IS IT ORTHODOX?

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 303, 16 September 1908, Page 9

IS IT ORTHODOX?

REV. J. GIBSON SMITH'S BOOK. THE PRESBYTERY'S RECRETS. REPORT TO GO TO ASSEMBLY. As tho result of a long discussion of tho Rev. J. Gibson Smith's attitude towards tho Atonement, a majority of tho "Wellington Presbytery virtually agreed last night that. his views could bo brought within tho standards, but the T Presbytery expressed its regret at tho publication of bis book, and aliirmed its "steadfast adherence to the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice and satisfaction to divine justice, whereby men aro reconciled to God." Tlio finding is to be transmitted to tho General Assembly. Tho overturo-of tlio Rev. J. Kennedy Elliott, asking the General Assembly to reaffirm its adheronco to tho standards, in connection with' Mr. Smith's expression of views, will bo dealt with by the Presbytery at a meeting to bo held this morning. The attendance at yesterday's meeting was so big that tho Presbytery''was obliged to 'adjourn to a larger room. Tho Moderator (tho Rev. J. Gibson Smith) vacated the chair in favour of tho Kev.. J. 51' Caw. COMMITTEE'S REPORT. The Rev. J. Paterson submitted tho_ following roport, drawn up by the committee appointed to.confer with Mr. Smith: — "Tho committee appointed by the Presbytery met with the Rev. J. Gibson Smith and conferred with him regarding his doctrinal position aid/his book, 'Tho Christ of the Cross.' , "Mr. Smith stated his adherenco to tho doctrines of the Church regarding the mediatorial work of Christ, as set forth in the Confession of Faith, with the exception that ho cannot accept the w r ord. 'immediately' in clause IV, chapter VIII. In particular ho declared his belief that Jesus Christ by His death made atonement for tho sins of men, and thus redeems them from- tho curse of sin, and reconciles them to God. By His death Jesus Christ has satisfied. divine justice, and secured for all who believe in Him redemption from tlio curso of sin. By virtue of His atoning work He not only secures for the believer forgiveness of sins, but Ho also becomes the pledge of tho believer's ultimate santificatiou and glorification together with Him. "Mr. Smith _ pjso stated his unqualified belief in tho divinity of Jesus Christ, and that our human naturo became, and remains, otornally united with the divine in Him as tho God-man.

"In view of the foregoing statements it was decided to recommend the Presbytery to resolve as follows:— "That the Presbytery expresses its regret that the author of 1 The Christ of the Gross' lias not in tho first jiart of. his book been more careful to distinguish between tho Atonement itself and ono • particular view of the Atonement which Jii its. extreme form lias not been and is not now generally held or taught by this Church, and lias thereby occasioned grievous unrest to lovers of the truth as itis.in Jesus. "'Becauseof its partial statements and its tendency to. distract and unsettle the mind of tho Christian •' community tho Presbytery regrets tho publication of tho book. "The Presbytery affirms its steadfast adherence to the Atonement of Jesus ' Christ as a sacrifice and satisfaction to divine justice whereby men are reconciled to' God. • It regards this as tho central truth of the Gospel and tho only hopo of salvation-'for sinful men." MOTION BY REV. J. PATERSON. Mr. .Paterson,first denied a statement that there had been wire-pulling in connection with the Presbytery. To tho best of his knowledge, this "allegation was entirely false. Mr. Smith had met tho committee in a frank and friendly way, and they wero thoroughly satisfied with his candour in reply to questions. In two conferences they had discussed very fully with Mr. Smith his and their views, and many things wero put in a new light to them, and he thought they had also put many things in a new light to Mr. Smith, so that they had como to an agreement, ho thought, on .-tho essential doctrines of tho Church. Ho believed that Mr. Smith intended in.many of his statements not to attack the fundamental doctrine of tho Atonement so much as a certain theory or aspect of that doctrine. Ho felt that there had been a good deal of misunderstanding in tho matter. If Mr. Smith did not believe in the Atonement as an essential doctrine of the Church he would not be in his right place, occupying ono of its pulpits, but he considered that he did believe tho essential doctrine. Mr. Smith attacked very strongly what ho called tho doctrine' of retributive justice, which held that. Christ suffered for mankind all that men should have suffered for their sins, an exact quid pro quo, in fact. The speaker did not think that that doctrine was generally held or taught in the Church, though individual ministers might hold it. • Ho did not think that any of them held tho preciso theory which Mr. Smith set out to attack. Christ could not havo suffered all that men should havo suffered for their sins, because ho could not suffer remorse. He thought I that Mr. Smith had misunderstood and misI .represented tho Church's teaching 011 the subject. The Church- did not teach that Christ came to'bo punished, as though Ho had Himj self committed sin. Mr. Smith accepted tho doctrine as it was laid down in the standards of the Church. The committee's recommendation had been agreed to by a very largo majority. A discussion took placo as to whether tho recommendation should be considered in conjunction with tho rest of tho report, or afterwards. Mr. Smith said that he could agree to tho first part of tho report, but not to tho recommendation. The Rov. W. Douglas stated that ho had opposed tho joining of tho recommendation to tho report. The' Rev. J.- Paterson moved:— "That tho report be received and adopted, and embodied in the minutes of tho Presbytery, and that, in view of tho general interest awakened, and tho anxiety felt in regard to this matter, tho report and tho finding of tho i Presbytery bo transmitted to the General Assembly." 1 Mr. Comrie's View; "flo Central Truth Attacked." The Rev. W. ,J. Comrio seconded the motion. Ho admitted tliat thoro was a certain' divergen'co ' of opinion between. the members of tho committee and Sir. Smith, but 110 did not think that it was so material that they, could not regard Mr. Smith as a teacher of tho truth that thoy hold dear, l'liero was a difference,between the committee and Mr. Smith in reference to the interpretation of tho doctrine. : Tho report was not to bo understood as a "backing down" J of tho coiumittea from tho standards. A 'good deal of anxiety and unrest had been caused by Mr. Smith's book, and, it was thought that a central doctrinc of the Church had been attacked. Ho thought that tho report showed that 110 central truth had been attacked, arid that Mr. Smith was quite ablo to. preach the Church's doctrines. While lie did not say that tho matter would owl ■'there, and that the unrest would cease if tho committee's report were adopted, 110 thought that it would be a step in that direction. As regards the suggestion mado in .another. I'rosbytovy as to wire-pulling, meaning that tho members of the Presbytery woro subject to outsido influences in this matter, lie strongly denied the allegation. Ho regretted that a minister in another Presbytery had mado this grave charge and dragged a personal element into the matter. Mr. Elliott: "Ambiguous, Weak, Unsatisfactory." Tho Rov. J. K. Elliott thought that tho report was ambiguous, weak, and unsatisfactory, and wondered if anything like it was ovor submitted to tin intelligent mid judicial body of mon. Ho had been con-

sidering whether he should not walk out of tho Wellington Prdsbytery, kn,QViiig that if ho failed there other presbyteries. Would take this matter up..__ He .had endeavoured to a.ct in a conciliatory way, but he must have moro informatiqu; than he had received from the Ho wished to know first:— "Did the Rev. Mr'.,Smith agree to withdraw' the "book,"' The 'Christ "of "tho-Cross, 1 from circulation, and- promise to teach its doctrines; 110 more? Mr. Paterson :;We .)iov/)r-put such a question. I should feel''humbled and! ashamed to put such a, question'to'-Mr.- ( Smith. . : r, r Mr. Elliott:'Will,the Ifbdcratorrput..it. how? " ' .V". Mr. M'CaW: It wo'ulil bo rary-unfair'for'' tho Moderator to do''that-attliis ■ fetag<s;\ Mr. Elliott: I bow jtoc- the; opinion., of tho ; court, but J/think that 'I. should be get information," since 1 shaU.' ( ha^e,J;o, l .xqtp, , upon the matter. t ' The Moderator said* that he'-"would,- of course, put the question-, if lie was asked- todo so by a resolution of. the. Presbytery,..., ~/] Mr. Gibson Smith offered to. reply..to..the. question. (Cries of " No.") ," , ° ' Mr. Fo.ulkner moved: "That'the-question be.allowed." Only ten members votedVoiv tho 1 motion and the voting Was even. The Moderator: The "'PresbyteryVis".'.'not' voting oil the question at all. If I had to give my easting' vote'"! 'colild'ildt vote'in favour .of the motion.-.j'f.i- : The Rev. W. J. Comrie spointed.out<thattho Moderator could ask" tlie 'menifes of tlio Presbytery to vote. Tho matter was not" pushed 'fiirt-hei'; jtri" Comrie submitting that- the been virtually put to .Mr. Smith before. ;. : Pungent Questions'. 11 ; Mr. Elliott then stated: "The Presliytery regrets the publication!' of the "book," but' did the author of tlio book express a'-like regret? . Mr. Paterson:. Wo; dijl not, - think, that.-, it was necessary. Mr. ' Smith was not under discipline. ''' Air. Smith said that it was not a Question of discipline. Mr, Paterson said that-the committee "had. merely held a friendly'conference, with .Mr. Smith. Before a'question''like.'this''could be put Mr. Smith would'-hav<3"a'right'to ask ; that he should be put mpon his trial, 'anclto demand a libel.. , *- r Sir. Elliott (reading, from a list of ques-. tions): Were the statements now put before, the Presbytery as the statements of tho Rev. Mr. Smith signed by liim,- and will the clerk produce the document? ,iv.i Mr. Paterson ' explained.,.that state-,,] ments were not- signed, but,they.,'vvci^e:agreed, to _by Mr. Smith, who hb iindirstood was quite ready to sign them."'" ™ : Mr. Smith: I am. ; Mr. Elliott: Was the ;committeg: unanimous. in its report? ; *" . • . 'Mr. Paterson said. thai. 'Micro, imifcy. with regard to''tho first part'.qf tll'6' report, but not -as to' the : advisableness 'of attaching a recommendation:- 'Hoi. 'did «not think that there any .difference, of. opinion as to'the recommendation itself.. ; Mr. .Elliott said, he 'understood-fro,m_Mr._ Faulkner that he had beelV virtually terrorised. He had been : warned not' to-say -any-thiiig.at-tho-conference which could be used against Mr. Smith. .... ,~, , . ; Mr. Paterson said that if Sir. - Faulkner had said this it was untrue.'' 1 "" Mr. Faulkner said that after adverse questions had been put and answered "lie ■ was told by Mr. Smith -that, such ; statements could not be used in evidence.against ;liim.;.-.i, Mr-. Smith admitted,.that, he had,given a, warning .to .Mr., Faulkner.of' tUe.l>iJid> referred to. He. did so because on-;a-previous occasion ho had held a friendly conference .with' a friendly committee,,arid : the committee had : brought up a judicial; report.;' MR. SMITH'S REPLY. '

Tho Rev., J. Gibson - ., Sjnith,inn replying, said that , he accepted ~the committee's-- report regarding his doctrinal ;pqsitionj-.-and "in doing so ho did not regard, himself'as..with-, drawing anything contained .in..his,-.,b00k....1t, was'simply'a had been his, faith all along, and'*with' 'ad-.' vanced in his book, wten. prpperly;],interpret, ted, would ;be found to;,be; ...jij regard to the thought that the committee luad overlooked some, considerationsi, ,!oe_.<;oiild...ixo.t,..ii§i:cq.. that ho had not distinguished 'with' sufficient caro botii-een the Atonement "itself "and; one particular -view of the -Atonement. 'He thought that_ it was 1 made quite clear 1 that any hostile criticism tfatf'directod,-ttot against? the . Atonement mere human theories of .tli'o -Atonement.- In'no' British review''was tlioqslightest hint given' that the book should'* be-regarded as heretical. Tho "Expository SJiiiies," edited by Dr. Hastings, of the "Dictionary of the Bible',"said: "But the NewviSealander himself will' have, something to beMpro'ud^pf/'-'ln theology he will have -The Christ of-the Cross'- by-tho Rev. - J. Gibson ■■.Smith s 'ijof»;,St.-!.Aildfew'-s:-Church, Wellington, jit, is .-Jiot.m-volume of. sermons. It is a volume :<rf,'doctrine,''.bothcritical and constructive: •■lt-is I 'lin? : shjii't,' an addition to tho 1 vast; lit-era.turevofr.thß-.Atonement, and it is: well': worthy .'of a'place in aiiy selection that mako'ifrom: that, literature.Did wersay-it is critical :aud• constructive? It. is also •corroboratives That is tho title of tho third,;part,.of. the book; And . by corroboration.: the; author--.'does.' rioi mean tho turn of a rtext-.-or-.the -root :of'. a word, but the consensus-, of: Scripture;Vr'--It.' was reserved for the peoplo./inr.NewuZealand .to discover that;.tliel,book,,was..really.r an attack' on the. Atonement, itself: i'..Howhad such a different conclusion been reached?By more careful reading, of the .book,- or. by less careful? , IJe„,.vonturM„,to a i'.say. it. had.... been by.; ; ; -.careless', and inaccurate reading and careless and inaccurato • reviewing. . . Mr. ••Smith trenchantly reviewed the Rev. I. Jolly's judgment of the book"in'-the '-"Outlook'" L ;'lt seems to me," said Mr.' Smith;, -"tliat'it is not/1, but Mr. Jolly, lie' charged, not with lack of'dare, J but stitlrlack 1 of capacity, to distinguish between tlu> : Atonement and .his own pet rii'aii-iri ado "theory of the; Atonement-." If; tlio book '■ were indeed' what Mr. Jolly represented ; it : to be ,™ its author would bo the"-'first to disown' 1 ft/ Further, it seemed to'him that' Presbytery, without qualification;' regretted n 'the publication of the bookj; as'was proposed iii' the committee's recommohdafiony itmust' regret also whatever of good liai been effected by the book. He had, received many written' testimonials as to such good' having :- be'eri accomplished. Ho loft' himself in the Presby- 1 tory's hands. Mr. Elliott complained of'the reference to - ] Mr/Jolly as entirely out of place../ j AN AMENDMENT. ,imi rr ' l i" aulkol ' moved as an ..amendment— That tho report should.merely be-received:" I lie Rev. A. T. Tnompson- ; (Masterton)' said he had the utmost ; sympathy -.with nil thoso who had been put -,in a state , of-unrest and anxiety, not, as .lie,,thought, -throughthe teaching of; Mr.Smith's,, ' book, but through a misreading, of .that book.- He thought it was a subject "for congratulation' that .they had a man iii.'.tlio, Church who had struggled through,., the" darkness and' coiuo out with the light.'that .Mr... Smith had given them. V'.' The Rev, A. Thompson (Pet-one),'. urged that , it, was-the opinion of a great many competent Students of the bqok that it contained a strong attack on ..''tlio - expiatory theory as a whole. .He' thought'."that-tile committee's statement of tho Chuychis faith, should liavo been ma'do in'greater'detail. The Rev. W. Douglas'felt.that',"wliilo tliero was a .great deal of ..'important, triiili'.lprcsentctl in-tho book, Mr., Smith: h,a.s evacuated tho theory of the Atonoment of its vital part. The Rov. P. C. thpught that .while tlio book contained many beautiful and helpful thoughts, it was unsatisfactory.'oil the whole, and there was. no doubt that it had caused deep unrest, Tho committee had met Mr. Smith half way, and ho thought that tho report, if adopted, would be tlio best solution of the difficulty v which,, the, J?resby-. Tory could find. ' ' ' '"' Tho Rov. W. J. Comrio' : urged>"that- it was incorrect to say :that''tlie'-comniittco could not'have reported'otherwiso :than'fav-' ourably to Mr. Smith/" The.v ; -might have':reported that they wore" unable'to come to an ; agreement, and that further 'steps were nei:-' 1 ossary of a different kind. ' J " MOTION r CARRIED. : ' Mr. Patorson's iuotioiU war'carn'ocT by' 8' •votes .to 6* • '.'

• Tho Presbytery adjourned soon afterwards till lO a.m. to-day, when Mr. Elliott's overture''asking the General Assembly to reaffirm its' adherence to the standards will be taken.

" THE CHRIST OF THE CROSS."

FURTHER DISCUSSION BY DUNEDIN

PRESBYTERY. (ni 'TELEGUAPzr. —SFr.CIAL CORRESPONDENT.)

; Dunedin, September 15. : ,"Tli'p . Christ of " the Cross" was talked of a©iin it th'o-Dunedin Presbytery's meeting to : day.V

•'i -Or; Nisbet referred to a letter published by: tlio [Rev.v Mr. Sutherland the day following the previous meeting of the Presbytery. 'It was ; to bo regretted, he said, that motives ■ Ipd ;beon imputed to'those who differed in ■ opinion 'froni: "others. '. Ho was certain that: there, was no difference as-to tho unwisdom, 1 to use "a mild word, of the Rev. J.-Gibson Smith"publishing "The Christ of the Cross!" 'ThfiyimpUtation; that-members of the Pres-'bytery-(sympathised .with Mr. Smith's action was .'a-serious imputation.. - He hoped Mr. Sutherland '-'would withdraw his charge against ■ members ■ of the Dunedin Presbytery: • If "not" withdrawn tho charge should •be'-proved. ' " , * ; The Rev.' G..S. M. Suthovland: I know what'lisajd and.why'l - said it. I know what I; was doing, ' arid had grounds > for saying •what I ;did say, and I-will ma.ke a statement at the proper time -and' proper place. , 'The-Rov. 'A.'!Cameron moved "That Mr. ,Sutherland he called upon to give reason for his --charge." > ■ ! This was carried by; 16 votes to one.. The Rov. R..R. G.-Sutherland submitted seven reasons for complaint to the Assembly in-respect of this overture. presented to. the previous meeting of the Presbytery. -.The Rev. D. MacLennan moved, an overture ■ remitting consideration of the book to the General Assembly.- ■, The Moderator said that as the overture did not '.contain some proposal for the consideration of the .General Assembly, he would rulo that the overture was incompetent and should be refused on that ground. •: Mr.; MacLennan.' challenged- the .'ruling. . - . Tho Rev. A. Cameron moved "That tho overture be. ruled incompetent on the ground that it contained a charge."-' ■ The Rev. A. Finlayson moved as an amend.ment."Ths.t the-overturo. is competent," and tho: J Rev. ..R.-.R. |M. Sutherland seconded.

-. _The Rev. W. {Hewitson said a great deal of good would.; eventuate if the book were discussed. . Some people would not stand doc-. ..trine. very well, - and very few. men' had the ,--power. to - deal with, the. fundamental question -ofthe Atonement. - Tho only good tlio book could do was to drive men, to look into the,. question of fundamental matters, and maybe cause'.'ministers to preach mere of them..,.lf tlie book were discussed, lie was .quite ..prepared -to say what- ho thought of the .merit. Mr. Smith .had, sAown in writing the, book. He thought that Sir. MacLennan should have -given Mr. Smith notice of indention •,to raise .the question of overture. Mr. MacLonnan: Ho has attacked us all by his book. - He has taken' the ground completely. from .under my feet by his book. .The Moderator put the amendment. Thirteen' supported it, and the motion was similarly. supported. -. Tho Moderator ■ gave ■ his casting vote in. favour of the motion, and the overture ■ was- ruled incompetent.