THE FIRST CHURCH.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2753, 13 December 1871, Page 2

THE FIRST CHURCH.

To the Editor. Sir, —It is with extreme reluctance that I crave space for a few remarks on the phase that the First Church discontent has assumed. As a Presbyterian of nigh a quarter of a century’s standing, I (in common with many more) have felt pained and grieved beyond, measure at the scenes witnessed both in First Church and also at the meetings of the Dunedin Presbytery; and indeed i do not know almost anything that has lowered Presbyterianism, and made the members of the good old Scottish Kirk, that has so long and nobly borne witness for the truth, be ashamed of their Zion as the conduct of those concerned in the First Church dispute. Allow me to point out what I believe to be the three predisposing causes to the strange state of things witnessed in Dunedin. 1 think most will admit that Mr Sutherland is as Mr Kyley stated, often “ rash.” He is also dictatorial, and perhaps overbearing. This, I at once, and without hesitation assert, is one of the causes. But it would be a fatal mistake to suppose that on Mr Sutherland’s shoulders all the blame must be laid. He ought not to be made the scape goat, nor sent into the wilderness bearing tne “ t ansgressions of the people on his head.” Granting he is to blame, who that was present at the Presbytery’s seder : unts, but what must have p’qinly seen that his Session and Deacons’ Court, and many of his Hock, were more culpable than he’ To listen to the speeches of Mr Lawson and Mr Begg, to the interpellations of Mr Hill,' to the recital qf the deeds done by Mr 'Miomas Stewart, “all for the good of Mr Sutherland and the First Church,” afforded sufficient proof that there were other causes for the First Church squabble. Never, I believe iu any Presbytery were such speeches made as were spoken by Messrs Lawson and Begg, I have listened in my r-amblos to many old woipen “ tty ting,” but hardly any of thepi in their reiteration of petty details afforded like proof of a treasuring up of all the flaws, little and contemptible, that might he discerned in the other’s walk and conversation, than did the speeches of these two elders. Against Mr Sutherland’s character not one of them dip’e urge anything. Nor did they dare tp find fault with the Gospel preached by him. In what, then, has he erred ? He has refused to allow Mr Lawson, who seenjs to occupy the duplex position of waster and

servant —being both elder and member of Deacons’ Court ?v; officio, and also member of Building Committee, at tbe same time that be is the servant of tbe Building Committee, being its paid architect—to manage things as he pleases. He also does not allow tbs Deacons’Court to set him at defiance, nor to infringe the laws of the Church—and hence he is not “up to the age.” This is cause number two. But, above and beyond that, there is a cause not yet at all recognised by the mass of Presbyterians in Otago, but which will yet give great trouble to the peace of the Church and its progress in holiness, that I must mention. The Rev. Mr Will’s speech, and the Rev. Mr Stuart’s speech also, showed a glimpse of what was beyond. Mr Will had the boldness to affirm that it would be better if tbe rules of the Church, if the precedents that guide its government, if the books of discipline that provide for its management, wore buried. We have in these latter days outgrown the regulations of the Church. It is true that in spiritual matters there must be no innovation. But in Kirk Government any change may be admitted. Pained was I and surprised that any Presbytery could have listened in solemn silence, with no marks of disapproval, to the enunciation by Mr Will of the to mo startling fact that Kirk rules of hundred and fifty years of age had fallen into disuetnde. If this is to go on—if the present ago is to remodel the Kirk—if our Will’s or Stuart’s are to be the lawgiver to the Kirk, if they are to say how the Kirk is to be ruled, and what ancient landmarks are to be obliterated, why, I ask, keep the revered name of Presbyterian on their banner ? If Kirk laws of the past arc not binding on us now, what is to bo our guide ? Is each to follow his own will-o'-the-wisp ? Is there to be no standard to which we can appeal ? If so, Knox, when he nobly fought—not for doctrine, be it remembered, but for the purification of the ritual of the church, is to be pitied? And if the past is to be “ buried,” surely this amounts to a statement that the founders of the Christian church, that despised band of Galileans, are also to be ignored. If “ all old things are to pass away,” why prefer a bastard kind of Presbyteranism to Episcopacy, or Congregationalism ? I always imagined that the Presbyterian form of government was that form which in the early days of the Church was used. But no ; old 1 iws must m ike way for a Mr Will’s improvements. Nor is this all. Christians even outside the pale of the Presbyterian chureh are now beginning to see that he is the most successful minister who can be “all things . to all men.” It seems to be taken for granted that if a minister docs not toady his session and Hatter his congregation, he is unfit for his poit. How different is such conduct from that of apostles and martyrs of the church of every age ! They spoke, heedless of how their speeches were received. They believed themselves to be God’s messengers, having a mission to fulfil, and that a solemn one. They threatened—they expostulated with—they warned the impenitent, as men whose master was over them, and who had commanded them so to act. But we behold the change ! liy-n the future place of torment must not be mentioned in a sermdn without an apology to the listeners ; and as for denunciation of sin, who does it ? Politicians may sell their consciences, merchants may rob their creditors, servants may defraud their masters, lawyers, perhaps elders or maybe deacons, may injure fellow-eldevs or fellow-deacons, but the pulpit is silent. Qffenoes may come, and the woe is not against the offenders but the chider. This abject toadyism of the people by the pastor lies at the root of all this discontent, and the evil that it will work is not yet seen. Mr Sutherland did not toady either version, deacons’ court, or congregation, et June illae lachrymal. But there is one cause more. Infidelity is abroad, and not no .v ashamed to lift its jjsad; sneers nro uttered against things most holy and revered ; a man holding a sacerdotal office is despised. Instead of extolling even the doorkeeper in the Lord’s House, one who holds no office believes himself to be immeasurably superior to any officer in the sanctuary. Indeed, the minister is looked upon as a paid lecturer -who will deliver every Sunday some pleasing and above all “intellectual” speeches. To warn men to flee from the wrath to come is not his function now-a-days. Indeed, there are men in the Frst Church who even sneer at hell and devil, illustrating that nice reflection of the German philosopher, “ They never scent the devil, Even when he has them by the nape of the neck.” Let a preacher spsak of the Fiery Lake let him urge the necessity for the vicarious sacrifice ; let him plead with sinners and talk of holiness, of justification, of adoption, of sanctification, and that cardinal doctrine of our creed, predestination, and there is no response in the hearts of the hearers. But if he utters a truism that might have been spoken by Plato or any other heathen philosopher, joy is dep ctcd in the countenance of tha unregenerate. Of this fact I had painful experience when on tbe second night of the discussion in the presbytery, 1 sat on the right hand side of the pulpit and heard a gentleman, who is, I believe, a deacon of one of our city churches, actually try to keep quiet some of the First Church congregation \yho were listening to Mr Sutherland’s defence. Their exclamations, I shall not repeat, but this I may say, they would have been hissed in any political meeting. Already 1 have written too much—my prayer is, that “ peace may still within our Presbyterian Zion ” remain, but assuredly that will not come so long as the standards sp-e deserted and the flocks toaded by the shepherds,—l am, &c,, W.R.M. Gaversham, 9th Dec., 1871.