The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-09-11
H WESTMINSTER CREED
Attacked as Ambiguous After Two
Hundred and Fifty Years Use.
REPLY TO DOCTRINE TAUGHT BY BRIGGS
Or. Daniel Contends That the "Confession' is
Clear in Meaning and That There is Moth
ing the Matter With It Which is Not
Also the Matter With the Bible.
Also the Matter With the Bible.


The recent discussion of the West
minister Confession of Faith, now very
general throughout the Presbyterian
Church, North. has brought into
especial prominence some very i'm
portant issues relating to what is
known as the Eject infants" clause
of that Confession.
Amongst these is the question as to
whether the Confessions teaching
concerning the way OF the salvation OF
Elect infants dying in infancy IS
ambiguous.
The allegation to hat effect is re-
Gently growing somewhat common.
Worse still, upon this is based a
charge that the Confession teaches
that some of these 'infants dying in
infancy are Icst. Heretofore. the
charge and the allegation Of "ambi-
guilty upon which it is founded.
esnecially the former. have not been
taken very seriously. But recent
writings Of some very worthy critics,
whose views are entitled TO respect
and, if erroneous. to clear REPUTATION.
ldhtll Ill tOIllltttiOi VT IINANlI u
rash and hasty admission from less
competent sources. would seem to in
dictate that a paper given to a calm
consideration Of this subject may be.
in some measure. not only timely but
also acceptable.
This humble contribution | now Of
fer. not in the spirit of controversy.
but solely for the sake of truth.
The probabilities are against the ac-
cusation. For two hundred and fifty
years. the Westminster symbols hav
enjoyed distinction for accuracy in
expression and for logical p~ositiveness
in affirmation. Nevertheless. if the
charge of an ambiguity OF so serious
consequence can be proved. PreSbyte-
rians are not the people to evade re-
sponsibilitv. But if not. they are the
people to claim hat the charge should
be Withdrawn. Let us notice
/. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION.
Primarily. the interests of truth are
at stake: truth bearing upon a SYM
Dol of faith accepted by millions of
intelligent Christians.
S%econdarily: Forget not that Upon
the answer to this question depends
the decision as TO what methods the
l. lCSbN t III 1iuItI must dlOI)I Ill
carrying on the whole defensive CON
troversy over the Elect Infants pro-
position. To show that this is true,
is OF vital strategic Importance in this
discussion. | shall therefore offer no
apology for giving this preliminary
matter full presentation in the light
Of the very highest authority.
Throughout the whole realm Of en-
actments, secular or sacred. constitu-
tional or statutory, there is one prin-
ciple of Interpretation widely held
and firmly settled. namely:
An unambiguous instrument inter
prets or constructs itself: or, as 9TH
erTise expressed, needs no construc-
ton. and excludes all interpretations
or constructions but its own.
If its oWn meaning is clear and in
dubitable, the investigation to ascer-
tain the meaning stops right there.
But, on the other hand. if ambiguity
be admitted. then the true meaning
becomes a question of proof by ex-
trinsic evidence, such as history, per
sonal opinions. debates. etc. when
properly introduced. But the reIe-
vancy and even the ad~miesibility of
this evidence, depend entirely upon
the previous question:: Does the in
strument plainly construe itself?
y prudent debater will settle that
question with decided caution.
Not merely to sustain this principle.
but to impress it. the following
quotations from eminent authorities
NAV be introduced:
When the text Of a Constitutional
provision is not ambiguous. the
courts, in constituting it. are not at
liberty to search for its meaning be-
You'd the instrument itself. = = 1t
is not until the means of solution af-
forded by the Constitution have been
exhausted without success. that the
courts are justified in calling outside
facts OF considerations to their aid
tBlack on Interpretation of Law. ID.
Is, 29). The same writer shows
that, even to settle admitted ambi-
guities, recourse to debates is "a
great stretch,' seeing that these she'd
no light UPON the views Of those who
do not talk Another eminent an
thOrity says:
~ the words are free from ambi-
guilty and doubt, express clearly.
PLAINLY the sense OF the OF the
instrument. there is no occasion to re-
sort TO other means OF Interpretation.
The statute itself furnishes
the best means of It's own exposition:
and IT the sense in which words We're
intended to be used can be clearly
ascertalned from its parts and provi-
sions, n intent thus Indicated will
prevail, without reSortinr to other
means of construction. = = The
Legislature must be understood ia
mean what it has plainly expressed
and this excludes construction
lSoutherland, Statutes and Statutory
Construction, PIP. 312, 313.) Hear an
other, to the same import:
When the words of a statute are
plainly expressive of an intent not
rendered dubious by the context tbe
Interpretation must conform to and
carry out that intent. 1t matters not
in such a case what the consequences
may be-" (Endlich, Commentary on