PRESBYTERY OF DUNEDIN.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2748, 7 December 1871, Page 2

PRESBYTERY OF DUNEDIN.

At last evening’s sederunt, the _ First Church difficulty occupied the whole sitting. The Presbytery at once proceeded to consider the complaint of Mr Sutherland against his office-bearers, which will be best understood if we give the substance of the memorial which he presented at the morning sitting. Mr Sutherland complained against certain of bis office-bearers, elders, and deacons—especially of Messrs B. A. Lawson, A. C. Begg, James Mollison, J, Hill, F. Wilkinson, and 11. Mackay—first, of a defiant interference with his ministerial authority in the convening of the deacons’ court, with the important business transacted at it: (1.) In resolving to convene the meeting, and claiming the right to do so after the session clerk and others had been informed —two elders personally by the pastor—that the minister had declined his c ncurrence in the proposed meeting till he was able to be present. (2.) In the defiant withholding from the pulpit, and from the minister’s substitute in it, the notice signed by the pastor postponing the ting for a week. (J.) In issuing a contrary notice. (4,) In summoning and holding the meeting without the minister’s conciiTence. On thi* point the minister observed that the business of this meeting involved the alteration of the whole internal arrangements of the church, and the disposal of several hundreds of pounds, and also that the minister was i revented from having any voice in the matter. The second ground of complaint was what was termed “the thrusting on the pastor and congregation of an obnoxious precentor.” It was argued by Mr Sutherland that the deacons’ court had no direct part in the appointment of precentor, which was made solely by the pastor, who had invited the congregation to approve thereof; that for some time the p istor had complained to the office-bearers, elders, and deacons, that the conduct of Mr Stewart, the precentor, had become intolerable ; that instead of being a prop to the pulpit, as the minister’s substitute in singing, he was constantly at work, publicly and privately undermining his influence, and striving to alienate the people from their pastor ; that at a meeting of the deacons’ court, the pastor dismissed the precentor, to which no opposition was raised j and that the opposition had been prompted by the office bearers. The document then went on to allege that sppie two or three elders and the same number of deacons, had for some months past been alienated from their pastor; . that this fact was well known to those dissentients who recently showed their feelings at a congregational meeting held in August; and their support was counted on, and indirectly received ; that such persons, in the jihsflnfo of the pastor, had iiacl mtlncncc enough on certain office-bearers, who had been neutrals at the congregational meeting, to induce them to concur in the holding of the meeting of deacons’ court. Of these persons, Mr Sutherland remarked in conclusion, “ their alienation is so inveterate, and their opposition so marked and offensive, that cooperation with them in the same court is no longer practicable.” Mr having been heard at length in support of ’ his complaint, the officer-hearers who had been summoned to the bar, were heard. We cannot attempt to report the speeches, and must content ourselves by giving the substance of the observations of Messrs Lawson, Mackay, Begg, Hill, and Stewart, who were the principal speakers, In answer to the charge of convening a meeting of the deacons’ court in defiance of ministerial authority, it wag argued that no such defiance had ever been attempted. In 1809 the deacons’ court came to a resolution, which was duly minuted, to meet on the first M onday of every month ; and that in accordance therewith the meeting had been duly convened before the court was aware that the minister wished a postponement ; and it was further contended that the important nature of the business that came on for consideration justified the i office-bearers in holding the meeting that day and declining to postpone it, As to the the contention that the minister had power to appoint and dismiss the Precentor the deacons’ court minute was produced and extracts read from it, showing that on all previous occasions the election and appointment of that officer had been made by the deacons’ court, and subsequently confirmed by vote by the congregation ; and it was argued that the engagement being a yearly one, on principle of equity and justice it could not be terminated on a moment’s notice.

Throughout the speeches there was a strong spirit of personal feeling manifested; motives wore freely imputed on both sides ; and reflections the very reverse of compli mentary frequently used. We shall only notice that Mr Stewart, the precentor, when speaking in his own defence, emphatically disclaimed that he had on any occasion, either in public or private, insulted the pastor. His opposition to Mr Sutherland arose from a sense of duty and with a desire to help the Church. The parties having been removed from the bar, The I!cv, Mr Gillies said he did not consider there would be any very great difficulty in deciding upon the matter. All must deeply regret that any such difficulty should have arisen between a minister of the Church and his office-bearers; and it was somewhat humiliating that the Presbytery should have to decide on such a matter. All personal matters should be left out of consecration, and the attention of the Presbytery confined sqlefy to the two constitutional points raised by the memorial. The first had reference to the calling of the meeting of the deacons’ court in opposition to the wish of the minister; and this it had been urged was an attempt to defy the minister’s authority. From the statement of the Clerk of the deacons’ court, it appeared intimation of the meeting had been sent to the pulpit before he was aware that it was the wish of the .minister to postpone it; there was therefore no deliance, it had been simply done iu ignorance of that clesire, As a Presbytery,

therefore, they could not uphold the charg® of defiance of authority; but at the sam® time they must declare the proceedings of that meeting null and void, as the meeting had not been legally called. As to the dismissal of the Precentor, ho thought Mr Sutherland had decidedly exceeded his authority. From what had been read as to the law of the church, it was plain there was nothing d finite on the subject. It was a matter which the church leit entirely to the congregation, with whom the appointment and dismissal of the precentor solely rested, and there being no law, congregations claimed the right to appoint and dismiss from the usage of the church. That right had never been claimed by a minister, Mr. Gillies concluded by moving : “ The Presbytery having considered the complaint of Mr Sutherland against certain members of Deacons’ Court, find that they cannot sustain it, in so far as the charge of defiant interlerence with minis-

terial authority is concerned ; but that the meeting held on the 6th November, not being legally convened, the proceedings thereat are null and void, and direct that the minute of that date be deleted. And in reference to the dismissal of the precentor, find that Mr Sutherland acted in excess of his authority, and that Mr Stewart is therefore still precentor of the I'irat Church.’ Mr Johnston asked to know in what position the resolution left the precentor ? Mr Gillies said it restored Mr Stewart to his rights and privileges as precentor of the church. (At this statement there was loud applause. Throughout the proceedings there were marked expressions of opinion by the audience, and frequently the Moderator had to check them.) Mr Johnston seconded the motion, ana thought it was a very dangerous thing for a minister to exercise Ids authority to the fullest extent. Such exercise looked like lording it over his office-bearers—and such, he thought, had been the case in this instance. Mr Stuart could not let the motion, which he intended to support, pass without

making a remark. He had nofc the least sympathy with a minister who would interfere with the ordinary meetings of a deacons’ court. It seemed to him in this case that Mr Sutherland should have made it his business to have been present on the evening in question; and for one man to say that arrangements of twenty men should be subservient to his pleasure, was not the conduct to be expected. Condemning Mr Sutherland’s conduct in the matter of the precentor as a wrong to the Church, Mr Stuart went on to say that the Presbytery must declare to their ministers that, in carrying out the work of the Church, they must defer to their fellow-laborers, and do everything in their power to work with them, in order that the work might be done orderly and profitably to the congregation. Mr Ryley disagreed with the motion, because it dealt very severely with Mr Sutherland, while it almost passed over the office-bearers. It was both one sided and. unfair He contended that the deacons court had all along intended to oppose Mr Sutherland ; and to dispute and set aside his authority. The court, when it knew of the minister’s desire for a postponement of the meeting, in refusing to agree to it had treated him with scant courtesy, and very little consideration for his feelings. The Presbytery should act impartially, and for his own part he could not say but that he should have acted as Mr Sutherland had done, if he had been' placed in his circumstances. His deacons’ court instead of being the body to which he was to look for/sympathy, was sowing the seeds of diacorcj., and finding all this, Mr Sutherland as a man must have felt keenly the position in which he was placed, and in a time of excitement might have done things which in his calmer moments he no doubt deeply regretted, and said things which otherwise he would not have said. He had been goaded to take the i course ho had by the action of the officebearers, which Mr Ri’lpy 4«h ou^?ed strong

terms, Mr Geeoo endorsed the remarks of the last speaker, Mr Will supported the motion. He said that in the matter of the dismissal of the precentor, an. apology was due to Mr Stewart ; and instead of writing in his calmer moments the document repeating the charges agaiust that gentleman, Mr Sutherland should have made that apology. He ( r Will) called it no humiliation for a minister, if he had done wrong, to apologise to the meanest member of his congregation. If he had been made it would have done Mr Sutherland credit. Captain Thomson compared the dispute to a ship of which the crew had mutinied agaiust the master. He thought the best oomve to pursue was for all bauds to clear out,—(Laughter.) The rnptlop was then put and agreed to. Oh the parties appearing 1 at the bap tp hepr it read, ' ' Mr Sutherland said there being no law on the subject, and having acted according to Forbes, ne did not consider the decision arrived at was a just one, but he did not think he would appeal. Mr Lawson expressed the office-bearers’ satisfaction with the decision. Upon being put to the Presbytery, it was decided by a majority of one to proceed with the consideration of the memorial signed by 103 members and adherents, at 5 p.m , today.