PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2782, 17 January 1872, Page 2

PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

The whole of last evening’s sederunt was devoted to .the consideration of the First Church dispute. As on former occasions, the attendance of the public was very large, and there were frequent demonstrations of applause when the views expressed by the different speakers accorded with the sentiments of the listeners. ' The proceedings were opened by the reading of a memorial, signed by Messrs J. Morrison, T. Stewart, A, Mercer, J. Maokay, and W. Reid, asking that their names should be added to the memorial in favor of the office-bearers, which was done. The Rev. Mr Will then related the circumstances of the case, and the causes which had' induced £he Rresbytery of Dunedin to refe-tothe Synod k matter wjjirh required “ the collective wisdom of the whole 'Church to advise and decide upon it.” He then read a corrected statement of the financial affairs of the First Church. This statement showed a decrease of L9B 12s 6d in the susteutation fund for 1871, as compared with the previous year, Wiplp £he preparer of the statement acknowledged the numerical majority in favor of Mr Sutherland, the statement went to show that the greater amount of contributions had been made by the other party. It stated that during 1871 LIOI 10s had been contributed by the officebearers and those supporting them, and LI0(5 Os 6d from other sources. The latter amount was made up of L 43, the amount contributed by parties who refused to mix in the dispute, and LSO Os (5d by Mr supporters. With the decrease for 1871, there would, if the subscriptions of the officebearers aji.d their memorialists were withdrawn, be a total decrease- of L2GO 3s. The memorialists for the office-bearers held 287 seats of the 471, leaving a balance of 184. ’ The parties were then called to the bar. Messrs Lawson and Bcgg appeared for the office hearers, and for those who signed the memorial in favor of the latter ; Messrs Law and M'Landress for those who signed the memorial in favor of the minister; and Mr Sutherland on his own behalf. The pleading on both sides was necessarily very lengthy, and of a recriminatory character ; but no new facts, beyond those already published, were brought out. A motion for adjournment was moved after midnight, and having been lost, The Rev A. H. Stoho said that as a member of the Synod who had not been involved in the case hitherto, he thought it best that one not belonging to the Dunedin Presbytery should move first in the matter, The Presbytery had been unable to kiome to a decision ; yet it had been in a position that the members of the Synod coming from a distance had not been it, viz., of having private dealings with both parties. Still he thought the Presbytery, in coming to the decision it had, that matters had reached a stage that co-operation between the parties was impossible, had been guided by their private opinions, lie was very loth to believe that matters had yet reached that pass ; and, as a

member of the Synod, he had not beard anything to show him that it was so. Before coming to a conclusion of that kind, in justice to themselves and the great interests of religion, the Synod had a duty to perform. Before taking any extreme course every means ought to be taken to effect a reconciliation if possible. As he had before said, it appeared to him the the Dunedin Presbytery had acted m >rc upon their private opinions than on any thing tangible, as brought before the Synod; and he had hopes that the Synod by private dealings with the parties might bring about a settlement. They had au advantage over the members of Presbytery, inasmuch a? they did not belong to' Dunedin, and could not be supposed to have any partiality, or be personally connected with either side. He was disposed, therefore, to move, “ That a committee of Synod be appointed to confer with Mr Sutherland and his office-bearers, with a view to bring about, if possible, a reconciliation ; and to report at a future sederunt.” With regard to Mr Sutherland himself, he thought he was entitled to credit for his independence and high tone, and for his determination to do his duty without regard to money power, or other considerations. He (Mr btobo) gave him great credit for a desire to do his ministerial work honestly and faithfully to the best of his ability ; at the same time he was led to believe that the evidence showed he had committed very great imprudences. Mr Geisow seconded the motion.

The Rev. Mr Gillies thought it would be well if one of the documents on the table were read to the Synod ; it showed the steps taken by the Presbytery of Dunedin in endeavoring to bring about a reconciliation. A t the private meeting two hours were spent with Mr Sutherland, and about the same time with the office-bearers. At the conclusion of the conferences a written message was sent to the office-bearers :—“ Will the officebearers agree to co-operate with Air Sutherland, provided he express his regret for past differences, and his willingness to act in harmony with the office-bearers as now constituted?” and the reply received was—- “ Believing, as we do, that the co-operation of the office-bearers with Mr Sutherland would not restore peace and harmony to the congregation, they feel shut up to the conclusion already expressed by their deputies, and after consideration confirm that conclusion.” To a message of similar import Mr Sutherland replied ; —“Air Sutherland declares that he is willing to co operate with the majority of the members of Session and Deacon’s Court if they are willing to cooperate with him, but there are two or three members of Session, and the same number of members of Deacon’s Court, in whom he has ceased to have confidence, from their being committed to his removal, and as is in his opinion very natural, he cannot cooperate with them in the service of God whilst they are in that mind.” Upon receiving these replies, the Presbytery came to the conclusion that there was no hope of reconciliation between the parties. It was also stated to the Presbytery that the resignation of the objectionable members of Deacon’s Court or Kirk Session would not be agreed to, as the office-bearers must either stand or fall together. Whilst it was ungracious to oppose a proposal' that of Mr Stobo’s, there should be something like a reasonable prospect of success; and after what had taken place in the Presbytery, and before the Synod adjourned, by doing which it would have to take up the whole matter again, it should consider well what it was doing. The Rev Mr Will thought it evident to every member of the Dunedin Presbytery that it would be hopeless to agree to the motion. The Presbytery’s decison was not a hasty one; they received both parties, almost entreated Air Sutherland to agree to terms which might bring about a reconciliatipij. T|ie Synod had the answers before ‘ ' The Rev Air Stuart agreed very muck with what Mr Will had stated ; at the same time he was not disposed to oppose Air Stobo’s motion, because a considerable number of members of Synod sympathised with it. He was, however, quite satisfied that unless the discussion that evening had effected a change in the minds of both parties, no good would result from it. What Mr Will had stated was a fact. Mr Sutherland was implored to make a trial, and say peccavi, to say thqT that bygones should be bygones ; to say that he was prepared to carry on the church work, as if things complained of had not occurred; but he had positively refused. He repeated, he did not expect any good to result from the motion. After some remarks by Messrs Ryley and Waters, it was agreed to appoint a committee, coiigisting.Qf Messrs and Stobo, ministers: Messrs Thomson, Brown, and Geisow, elders, to report at next sederunt.

To-dav. The Rev. Mr Stobo brought up the report of the committee appointed last to confer with Mr Sutherland and the office? bearers. He reported that the committee had completely failed to obtain the end for which they had been appointed, chiefly on the ground that Mr Sutherland would not admit that he had in any degree failed in exhibiting a due measure of Christian meekness and forbearance, and concluded by moving—“ That the Synod express its deep regret at the state of things existing in the First Church, as disclosed in the papers on the table and in the p'eadings at the bar ; find that this state of things is due largely to the course pursued by the minister ,■ regret that 1 instead of striving" to conciliate "those dissatisfied with " the course pursued by him, the minister has acted in a way rather to irritate and increase the alienation- of those dissatisfied with him ; find that from the statements made by the minister and other parties at the bar, as representing the sections into which the congregation is devided, there is no hope of a reconciliation between the minister and those dissatisfied with him, and that in consequence his usefulness is so impaired as to destroy all hope of his retaining the congregation originally committed to him, and therefore with a view to the interests of the congregation and of religion, and the good of the Church, the Synod recommend the minister to resign his present charge, ” Mr Millar, with a view to causing discussion, moved as an amendment that the office-bearers be also commended to resign. Mr Will intonated his intention to support the motion, because he did not think that anything had been done that required the resignation of the office-bearers. The latter did not take up their present position until they were thoroughly convinced that they could not act with their minister any longer in quietness and harmony—uptil they

were convinced that it was essential that such a change as that recommended should take place. He did not mean to say that the office-bearers had done nothing wrong; but they had done nothing to justify the implication that they were to blame for the present disorganised state of the congregati -n. He felt quite sure if Mr Sutherland had manifested that kind of spirit which he ought to have shewn, the officebearers were quite willing to try to forget and forgive the pa;t. It was not because of what had occurred in the past, but because of the conviction that Mr Sutherland continued to act in a spirit, which showed that it was utterly hopeless to expect peace to be restored. He urged that there were difficulties of a financial character in the way of the office-bearers resigning, inasmuch as they had become responsible for liabilities in connection with the erection of the First Church, on the understanding that the congregation would be continued in its importance. The Eev. Mr Waters was not satisfied with the motion, because it was not a fair deliverance. It only referred to one of the parties concerned; it overlooked that the office-bearers had done any wrong. By some it had been contended that there were other matters behind which required to be looked at; he did not think so, nor did he believe that there was any financial difficulties in the way of the office-bearers resigning. In his opinion there had been wrongs on both sides ; but the motion ignored that altogether, It appeared that a certain thipg was aimed at; but the motion would not secure it. It was plain that there was a majority of the congregation wlfh Mr Sutherland; and if they again elected him,' he would find office-bearers standing in his way, and thgrp would be no harmony. They were not tak* ing the means of securing peace, the ele. ments of which should be included in the deliverance.

Mr Ryley was not satisfied with the amendment, nor with the motion ; he was especially dissatisfied with the latter, which was harsh and severe, in reference to Mr Sutherland, whilst apparently there was a shield of protection thrown round the officebearers. There were faults on both sides. He had an amendment to propose—“ That the Synod having considered the reference from the Dunedin Presbytery anent First Church, express its regret that differences should have arisen between the pastor and a large number of his congregation; find that faults and irregularities have been committed by both parties ; and resolve for the good of the Church to ask the minister and office-bearers to resign ; and appoint assessors to form an interim kirk session.” He thought the strictures on Mr Sutherland contained in the motion were unfounded. He did not stand up to exonerate Mr Sutherland, because his firm conviction was that he had been imprudent, and he had told him so; but he had done nothing to warrant the Synod asking him to resign withot calling upon the office-bearers to do likewise. He went on to refer to the action of the Deacons* Court, which clearly showed that it had manifested a contumacious spirit ; to act right in the face of the pastor, and therefore he could not exonerate the office-bearers |rc,m blame. [A statement by the speaker was here called in question, and an animated discussion followed. Mr Ryley concluded by saying “ £ had better leave the Synod. I seldom ever rise to address a'few words to the Synod, but a whole host rise up against me. ”] What should form an element in the Synod’s decision was the fact that the majority of the congregation was with Mr Sutherland; and he believed a good many signatures to the office-bearers’ memorial would have been wanting if it had been known that the extreme measure no w advocated was intended. He questioned very much whether Mr Sutherland would accede even to the wish of the Synod if the motion were carried He knew if he were ip his place he would feel that he had been mf jured, and that the Supreme Court of t}pe Church was partial. To call upon both parr ties to resign at once was the only way by which the broach could be healed, and the First Church saved. Mr Watt could not agree with the amendment, because it was hinted that the officebearers were very much to blame, which he he did not think. There could not be any doubt that Mr Sutherland was more to blame than the office-bearers. Mr Ryley had gone too far in his remarks. He (Mr Watt) considered that the whole blame for the present disorganised state of the First Church rested on Mr Sutherland. It had been urged as an excuse that he had been subjected to provocation. That was no excuse, for a minister should be above provocation, and set an example of forbearance. In that respect he (Mr Watt) thought he had signally failed. Mr SpcAP r T hacj n}a4e up hjs jpiud to vofe for Mr MUlaris amendment. For the last two days he had had the conviction that the object in view was to heal the breach in the congregation. He had repeatedly expressed his conviction that Mr Sutherland throughout these proceedings had acted with extreme imprudence, extreme want of tact and practical wisdqm 5 £jo that jfc wo)|id have been a downright miracle if he had succeeded in preserving the order and prosperity of the congregation. He could remember when Mr Sutherland received the congregation, it included a large body of men better circumstanced than any other congregation as regards resources, &c.; and i r the space of four years the first' Dunedin congregation had become thoroughly disorganised, and he had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that M£ Sutherland should be earnestly recommended to withdraw from the ministration of that Chm-plp He did got sympathise with Mr Ryley in his views; and thought Mr Sutherland would withdraw when requested by the Synod to do so ; that he would not venture to maintain the position held by Mr Ryley, believing, as he did, that he (Mr Sutherland) had a regard to the peace and good of the Church—that as a loyal son of the Church he was bound to withdraw. (Mr Sutherland : “ Don’t he too sure.”) He concluded by pointing out that the adoption of Mr Millar’s amendment would allow of the healing of the breach ; of the divisions of the congregation uniting to select a new pastor. If Mr Sutherland had to resign, he would carry with him 300 people who were attached to him; he thought they were bound to do so. Mr Blake declined to vote for either of the amendments, as they implied censure on the office hearers, whom he thought undeserving of it. Dr Copland intended to vote for the motion. He attributed the existing state of affairs in the First Church to Mr Sutherland’s want of tact, want of judgment, and want of that power to manage men with success. There was also wanting in him that spirit of meekness and Christian forehcarauce which they had a right to look for

in a minister. He also defence 1 the officebearers from the charge of defying the minister’s authority. Mr Johnston supported the appointment of the office-bearers as managers, in the event of Mr Millar’s motion being carried. Mr Chisholm condemned Mr Sutherland’s action, and defended that of the officebearers at some length. Mr Todd intended to support Mr Millar’s amendment, saying that he felt sure that ministers who were the best judges of Mr Sutherland’s ministerial acts could not support it. He thought both parties resigning was the best way to promote peace in the future, and that seemed to be the view of ciders he had conversed with. Consequences had been referred to, but for his part he would rather see no First Church congregation at all than a continuance of the present state of things. We can only refer to the speeches of other members. Mr Bannerman defended the office-bearers from the charge of “ contumacy” preferred against them by Mr Ryley, and Messrs M'Naughton, M’Cosh Smith, and Gregg spoke in favor of Mr Sutherland. The vote was then taken. Mr Ryley s amendment on being put was declared lost, 13 voting for it and 22 against. Mr Millar’s amendment was then put against the original motion, and also declared 1 st—the ayes being 17 ; noes, 19. Mr Stobo’s motion was therefore carried, The Synod voted as follows on the motion ; For.—Ministers : Messrs Blake, Copland, Davidson, Gil ies, Johnson, Watt, Stevens, Will, Allan, Chishqlm, and Stobo. Elders : Messrs J. Grant, A, Todd, J. E. Brown, W. Duff, W. Jamieson, A. Johnston, J. W. Thomson, and F. H. Geiaow, Against.—Ministers : Messrs Baird, Christie, Clarke, Creig, M'Naughton, Ryley, Smith, Stuart, Todd, Connor, Waters, Alexander, Ross. Elders : Messrs G. Clark, S. Clark, J. Miller, and Captain Thomson. The Revds. Messrs Alves, Gow, and J. Bannerman, together with Mr G. Matthews declined to vote. The Presbytery of Dunedin voted—For : ministers, 7 ; elders 2. Against: ministers, 9 ; elders, 4. Presbytery of Clutha.—For ; ministers, 2; elders, 5. Against: ministers, 2. Presbyteiy of Southland.—For : ministers, 2 ; elders, 1. Ag dust: ministers, 2, Mr Sutherland then gave in his reasons for dissenting from the decision just arrived at: — 1. Because he has a clear and decided majority of members and adherents of between 70 and SO, one half of them at least being members. 2. Because it lays the blame of past disturbances upon the pastor, which be knows to be contrary to fact. 3 Because he knows it will not heal the breach but tends to widen and confirm it. 4. Because it seeks to sever the pastoral tie where no moral guilt or heresy has been laid to the {jastor’s eharge, and that in the face of a arge and deeply attached majority. : They will be considered at this evening’s sederant, commencing at 7 o’plocl*.