PRESBYTERY OF DUNEDIN.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2747, 6 December 1871, Page 2

PRESBYTERY OF DUNEDIN.

The quarterly meeting of this body was held in the First Church to-day ; the Rev A. B. Todd presiding. The principal business of the day’s sederunt was the consideration of the FIRST CHURCH CONGREGATIONAL DIFFICULTY, Which was launched by the Presbytery’s attention being called to the matter by the Rev W. Johnstone, of Port Chalmers. The Rev. George Sutherland re id a document, in which he narrated at great length the charges he preferred against certain office-bearers and the precentor of his church, and in respect to which he sought the Presbytery’s decision. Next there was a memorial from the office-bearers, which alleged that there did not exist between the minister of the First Church and the session and deacons’ court that feeling of confidence and cordiality which was necessary to the carrying out of the business of the church ; that the memoranda annexed of proceedings (signed by officers present) of late meetings fully show the circumstances which compelled the memorialists, from a sense of duty, to lay the memorial before the court; and they prayed that it would take such measures for speedily restoring the peace and harmony of the First Church, as its wisdom might consider advisable under the circumstances. (Signed by eleven elders and eight deacons. The documents that were attached, purported to be extracts from minutes of the meetings of the kirk session, and those meetings were spoken of as giving rise to “most unpleasant and personal reflections,” and ‘ jaccritnonious discussion.” The minute in reference to the meeting of the kirk session, which was held after the proceedings in the church on the 19th ult., sot forth that on that occasion the session unanimously “ recorded their sorrow at, and disapproval of the course pursued by the minister in initiating such unseemly proceedings in connection with the worship of God.”) And lastly, there was a momoiial signed by over 100 church members, denying the statements contained in the last mentioned memorial, and authenticating the signatures which were appended to the memorial signed by 417 of the congregation. Mr Sutherland then handed in, for the information of the Presbytery this latter memorial, and thereon a discussion arose as to whether it should be received or not. Ultimately it was agreed simply to receive the document. The order in which the whole matter should be discussed was then referred to. Mr Will suggested that the motion ef Mr Johnstone should be taken first, was agreed to, and it was decided to take the whole question at the evening sitting. Mr Sutherland’s complaints to be taken first. Mr Johnstone said that it was with groat reluctance that he bail to bring under the notice of the Presbytery a paragraph which appeared in the Daily Times lately in reference to what took place in the First Church on a certain Sunday ; and he had been deputed to bring up the matter because he was the oldest minister but one in the Presbytery. [The rev. gentleman here read the paragraph in question.] The matter was one which affected the public and the Church generally in the Province. He did not know what action the Presbytery would take in the matter ; but as it appeared to him—presuming, of course, that the report was a true one—it was certainly a public scandal. If the faets were true, it was a matter for groat reproof on the part of those parties who were guilty of causing such a scene in the conduct of the worship of God, as was there reported. Seeing that th® whole matter was to come up, and that the Presbytery would not then be prepared to come to a decision, it should ask Mr Sutherland whether it was a true report or not. The Presbytery out of respect for the character of the church, was bound to take the matter up, and to set it right.

He would just point out one or two things that were referred to in the paragraph. Mr Sutherland was there stated to have taken possession of the precentor’s chair on the Sabbath in question, previous to the commencement of worship, and he had done so with the view of keeping Mr St* wart, the precentor, out of it. If that were true, it was highly blameable. Then it was stated that the usual mode of conducting public worship was departed from, and that Mr Sutherland had dismissed the precentor from his office. But what he (Mr Johnston) considered to be the most previous part of the matter wai the departure from the usual mode of conducting worship and Mr Sutherland’s taking possession of the precentor’s chair. These were points that required to be looked into. 'I here was also mention made of certain words used by Mr 1 Sutherland—“ The rev. gentleman afterwards prayed for the restoration of peace to the congregation by the removal from amongst them, if necessary, of those persons.” He (Mr Johnston) was sorry he had lost the remainder of the report. Mr M ‘Naughton suggested that it was useless to discuss the matter, seeing that it would come up again. Several members thereupon said it was a totally distinct matter from what would come on for consideration in the evening. Mr Stuart said it appeared to him that by the proceedings on the Sabbath in question a great scandal was offered to religion. If the report of what had taken place was true, he had no hesitation in saying that Mr Sutherland did not represent the church on that occasion, and that on that day he interfered very unfairly and very improperly with the conduct of worship. If the paragraph truly stated what had taken place, he could sec liia way to admonishing or reproving Mr Sutherland. He had been given to understand that the report did not fully describe the excitement and disturbance that occurred. For example, a large number of people left the congregation, scandalised with what took place, and what they considered to be a violent interference with the ordinary mode of conducting worship He thought the business of tbo Presbytery was to ascertain whether what was said to have taken place did take place. Mr Sutherland, in taking upon himself to say there should be no singing, had oast a slight not only upon the congregation but those in authority ; and his occupation of the precentor’s chair was a departure from the dignity becoming the m'uisterial office. It was not his business to shepherd the precentor’s chair. Mr Su herland : You are now passing judgment. Mr Stuart was doing nothing of the kind ; and would be the last oue to do so without hearing all sides. ■ He had no hesitation in saying, if the report were true, that what had taken place was very wrong; and that no minister had a right to interfere with public worship, so long as it was legally and properly carried on. Mr Will hoped the Presbytery would guard itself against being drawn away from the consideration of this matter, by reference being made to others which would come up in another way. The Presbytery had to take up a public scandal in vindication of Presbyterianism. Apart from tie other consideration urged, he had heard it asserted that in consequence of the grave scandal caused by the proceedings on the •Sunday in question, that a baptism could not be performed. (Mr Sutherland : It is not true.) However, there was sufficient in the considerations already urged to make it necessary for the Presbytery to take evidence in order that they might be disposed of, and the Presbytery express an opinion on the scandal that had been caused. He held it to be a disgrace to the church to pais the matter by. The Moderator then informed Mr Sutherland that the Presbytery’s attention having been directed to the report in the Daily Times, it desired to be informed whether it was substantially true, especially in reference to the statements that he (Mr Sutherland) had taken possession of the precantor’s chair; that a departure from Ihe ordinary mode of conducting service had been made ; and that a baptism could not take place, in consequence. In answer to certain questions, Mr Sutherland observed that instead of any blame being attached to him, it should be put on those of his office-bearers who had encouraged and put forward Mr Stewart, when he was obnoxious botli to the minister and to the congregation. He did not publicly name Mr Stewart during the evening service. The expression in the report that he had stated “ that Mr Stewart had insulted him privately and publicly, and that as long as Mr Stewart continued to hold office the psalmody would not be resumed,” was not altogether correct. He used no such word as insulting. What he said w.*a that Mr Stewart’s conduct both in public and in private towards him had become so offensive as to be no longer tolerable ; and before closing he simply read the psalms in. stead of singing them. Such a course was not unusual. The statement in the report, that “ the rev. gentleman afterwards prayed for the restoration of peace to the congregation, by the removal amongst them, if necessary, of those persons who might be sowing the seeds of dissension,” was something like what he said; and it was a proper thing too. He fuither said there were many statements in the report which were near the truth. He had no part in getting up the report; the reporter was present without his knowledge. The statements were mainly correct, but language was put into his mouth which he did not use. With reference to the two points especially referred to, he took his scat in the Precentor’s chair before the people came in, and he did so in older to prevent a disturbance. It had been rumored throughout the City that Mr Stewart was determined to take his seat, and, in order to prevent a disturbance, Mr Law, who had frequently presented for him (Mr Sutherland) at other times and places, took the place of Mr Lister, who was prevented from attending by indisposition. Mr Law came in at 10.30, or before 11, and took th- chair, ami he (Mr Sutherland) went into the vestry. There was no appearance of the pastor in the precentor’s chair when the congregation was present. What took place was greatly to be regretted, and no man of right feeling, whether Presbyterian or not, could for a moment express approbation of it. The scene was most unseemly. There was nothing exaggerated in the report, although it gave a worse impression than what actually occurred. There was no excitement, except on the part of those who came there in an excited st-te. The blame entirely rested with those who attempted to thrust on the congregation and the minister a precentor who had rendered himself obnoxious to both, and an attempt to personally insult and to call into

question his authority as minister. As to the baptism not taking place, that an;. .: from the fact of the woman not being aole to attend. After considerable discussion, the tot owing resolution, moved by Mr (billies, was carried Having heard Mr Johnstone upon the unseemly proceedings which took place on the 19th ult., in the first Chinch, Dunedin, this Presbytery expresses its disapproval of what tonk place, and regrets 'hat any matter between the minister and Ins office-bearers should ha\e been allowed to interfere with the regular conduct of the public worship of God.