Newspaper Page Text
March 20, 1912 j
Live Issues
THE "SISNOTT COMPLAINT CASE."
By Ret. W. I. Slnuott.
As the Synod of Virginia has asked
that the next General Assembly reopen
the "Sinnott Complaint Case," I
would like to state a few facts which I
think justifies the Synod in tohls act.
On January 1. 1901). tli? Stata of Ala
bama was placed under "State-wide prohibition"
by legislative statute?a prohibition
which subsequently Included
"vinous liquors and any other liquor
containing as much as one-half per cent,
of alcohol," by act of August 9, 1909.
This latter law was succeeded by a
proposed amendment to the Constitution
of the State, which prohibited forever
the manufacture of alcoholic liquors
(which, according to proceeding laws,
included medicinal wine, 1. Tim. 5:23.
and sacramental wine, 1 Cor. 11: 21-30,
of the Bible, though It allowed wine to
be sold for sacramental purposes. This
law also gave the legislature power
to make it a crime to keep sweet wines
in the home.
As the State makes, officially interprets
through Its courts and executes
affair but an affair of the Commonwealth,
and is a political affair as the
word political is used in our law, Book
of Church Order, No. 59. About onethird
of the voters of the State favored
the law, nearly two-thirds were against
it
On October 28, 1909, North Alabama
Presbytery endorsed this law as a nonpolitical
moral measure, giving in the
preamble of the resolution three reasons
for so doing:. That "this Presbytery
'has at various times endorsed Prohibition"
and a statement which as a
matter of fact, a historical fact, is not
true. 2. That it had on October 17,
1907, requested the privilege of voting
for Constitutional (Prohibition?a statement
that is true. 3. And that the legislature
had now sHvon fihat1 nrHvtlee-fi
Before the resolution was discussed I
tried to keep the Church out of politics
by making the point of order that it
violated the Confession of Faith, as this
resolution was not a humble petition in
a case extraordinary, nor was it advice
for satisfaction of conscience on the requirement
of a civil magistrate, but the
Moderator ruled against me.
Under the Book of Church Order this
resolution is "declarative jurisdiction in
political or civil affairs," which is forbidden
in Nos. 59, 60; it is proclaiming
to be the law of Christ revealed in the
Scriptures, No. 17, a testimony which
impartial Biblical scholarship generally
repudiates as a Scriptural testimony;
and as in No. 60 every act of jurisdiction
of a Presbytery is the act of the
whole Church it Is binding the entire *
Southern Presbyterian Church to teaching
that It is a moral offense?a sin?
to manufacture wine (fermented grape
Juice), for sacramental and medicinal
purposes.
It also stultifies our fathers, who In
1857-8 protested against the New School
Church in its political acts on the
slavery question, and in 1861-8 protested
against the acts of both Old School
and New School Assemblies regarding
Secession and Reconstruction
Wishing the matter adjudicated by a
higher court. No. 61, I exercised the
privilege granted me in Nos. 238 and
267 of asking that this act he annulled,
No. 970 A t a T Tirofl tol la ?
suing the Complaint there would split
the Church, whose guests we were. Accordingly,
T suggested to Synod to refer
the Complaint to fhe Assembly. 1 did
this for unity and peace, and because T
believed that the Assembly was under
THE PRESBYTERI
Discussed
obligations to try the act aocording to
the Book.
The Assembly Ignored my right to
consent to a trial by a Commission, No.
94, and the Commission struck out 12
lines out of 25 of the act complained
of, thus suppressing Important evidence
jimmying my complaint, ana in violation
of No. 189; and Inserted Illegal, ex
parte and partially untrue evidence In
its stead, thus violating again 'No. 189.
It also assumed original jurisdiction
over me and condemned me, in violation
of No. 161. It also began its judgment
with the words: "It appears," notwithstanding
the Lord of the Church says:
"Judge not according to appearance,
but judge righteous judgment," Jno. 7:
24. When the General Assembly, relying
upon exparte statements, says that
I opposed "Prohibition in general" and
that my name as "Stated Clerk of North
A.abama Presbytery" was appended to
a certain political circular that was
"scattered broadcast over the State" it
is bearing witness that as a matter of
f O A4 I a l>/\t 4 ?t1 n T ? ? *aV? %?s-v nr4 n <v ? A ? li ..
avi. m uui u uc. ill uuunjug uui iue
reasons which the Presbytery in its preamble
assigned for its act, and in making
a preamble for Che act, which preamble
it introduces by the words, "it
appears," and closes with the words,
"Under these circumstances," etc., it has
placed the Presbytery in this dilemma:
Either the Presbytery was so lacking in
intelligence that it did not know why
it adopted the resolutions, or it was
guilty of deception in assigning certain
reasons for the resolution, which were
not the true reasons, but the true
reasons were kept concealed until after
the act had passed beyond the Presbytery's
jurisdiction.
While the Assembly has settled by a
judicial decision that a Presbytery does
have declarative jurisdiction on political
questions "expressly on moral
and non-political grounds,'" it has
raised other questions among which I
may mention: 1. Has the Assembly the
right in a judicial case to set aside any
portion of a constitution which it required
two preceeding Assemblies and
a majority of the Presbyteries to enact;
and, 2. Does original jurisdiction over
a minister pass from the Presbytery to
the Assembly if 'he questions through a
complaint the lawfulness of an act of
the Presbytery?
In making the complaint I was not
prosecuting any person nor seeking the
censure or condemnation of the Presbytery
beyond annulling its act (to condemn
or to censue the Presbytery is to
condemn me as much as any other
member), but I was simply standing
for the principles of the Southern
Presbyterian Ohurch, as they were
taught me by Dr. Peck, as I learned
them by reading Stuart Robinson,
Thornweli, the Confession of Faith, and
especially the Book of Ohurch Order.
The Synod of Virginia is right then in
afiVinsr for n rohoorino of iKo nooo
RESIST TEMPTATION.
You may make of your loss not a disablement,
but an equipment. You have
learned a new, great lesson. Henceforth
you should be more competent for
that finest, most delicate ministration,
sympathy toward those In trouble. A
new temptation has come to you, a
drawing toward the self-absorption of
3orrow. Resist It bravely; let your loss
be not a barrier, but a tie with other
lives. A.nd, O my sad-hearted friend,
Just so surely as behind yonder clouds
the sun is shining, so certain will there
issue out of this trial of yours, if only
you will meet it as best you can,' a good
to yourself and to others greater than
you now can think.?James P. Merriman.
AN OF THE SOUTH
THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE
ELECT INFANT AMENDMENT.
By Eugene C. Caldwell. I). I>.
It is very difficult for ministers of
our Church, who have spent their lives
in tJhe Southeast, to appreciate the
peculiar needs and the problems that
our Church must face in the Southwest.
In the Southeast the work of the
Church is more or less crystalized and
settled, and the wheels of progress move
along well-worn tracks, but out here in
the Southwest, where we are trying to
plant the banner of Presbyterianism in
new territory, and carry and build up
our Church in regions where its glorious
dootrines and splendid history are little
known, we are brought face to face
with peculiar difficulties and trials.
Four years ago one of our ministers,
who had for many years held important
pastorates in the Southeast, accepted
a call to Texas; and two years after
ward he said: "I have simply reversed
myself on many quesions since coming
to the Southwest, even on matters
that I thought iwere forever .
fixed in 'my thinking; questions, concerning
which I never dreamed I would
change my opinion; but since coming to
the Southwest I have seen these matters
in a new light and have modified
and even completely changed my opinion
of many of them." Yet this man is
just as sound in the faith as he ever was
and preaches the straightest Calvinism.
It may be true that in some places in
the Southeast the proposed Amendment
of the Elect-Infant Clause may have
little or no practical value; but out
here the proposed change will be a
wonderful help to us who are laboring
among people, the great mass of whom
are not familiar wtith our church, with
her history, her glorious line of great
preachers and her distinctive doctrines.
In the large cities of the Southwest, our
pastors do not feel the need of the
change as keenly as do our Home Mission
workers, for in the great cities very
little attention is paid to the Confession
of Faith. But in the smaller towns and
in the great country districts, just
where our church must be built up if
we are ever to gain a firm footing in
the Southwest, the Confession of Faith
is a live issue. The people are studying
our ( onfesslion earnestly, with open
minds seeking for the truth. Pardon a
personal reference. On a recent trip
in the interest of the Home Mission
work of Central Texas Presbytery, the
writer went to a town for the purpose
of organizing a new Presbyterian
cnurcn, ana was met at tne train by
two men, both of whom had a Confession
of Faith in their hands. These
men know very little about our Church
and what it stood for. However, they
were using our Confession in a very
effective way to prevent peoplg from
coming into our Church. Since coming
to Texas, almost six years ago, I have
spent five years helping the needy Home
(Mission work and I know by actual and
close contact with the people that the
present unhappy wording of the ElectInfant
Clause is doing much to keep
scores of splendid men and women out
of our Church. For the past four summers,
it has been my great privilege to
assist in revival in various parts of
Texas anl once in Oklahoma. I have
had unusual onnnrtiinitios In thoap
meetings to learn the real difficulties
that prevent people from coming into
our Church and I have found this expression
to be the most common stumbling
block In the way.
Our Church in Texas is not growing
as rapidly as It should. For the year
ending March 31. 1911, of the 471
churches in the Synod. 236 report not
one new convert added. That is onehalf
of our churches made no gain by
profession of faith. Of course many of
(379) 17
these churches are vacant, t>ut not all,
and most of them are visited by evangelists
and Home Mission workers. Now
no intelligent man will claim that the
present wording of the Bleot-Infant
Clause is alone responsible for this slow
growth, but beyond question it is partly
responsible. Our Creed raises the
quesMon by the law of association of
ideas and then fails to say that all in
iams are savea lr tney aie in mrancy.
The world therefore infers that we must
be at least In doubt on that question.
And to doubt is to condemn in popular
estimation. This affects jien with
horror. It places a blot upon our .
escutcheon, so large and dark, that
nothing but amendment can conceal or
remove It We must resist any change
that would even modify our doctrinal
system. The proposed change does not
even touch our great doctrinal system.
None of our ministers believe that any
infant dying in infancy is lost. We all
preach that all infants, dying in infancy,
are saved. Indeed, one of our greatest
theologians, not only preaches it from
the pulpit, but is even bold enough to
publish it in a volume of his sermons,
which has been eacerlv read bv hun
dreds of our people. Turn to page 232
of Dr. G. B. Strlckler's Sermons and in
a noble and massive discourse on the
"Doctrines of Calvinism," in the midst
of a passage of great eloquence and
power, you read, "Wihen we remember
that all Infants, dying in infancy, are
saved". ... If the prince of our living
theologians preaches from the pulpit
and in his published sermons and in his
lectures to students in our leading
Seminary (as I have heard him), that
all infants, dying in infancy, are saved,
why should we hesitate to declare it as
our belief in our Confession of Faith,
when we know that such a clear statement
would remove one of the greatest
obstacles to the progress of our Church?
John R. Matt, at the great Missionary
Conference in Edinburg. declared, "The
future religion of the world will be
determined within the next ten yearB."
Whether this sweeping statement is
true or not, I. do not know, but one
thing I most firmly believe that the
destiny of the Presbyterian Ohurch, In
the Southwest, will be forever fixed
within the next ten years.
"There is a tide in the affairs of
Churches,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to
fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
18 bound in shallows and in miseries."
God in his Providence has brought our
Church face to face with a great opportunity
in the Southwest. "Come over
and help us," if not in person, at least
by amending this Clause which hangs as
a ghastly deformity, in popular estlma
nuii. uiiuu ? v iiurt-n unai omerwise
would stand out grandly before the
public eye.
CALVINISM OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
By A. F. Carr, D. D.
I suppose that Dr. Charles Hodge Is
universally regarded as sufficiently
thorough-going in his Calvinism' to be
accepted as a guide In the exposition
of that system. On the twenty-sixth
page of the first volume of his Theology
he says: "All, who die in infancy, are
saved." He then quotes and expounds
the Scripture passages which teach this
irucn. ni8 exposition is conclusive and
a re-reading of their "Hodges" is commended
to all who doubt the universal
salvation of Infants, dying In infancy.
The more particular question, which
concerns us Just now, has to do with the
wording of the amendment of the ElectInfant
Clause of the Confession of Faith
which the last General Assembly sent
(Continued on Page la.)