SUSPENSION UPHELD

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 48, 20 November 1920, Page 10

SUSPENSION UPHELD

CASE OF REV. A. A. MURRAY REFUSES TO RECOGNISE INFANT ... BAPTISM DECISION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY \ a A ronttor that has excited considerable interest throughout .-the Presbyterian Church of Now Zealnlid was brought ou before yesterdays sitting of the General Assembly, when the caso of the Rev. A. A. Murray, who is uuder suspension by the Auckland Presbytery, was considered. Briefly put, tho facts of tho case are that some time last year Mr. Murray, who was in charge of. St. Andrew's Church, Auckland, was reported to tho Auckland Presbytery for having undergone immersion in a Church of the order of Plymouth Brethren, at tho hands of a Baptist minister. As immersion (or "dipping") is not in accordance with the beliefs of the Piesbyteriau Church, tho Presbytery approached Mr. Murray for an explanation. In thp. course of his explanation of tho matter to the committee deputed to interview him, Mr. Murray, it is aiUeged, 111 a.de certain admissions tantamount to expressing a disbelief in infant baptism. Subsequently ho discontinued tho practice hitherto ill vogue at St. Andrew's, of infant baptism, and had given public expression to his views on the subject. In view of Mr. Murray's refusal to administer the sacrament of baptism," tlio Presbytery held an inquiry, which was taken in- committee, and decided to suspend him from the ministry. The next step was the lodging of a petition by Mr. Murray, cmving the interposition of the Acseniblv to rectify the alleged Irregularity of the proceedings taken by tlie Presbytery of Auckland, and asking for an onen and lawful and unprejudiced trial of his case.

"A Very Unusual Procedure." When tho petition was laid on the table tho clerk (tho Ecv. J. 11. M'Kon/,ie) moved that it be not received. "This," he stated, "is a very unusual procedure, but it is a very unusual petition." Tho clerk went on to point out that tho ilstition had erroneously supposed'that for the Presbytery to meet in committee was to meet in private. On the'contrary, a Church Court —aa on the occasion when Mr. Murray was suspended—while nominally in committee, did not, ipso facto, meet in pnvate. Every' Presbytery must be left free to say whether it should meet m privato' or public, and the General Assembly hud* no right to dictaio to anj Presbvterv in the matter. The Eev. Dr. Gibb moved an ament.ment that the i>etition be received. Tho Assembly should, he urged, show Ml'. Murray'the utmost forebearanee. so that in event of th<\ suspension being sustained, ho would have nothing to complain of on the score of unfairness. The Eev. I. Jolly seconded tlie amendment, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority. Mr. Murray at the Bar.

Speaking in support of Ms appeal, ill-. .Murray said that no (li<l not ask for any privileges or favours. He was simply for justice, an open trial, ami British fair-play. Hi: considered that ho had not received tins from the Auckland Presbytery. In support of his contention that tlie suspension ivas irregular, Mr. Hurray said that the first complaint lodged with tlin Presbytery merely set out; that lio hau allowed himself to 1» "dipped" *n tho Brotliren Hall, Parnell, by a Baptist minister: This letter made 110 reference wliatevor to infant baptism. He contended that it was tho duty of the Presbyterv to havo formally charged him with a definite breftch of duty. Nothing of this Wild, however, was done. During tho informal inquiry he made tho committee acquainted with his,.views on infant baptism. No formal inquiry wn§ Gi'tered upon', nor was any formal definite chargo made' against ,liim in 1919. Up until the date of th» sitting of the Assembly in lnvercargill last year none ot the formal steps preliminary to a charge ■being laid had been taken b>v thoPresbytery. It was not until Juno 22, IJ.O, that the' Presbytery decided to hold a formal inquiry and to cite liim, and when the citation was issued he was not informed of tho nature of the chartfo to be tried.