"CHRISTIAN SPIRIT"

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 141, 10 March 1920, Page 7

"CHRISTIAN SPIRIT"

A STORM IN PRESBYTERY THE RIGHTS ..OF A CHURCH ST. ANDREW'S OR ST. JOHN'S? A distmto that has arisen in Presbyterian Church circles wa3 further ventilated at a meeting of Wellington Presbytery last night. A deputation • from St. Andrew's Church had attended the preceding meeting, . and had complained that the senior pupils of Queen Margaret's College had been withdrawn from St. Andrew's Church- and sent to St. .John's Church. Allegations of "petty tyranny" and "undue influence" had been made. Discussion of the matter was resumed last night. The Rev. W. J. Comrie moved thai the discussion should be taken in private. The Rev; S. Robertson Orr and other members obiected, and the motion was rejected bv a small majority. Mr D. 6. Clark moved'that the dispute should be referred to a committee consisting of the Revs. W. Day, J. A. MlCenzie. and ,W. J. Comrie, to confer 5 - ith the.parties, and arrange a settlement. He hoped tho motion would be accepted without discussion. The Rev! Robertson Orr: Who are the Mr. Clark: The Scots College Board Mid the kirk sessions of St. Andrew's and St. John's. The Rev. Hudson moved as an nmendment: "That Presbytery regrets to learn of the suggested withdrawal of the Queen Margaret's College scholars from attendance at Sabbath services in the church ."in the district in which .the lollesre is situated, and their transfer to St. John's Church, and hereby disan : proves of the action of ,those responsible for this unwarranted breach of Christian fellowship, and expresses the lope that the arrangements of last year Trill, be continued." ' Mr. Hudson paid this was not the first.time that disoutes between St. Andrew's Church and St. John's Church had come be.fore Presbytery. There had been a question about the attendance of Scots College pupils, and of naval men at St. John's Church, after thev had left St. Andrew's Church. These matters came before the General Assembly, and were the subject of a decision which was intended' to end the friction. At the first meeting of the Presbytery : after' the 'General Assembly, Dr. Gibb referred'to the strifeithat. had been caused by certain persons, and said, that if this continued he would have to htav awav from' Presbytery meeting's. Tho friction between individuals, said Dr.- Gibb. was terrible. : The settlement, had not proved final.- The pupils of the college \tn\ been attending St. Andrew's Church, and when a new principal was, appointed they were removed from that, church to St. John's Church. Why was that done? The statement had been made that the scholars had been moved because of the inefficiency of a certain minister. Members: NcmNothing of the sort. Transfer > Mr. Hudson "cointeiided that the transfer of the girls.had not been. justified by the conditions. The minister of "St. 'Andrew's had been entitled to protest against the transfer of the girls. An injustice had been done him. Mr. R. Brown-seconded the amendment. It was a great pity,' be said, that some members of Presbytery could ■ not play fairly.. The Hon. J. G. W. Aitken: Who is being unfair? Mr. Brown paid the sailors from the •warships had been stolen from St. Andrew's and directed to St. John's. ,

Mr. Aitken objected to this statement. Mr. Brown repented his assertion. The Scots College boys .and the Queen Margaret's College girls had also been diverted from St. Andrew's to St. John's. The church people, of St. 'Andrew's Church wanted to know the reason. They : objected to the- reflection .on their min- ,. Jster. . ■ ' The "Rev. J. H. MTCenzio suggested a modified motion' expressing the opinion that last year's arrangement for-tho attendance of the" college girls nt St. 'Andrew's been a right and prooer one, nnd'deeplv Tegretting that it had been 1 departed from. '•

Mr. W. Littleiohn thouorht there must be either selfishness or jealousy in the heads of some . Christian people when such disputes cpuld arise Discussions of the. kind now.proceeding 'did not encourage people to take an .interest .in church' affairs-. ' . ' ' ;' . ' The Rinhh of a Principal. The Hon. J. G. W. Aitken said tho matter had not come before the Scots College Board or tho session of St. .Tohn's Church. Was the present proceeding quite regular? So far as St. ■Tohn's' Session was concerned • the question of the college pupils attending St. 'John's Church had never been mentioned. Last year a principal was appointed to Queen Margaret College, and she choose the church which she wished the to attend. She stood in the relation of parent to those children. Was the new principal to be denied the f"h+ that *•'>« former principal had exercised. The General Assembly • had Tilled that the principal of a college had the right to chooso a church' and had. •warned Presbytery not to interfere. He would draw the attention of Presbytery to the fact that, by insinuation, blame was being imputed to St, John's Session and to the College Governors, when as a matter of fact neither body had moved in the matter at all. Presbytery had ar big contract in hand if it was going to decide where people should go to ehurcll. • .■■'*.. The Rev. Robertson Orr stated that ho had taken legal advice regarding the constitution of Scots College, and \ym told that the Collese Board had no leenl power to administer Queen Margaret's College. He intended to move in that matter. Mr. Orr proceeded to refer to. his past disputes with the Rev. Dr. GibTi, of Stl John's Church. The principal of the college hnd told him that she had talked with Mr. Aitken about the transfer, of the prirls.

Mr. Aitken replied that ho had refused to advise her or to have anything tn do with the matter.

Mr. Orr quoted a legal opinion to the effect that the constitution of Scots College did not cover St. Margaret's College ano that there was r.o legal iustifieafioji for the administration of the piris' college by the Scots College Board. Most of the girl? wished to attend St. Andrew's. Tli» former principal of St. Margaret's Collecrc had resigned solely on the ground that she hn'd been subejected, to petty tyranny on account nf 'her detnrniMiation to wirship in St. Andrew's Church. Thei« ha ( l been a want of fair plav somewhere. The freedom of the princinal had never been real. Direct and indirect influence nf individual members of the board had been used to restrict tho .freedom of the p'incipnl, but he had not been allowed to produce to Presbytery correspondence proving (his statement. "My own-,• personal and private opinion,"'added''Jlt. Orr, "is that there hns been an attempt in some quarters to lowor tho prestige of mv congregation and mv ministry here for two years and a half. Tin's is tin crnr-winn of the s art ie thing. This is not Christianity we aro dealing with. This is merely religion. There' is no spirit of reconciliation or brotherhood in it." Mr. Aitken: Did you ever approach the board or St. John's Church ? Mr. Orr: "T nnnronehed Hie bonrd with a proposal last October, and from tho lesson I leaned then I decided T would never fo to the board again. There is an undue proportion nf-members of St. John's session on the bonrd." He intended Id ask the Preshytery to. restrain the College Binrd from exercising any.control over St. Margaret's College, n't any rate until the next meeting, of. the Presbytery. . An Appeal for Generosity. A lay member urged the need for generosity arid charity among churchmen. He had been astounded at the tone of Mr. Orr's speech. "The spirit displayed here to-night is certainly not the Christian spirit," said Mr. W. Allen. "The Rev. Robertson Orr evidently is looking for trouble. . . . There was neither reason nor argument in the sermon he addressed to us to-night, and I resent it very much. The principal of the college has a right to liberty' and. freedom. -