Newspaper Page Text
10 (470) : . T H E P
HE THAT TROUBLETH ISRAEL.
The serious problem that has beeu of late years
confronting our sister Presbyterian Church of
the North seems yet to be far from solution.
That problem is whether the Church shall hold
on its way, guiding its course by the chart that
has maiked the progress of every truly spiritual
division of the one great kingdom of our Lord;
or whether carnally minded, skeptical individu
als and groups who eat the Church's bread shall
be allowed to steer her course toward the reefs
and shoals of uncharted seas. It seems that the
opinions emanating from Union Seminary, New
York, are still to be a storm centre and that opposing
squadrons, to change the figure slightly,
will get within strikiug distance about the time
of the next Assembly.
One point of controversy is indicated by an
editorial in The Presbyterian, of Philadelphia,
entitled, "Poison Germs in the Graded Lessons."
The editor specifies certain errors that
"are calculated to injure the faith of the church
and her children," and indicates some of the
rationalistic teachings of the church when he
says further:
"No man has a right to leave out the supernatural
when teaching God's Word. To instruct
teachers to suppress the facts of Christ's crucifixion
is pernicious. The substitution of biographies
of ordinary men for the Word of God is
presumptuous. Mr. Littlefield stands for the
ideas and teachings of Union Seminary and
simuar mstiiuiions, ana tnese are opposed to the
formal testimony of the Presbyterian Church,
expressed through the General Assembly from
time to time. It seems, therefore, to be most unjust
that the means and agencies of the Church
should be used for the propagation of teachings
contrary to her testimony, which teachings she
believes would result in her own ruin. All fairness
requires that such propaganda should cease
forthwith.."
Here are a few suggestions of what seems to
abound in the Graded Lessons. Abraham was
not called out of Ur of the Chaldees to go "to a
land that I will show thee." lie was simply
moved by "a spirit of noble discontent." At
Bethel Jacob "seemed to see a ladder," "a sign
?>f.a desire for something better." At Peniel he
had "a wrestling match with the other fellow."
Joseph's dream was simply "a desire for a great
areer," and so on indefinitely. Of such character
was much of . the teachings of the graded
lessons during the past year.
The New York Presbytery licensures continue
to attract attention. A correspondent of the
Herald and Presbyter gives an account of the
licensing by the Presbytery of Union Seminary
students who had doubts of the virgin birth and
bodily resurrection of Jesus. These cases are
practically identical in merit with those handled
by the same Presbytery two or three years ago
and were carried to the Synod, and finally to the
Assembly. The Assembly, while not sustaining
the complaint against the action of the Presbv
tery, adopted a aeries of doctrinal statements in
harmony with the standards of the church and
warned Presbyteries against violating these doctrinal
statements in the licensure of candidates.
Of the present situation the Tlcrald and Presbyter
says:
"We have looked forward with some hope to
the report of the committee appointed last year
to confer with Union Seminary, but whatever its
report may be, the questions at issue are complicated
by these licensures. So long as Union
Seminary sends out students who have such
doubts, and Union professors vote to license
thorn an/1 /vfViar? ?1 1 -i_
... ?? . iiicuiucis ui i iwujriery aiso
vote to license them, with the hope that by and
by they will outgrow the heresies taught in the
seminary, it is idle to talk of any understanding
with Union."
Another situation which is quite unique may
call for judicial treatment by the high court of
the church at its approaching meeting. It may
not be traceable to the Seminary, but it seems to
f
KESBYTERIAN OF THE 80
have had the consent of those who are not far
from the environs of the Seminary and may be
breathing some of its atmosphere. Under the
title, "Mass in a Presbyterian Church," a Roman
Catholic lawyer of New York, writing in the
columns of America, a Romanist publication of
New York, charging that certain missions among
former Greek Catholics, under the care of >
the Presbyterian Home Mission Board, were con
ducted according to the ritual of the Greek Catholic
Church. The writer had visited several of
these missions. lie described at length the several
services, of which description the following
is but a brief extract:
"On the table, which, of course, was covered
with a white linen cloth, stood a silver crucifix in
the centre, flanked by a lighted candle on either
side. As the congregation came in each member,
particularly the women, went up to the analogion,
made the sign of the cross and kissed the
crucifix, exactly as is done in Greek Catholic
churches. * * When the celebrant came in
to begin the services he was attired in the usual
vestments of a Greek Catholic priest. When he
came to the altar he made the sign of the cross,
and taking the Gospels blessed the people in the
orHinsrv fnrm nf flip hooiiinitiB ?%f tho Aliace
Throughout the service the celebrant faced the
altar with his back to the people, except when
blessing and on a few other occasions."
The Secretary of the Board of Home Missions
denied some of the specifications of the correspondent
of America. But that journal in its
comment says:
"The most curious part about his reply letter
is that he does not deny a single fact or statement
of fact made in America, or in the article
by "Monaghan" in The Presbyterian regarding
the vestments, candles, crucifix, sign of the cross,
hymns to the Blessed Virgin, etc., used in the
mission services in either chapel. The writer
"Monaghan" says that he personally witnessed
those practices in the Newark chapel as late as
January 14, 1912."
THE SINNOTT CASE.
The chief objection which some raise to the
General Assembly's re-opening the well known
"Sinnott Case," is that it will be a bad precedent
in the way of encouraging litigants in frivolous
cases and all individuals who have personal
grievances in appealing to the highest court for
renewed hearings. To this objection it may well
he urged that justice should be done without
reference to the matter of the abuse of it which
others may try to make. If it is right to re-open
a case, it should be re-opened; that is the whole
of it. We speak not of the judgment of the
court, as to its righteousness or unrighteousness,
but of the justice and propriety of giving a rehearing
to any one legitimately connected with a
case who asks it in a reasonable manner. The applicant
must, of course, give good reasons, and
the court's first act, and perhaps its only act,
will be to pass upon those reasons. If it deem
them insufficient, the matter ends there; the case
ends. If it deems them sufficient, then it is an
act of simple justice to take the next step and
grant the re-hearing. The court has its own
protection against abuse of the provision, against
trivial applications and mere personal grievances.
It is erroneous, considered in the light of both
wisdom and judicial practice, to maintain that
because the General Assemhlv is the mnwrnp
court, the judicatory of last resort, its decision
cannot be considered again and if need be, reversed.
And this position is not at all strengthened
by the fact that it is a new Assembly, so
far as its membership is concerned, that meets
each year. Such a position would do very well
for a court possessing infallibility, but nothing
less than infallibility would be due warrant for
it. If there is anything in our church's constitution
or in the Assembly's past judicial decisions
to ju8tify.auch a notion of the finality of
1
DTH [April 24,1912
its judgment, the sooner we get it out of that
constitutions or decisions the better.
The practice of granting a re-hearing, when
sought upon good and sufficient grounds, of
which the court itself is the judge, is common. A
reasonable part of every Supreme Court's time
nnJ ia :? A~ I ? s ?
auu aucuuuu in given iu netiriiig uiiu passing
upon such applications, and then, if the motion
be agreed to or granted, in actually re-hearing
causes in which it has rendered judgment. This
process is a simple and reasonable recognition of
the possibility of errors, of the fallibility of the
wisest and most upright men, of the misunderstanding
of evidence and arguments, of the unintentional
misapplication of law, of the possibility
of subsequent appearing of injustice. And
in cases of criminal process this recognition goes
even further. A pardoning power is lodged
somewhere, in governor or pardoning board, the
law in some states requiring the presence and
membership on such boards of the Very judge ih
\\ nose court tne judgment was rendered. The
fact that the Assembly is a church court does not
exempt it from the act sometimes, and the possibility
all times, of very fallible decisions.
The application to our Assembly to grant a rehearing
in the Sinnott case, in order that it may,
if it shows good reasons therefore, eliminate from
its recent judgment any wrong done to any
party, is reasonable and respectful, and only asks
that simple justice be done. That it is not a
frivolous or merely personal matter is shown by
the fact that lower courts of the church have
seriously asked it. If the reasons for a re-hearing
are inadequate, and the Assembly itself will
pass upon them, then no re-hearing should be
given. If they are adequate, then let the Assembly
say so and re-open the ease, just as wide
as justice demands and give its decision again
whether it be in the way of confirming or reversing
its previous act.
While numerous Protestant writers in this
country are fawning upon Romanism and glossing
over its fatal errors and its appalling record
of moral and spiritual apostacy, in other lands
leading representatives of that religion are renouncing
it, exposing its false teachings and
practices and embracing the Protestant faith.
The Sentinel, a Canadian publication reports the
conversion to Protestantism of Rev. Charles
Pulreuil, of the Theological College in Lyons,
France. The Converted Catholic announces
that Rev. Robert Manduit, a priest in the diocese
of Paris, and Rev. H. Pontabry, a priest of the
diocese of Bourges, France, have been received
m i- t>.i j 1 1 1 -*
iiilu me x- reueu xveiumieu onurcn. Also tnat a
number of ex-priests, now members of the various
Protestant churches, are authors of excellent
pamphlets on Romanism, which have recently
been published in Paris. The authors are
Rev. J. Louis (Jesuit), Rev. Louis Revoyne (C.
S. S. R.L Rev. Henri Ramettee (vicar of the
Roman Catholic Cathedral d'Oran), Father
Oabriel (Jesuit), Rev. T. Tricot (Franciscan),
Rev. Abel Salle (formerly superior of a Carmelite
monastery), Rev. Pierre Varby (formerly
editor of "La Vie Catholique"), and the Rev.
H. Bodin (C. S. S. R.).
DR. JOHNSON S CRITICISE OF WOMEN'S
UNIONS AND OF THE MISSOURI
OVERTURE.
Rev. Egbert W. Smith, D. D.
In what I am about to Bay I wish It distinctly
understood that I do not speak as a Secretary, or
as a member or representative of the Foreign Mission
Committee, but solely In my individual capacity
as a minister and presbyter of our beloved Church.
Dr. Johnson's extended criticism of Presbyterian
Unions and of the movement for a Woman Secretary
reminds me vividly of the elaborate arguments
against the Synodical Home Mission movement which
>