation for teachers was taken up. In order to take advantage of this foundation the Synod of Kentucky had proposed that hereafter the trustees who had been appointed by the two Synods, be made a self-perpetuating body. This action was taken by the Synod of Kentucky. Notice of complaint had been filed to the Assemb]y at Greensboro, N. C., last. In spite of the pending of this complaint the charter was amended, and the institution was jnade independent of the Synods. He charged that this action in making the University independent has diverted a trust, and moreover, that the rehearing ordered by the General Assembly in 1908 had been a prejudiced affair on the part of the Synod of Kentucky. Col. B. H. Young followed for the com iiiaiuauiB. ne cnauenged bis opponents to give the reason for the transfer of the institution from the control of the Preshyterians. He declared that "the Synod of Kentucky has divorced Central University, and has taken our money, too." The act was characterised as unjustifiable, violating a pledge to the contributors. He maintained that the Synod of Kentucky could not perform a civil act, and that as its doings must be ecclesiastical they