THE PRESBYTERY OF DUNEDIN.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2222, 21 June 1870, Page 2

THE PRESBYTERY OF DUNEDIN.

To the Editor of the. Evening Star. Siß,_Your issue of the Ist instant contained a summary of the business transacted at the Presbytery of Dunedin during their forenoon sederunt of that day. The time . seems to have been principally occupied in discussing ft document published in the Evening Star on the 7tli ApHI, to whjch niy name, with others, was attached. Your report gives the deliverance of the Presbytery on the subject, and 1 crave a little of your space to make a few remarks thereon, The only point in the Presbytery’s deliverance which I am anxious to notice is that in which they “ declare said article to contain a grevious misrepresentation of the action of this Court.” Now, sir, whatever opinion the Presbytery may entertain of the document, I explicitly deny that it contains any misrepresentation of wiiat was done and said at the previous meeting alluded to, The recommendation of the Committee in bringing up their report was given in their own words ; so also was the sentence of the Presbytery. There could, therefore, be no ‘ * misrepresentation ” of I he action of the pj,g~i*vf,orv. j'jic facts of the case were given precisely as they d*C".IT‘ •'*: From the speeches of Messrs Will and Gillies, on the Ist instant (a copy of which frqm shorthand notes I have beforp me), it is apparent that, not thn facts detailed, but the opinions expressed have so annoyed these gentlemen as to lead them to instigate the Presbytery to pronounce a formal censure, As these opinions are fairly deducible from the facts stated, I am quite willing to leave them side by side with the condemnation passed, and no doubt the members of the Church will form their own conclusion regarding both. The matter now in dispute between the Presbytery and the Congregation of St. Andrew’s arises from the different interpretation of the Synod’s Regulations in regard to vacant congregations. Messrs Will and Gillies have committed the Presbytery to an explanation which seems so forced and unnatural, that it would never suggest itself to any unbiassed reader. The Congregation has adopted another explanation, which is believed to be the fair meaning of the language. No doubt it differs from the Presbytery’s definition, but that does not prove it to bo erroneous —far less does it prove that it is a “grievous misrepresentation. ’ It is to bo specially noticed that the members of the Church, and each congregation for itself, is as much entitled to interpret the regu’ations for their own guidance as the Presbytery is. The Presbytery has npt been constituted thp authorised exppmider of the Synod’s Regulations to which every congregation must' defer. The Regulations are made not for Presbyteries, but for flip ■ Church Extension Committee and vacant ■ congregations ; and while the Committee is j quite entitled to define the regulation for its own guidance, any vacant congregation is equally entitled to do bo when requiring to I make use of its provisions. It has been asserted that the Synod has not given power to vacant congregations to engage any of the preachers or unattached ! piipisteffi in connection with the Church, but only such casual supply as may be obtainable outside the Church. How does tjds interpretation accord with Presbyterian polity ? It belongs to the Church Courts to

examine the credentials of all ministers from without, and authorise their admission into the pulpits of the Church. Until this is done congregations cannot know what ministers are eligible, and whom it would be proper to employ. It would be a most unconstitutional proceeding for congregations to engage any minister to till th -ir pulpits who has not received the Imprimatur of the Church Courts. If the probationers and unattached ministers are so handed over to the Church Extension Committee that vacant congregations cannot secure them by their own free action, then they are virtually excluded from hading any supply for themselves. It is not supposable that the Synod would frame a rule for vacant congregations (of which there are always some) which could not be applied but perhaps once in live or six years, if so often ; for it is seldom that unemployed ministers from without are to he found in Otago ; and if they do appear, they ought to be passed and sanctioned by the Presbytery before any congregation could employ them. Indeed, unless the preachers and unattached ministers, who are at the disposal of the Church Extension Committee,. are open to employment by vacant congregations wishing "to hnd their own supply,” the regulation can be regarded in no other light than a delusion, a mockery, and a snare.” Mr Gillies says, " That probationers and unattached ministers are under the sole con. trol of the Church Extension Committee, and from that control they cannot bo withdrawn. If they go from under the contn I of the Church Extension Committee, they go from under the control of the Church altogether, and the Church is no longer bound to them nor the v v to the Church, and they virtually cut their connection with the Church as probationers or unattached ministers.” This, I suppose, is intended far a statement of principles in something of a logical form ; but to my mind it is the most extraordinary muddle ever man put in words. It proceeds throughout on a great mistake; the probationers and unattached ministers art not put under the control of the Church Extension Committee in any sense whatever, except to be sent, or not sent, where needed. For any other purpose the Committee has no control whatever. When sent to any place to labor, they are under the oversight of the Presbytery of the district, not that of the Committee. Tho functions of the Committee caase when the field of labor is appointed Were a preacher to act in anyway unsuitably to his position and obligations, the Committee has no rigl t or power to ca l ! him to account; it belongs to the Presbytery of the bounds to do so, As an illustration ; when a preacher hi con. neptlon with the Committee recently com* mitted an irregularity rendering him amen* able to censure, it was not the Committee, but the Presbytery where he was located, that dealt with him and passed sentence. The case would have been precisely the samo had he been engaged by the Congregation, instead of being sent by the Committee. A preacher or minister is not loosened from his responsibility to the Church Courts because he may be engaged by a vacant congregation, nor would a Presbytery be faithful to its duty did it wink at any irregularity within its bounds on the plea that the delinquent was not sent there by the Church Extension Committee, but had been engaged by the Congregation. Is not Mr Gillies guilty of a “grievious misrepresentation” here? cr shall we charitably conclude that he has something yet to loam of the elements of Presbyterianism ? Mr Gillies seems greatly offended at the free strictures made regarding the Committee's report, which he brought up to the Presbytery. Ho seems to forget that the document was read in open Court, and that therefore it is liable to be criticised by everyone who thinks it worth while to dp so. That the Committee met privately Is no reason why its report should not be com- , Rented upon as it tjpsgrvpg. The stq:iofcni,ei bore op‘’jiikt two points—viz,, the alleged unanimity, and the minute arrangements and detail of all that could produce an uufavorable impression, Mr Gillies admits that the members of Committee were not all present to adopt bis report, yet he presented it as unanimous. In my hearing, two members of Committee demurred to it when given in, and yet it is held as unanimous. On the other point Mr Gillies alleges he followed the usual course. That may be; but 1 hold that good taste and good feeling would have promoted a different course in a matter of ihe kind. At all events, there was no “ misrepresentation” of the action taken. There is a point- to which I must allude, viz , the repudiation on behalf of Messrs Gillies and Will, of the words used in reference to St. Andrew’s congregation. lam glad to think that both gentlemen are ashamed of their words when they see in fruit. But I assert, in spite of the repudiction, that the words Vfcve uttered. cap understand, that from the excitement oi public speaking, the words may have been forgotten, but there were present too many interested auditors (who were stung to the heart by the bitter invective, and in whose ears the echo of the words still lingers) to allow of the repudiation being accepted. In the Presbytery’s deliverance a grave impropriety is alleged in the fact that one of the gentlemen who signed the obnoxious document was not present at the meeting of Presbytery on which it commented. Did if not occur to the Presbytery that as an officebearer in St. Andrew’s congregation he must have been familiar with the whole dealing of the Presbytery in the case ; and that al-. though he had not listened to the eloquences, of certain gentlemen criticised, he might yet quite consistently’aigii a document which was principally occupied with the constitutional aspects of the question at issue ? If the Presbytery’s view be correct, ought they not, in passing their censure, to have rejected the votes of those, members of courts who were absent at the previous meeting, as they ‘ ; could have no personal knowledge ” as to whether there was “ misrepresentation ” or not? Nothing however seems too inconsistent for some men to do, else it were incredible that before an intelligent community, well acquainted with the hi-tory of that case, fourteen men could lie found gravely to characterise flm document referred to as a "grievous misrepresentation of the action of the Presbytery,” I have not touched on the personal matters which have been mixed- up with this question, as 1 am only anxious in regard to ti,e fundamental principles of the Church and the constitutional rights qt her members. 1 am, Ac,, John Paterson. Dunedin, 11th June. [For unavoidably reasons the publication - of the above lias beep postponed some eight or ten days.—J, P.]