DUNEDIN PRESBYTERY.

Evening Star, Issue 3219, 14 June 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

DUNEDIN PRESBYTERY.

Tbfl Presbvterv met in the lower hall of the Church; on Wednesday, 4th. The sederunt was constituted by the Moderator (the Rev Mr Blake) and the Revs, Messrs Will, Copland, Gow, Johnston, Stuart, Greig, Watt, Davidson, and Gillies (Clerk), ministers, lie elders present were Messrs Duncan, Wales, Rennie, Millar, and Souness. ALLEGED HKBBBT IN THE CHURCH. The Clerk said that, in pursuance of a reference from the kirk session of Knox Church, Mr John Logan had been cited to appear before the Synod. Mr Logan being in attendance, the matter would then be proceeded with. The object of the reference would be gathered from the following papers, with which the remit was accompanied On February 4, the Moderator of the kirk session of Knox Church brought under the session’s notice that Mr Legan was reported in the Press to have been on the platform of the Queen’s Theatre, during Mr Peebles’s lecture on the Sunday previous; that thereupon a committee was appointed, which waited upon Mr Logan, and reported on the following day to th* effect that when they waited upon him to express their strong disapproval of his conduct, he avowed his right to appear where he did on the Saturday and Sunday previous, and i efused to abstain from such conduct in the future ; and that, “notwithstanding such remonstrance and disapproval, he, on a subsequent Sunday, appeared on the platform of the Theatre when Dr Dunn propounded doctrines abhorrent _to holders-of the Christian faith, thereby causing great scandal, and affording a bad example to members of the Qhurch, and giving just reason for impugning his soundness in the faith. At a subsequent interview with the committee, Mr Logan admitted that he was present, as reported, at Mr Peebles’s lecture on Feb. 2 I but j his appearance on the stage on the evening in question was owing to want of room in the body of the house, and ho claimed the right to take any place he chose at such lectures on the Saturday and Sabbath. On the committee trying to show him that in occupying such a prominent position he gave the community and the Church grounds for regarding him as a patron and promoter of doctrines which, as reported in the papers of the day, are antagonistic to the doctrines of our Church, which, as an office-bearer, he was pledged to maintain. The committee observed that “it was but right to add that he disclaimed agreement With all the doctrines of Mr Peebles.” Mr Logan was summoned to appear before the session on March 10, to answer the charge preferred against him ; and on receiving notice, he applied to be heard by counsel, “as at present it maybe said there are about seventeen against one and as he was anxious that there should be no mistake as to what took place before the session, he intimated his intention of employing a reporter, if there was no objection. In reply, the Kirk session referred him to the practice of the Free Church of Scotland as to the admission and position of counsel at meetings of session ; and in reference to his other application, reminded him that such meetings were not usually open to the public or even to members of the congregation ; but, added the session clerk, “ You may rest assured that the rules laid down for the guidance of Church Courts will be adhered to in your case.” Mr Logan, on March 8, repeated his request to be heard by counsel. I need,” wrote he, “not enter further into the particulars of my case, but most respectfully submit that my request, which is reasonable and in accordance with the usual in such cases, should be granted. The session is a large body—prosecutor and judges. lam alone, and I may say with the Psalmist, outside ‘ mine enemies compass me about,’ &c., or are trying to do so.” The session met on March 10, and the first business it entered upon was to consider Mr Logan’s application to be heard by counsel, in reference to which the following re solution was carried: —“ That as the session meets as a court of conscience on the present occasion, and a< this meeting is mainly for consultation and inquiry, the request cannot be granted.” Mr Logan being in attendance, the following question was put to bim“As the session is unanimously of opinion that by the position you took at the lectures of Messrs Peebles and Dunn, you compromised the Church of which you are a deacon, I have to

uk, as Moderator, do you regret the support you thereby gave to those teacher* who, according to the papers of the day, have assaulted Christianity and h*ld up to ridicule some of the doctrines of this Church?” To which Mr Logan replied: “In replying to your question, I don’t admit or deny the statement in it regarding the heretical teachings of Messrs. Peebles and Dunn. I admit being on the platform at the two meetings referred to, I regret differing with the session as to the propriety of attending them; but don’t regret having dune so, on the ground that I had a right to be there. If I can see that it is consistent with my rights or religious liberty, I will in future abstain from appearing on the platform in deference to the sentiments of the session.” This further question was put: “ Do you not, on the ground of Christian expediency and propriety, and in deference to the sentiments of the session, deem it to be your duty as an office-bearer of the Church, to cease from attendance at the lectures delivered by Mr Peebles and Dr Dunn, which attendance, in the opinion of the session, greatly compromise* the Church of which you are an office-bearer ; and do you promise to cease attendance accordingly?” Mr Logan asked time to consider his answer, and oa the 13th the following paper was handed in by him as his answer: “ The question, I respectfully submit, is outside of the charge made against me. I shall reply to it, but for various reasons I think it a very unfair question. I embody my reply in the following observations : —The session has not, so far as I am aware, anything to rely upon but newspaper reports of lectures delivered by the Rev. J. M. Peebles, and Dr. E. C. Dunn. It is well known that these reports are not, nor do they profess to be full reports. Yet, conclusions are freely drawn from them tending to lead people to believe the lectures were such that it was improper for any person to have attended them; whereas, Messrs Peebles and Dunn are doing a great Christian work, and laboring hard and disinterestedly, with Cod’s help, to elevate mankind, and I believe that it will not be very long before that must be acknowledged by the session, and by those people outside, who at present “ speak evil of those thing* which they know not.” The session may afterwards have cause deeply to regret that they ever asked me to take a step directly insulting to two eminently Christian men and strangers, contrary to the example and precepts of our Lord. I have heard all the lectures, and am not aware of a word having been spoken not calculated to make a man better here and hereafter. The reverend gentlemen, perhaps, have labored more devotedly for mankind than Mr Peebles (see his life). Still the great majority of professing Christians would ‘ forbid him ’ to lecture, and forbid people to go to hear him, because in all things he may not do and say as they think he should. I am, therefore, shut up -having the interest of the session and ths Church in view—respectfully ; but at the same time must decidedly decline to promise not to attend any lecture which may hereafter be delivered by the Rev J. M. Peebles or Dr Dunn. I believe in free and full inquiry, public and private, and that there is no subject so sacred that it should not be discussed to the Utmost extent; and however much we may tremble for the ark of truth, every ordeal through which it goes must make it like the mighty oak, firmer than before. If any belief or opinion fail to stand these trials, they are utterly worthless, and I would not hesitate fervently to pray that they might he swept away with the besom of destruction. Plenty of people go with me for free inquiry and discussion in theory, but the world has suffered greatly, especially in our day, when the very foundations of our faith are being laid bare by men not practically carrying out these views. The following questions were put by the Moderator, and the answers are annexedDo you adhere to the statement in this document as your answer to the second question?— Yes. Do you not, on the ground of Christian expediency and propriety, and in deference to the sentiments of the session, deem it to he your duty, as an officebearer of the Church, to cease from prominent attendance on the platform at the lectures delivered by Mr Peebles and Dr Dunn, which attendance, in the opinion of the session, greatly compromises the Church of which you are an office-bearer; and do you promise to cease attendance accordingly f—ln daterence to the views of the session, I agree to abstain from appearing on the platform in future. Mr Logan was allowed to withdraw. On March 14, the following reaolution was sent to Mr Logan:—“The session having considered the answers and statement of Mr Logan in reply to questions put by the session, their dissatisfaction with the ssmo asexplanations of tiie conduct complained of, and pending further investigation and consideration, unanimously request Mr Logan to forbear taking his place at the Communion Table on Sabbath the 16th instant; and instruct the Clerk to communicate tiie resolution to Mr Logan.” Steps were taken to ascertain whether the reports read were correct, and Messrs Bell and Spencer,

of the Stab, and Mr Wilson, of the Daily Tims, testified they were substantially so. At a subsequent Conference, the Moderator called Mr Logan*s attention to the following sentences in the written statement handed in to the session at the meeting of the 13th inst. “ The session may afterwards have cause deeply to regret that they ever asked me to take a step directly insulting to two eminently Christian men and strangers —contrary to the example and precepts of our Lord. I hare heard all the lectures, and am not aware of a word having been spoken not calculated to make men better here and hereafter, Do you adhere to that statement?--1_ do. I have to call your attention to a report m the Morning Star of March 3 inst. of a lecture delivered by Dr Dunn on the 2nd inst.; were you at that lecture ?—I was. To the best of your recollection was the subject of the lecture “ Jesus of Nazareth : who and what was he, and from whence hi* power?” Yes, The Moderator read the report of the lecture from the Morning Star of March 3, To the best of your recollection wtE tie views and opinions contained in the report of the lecture just read, the views advanced by Dr Dunn at the lecture in question ? —I can’t answer it; the STAR s reports were generally inaccurate. I found fault with them as being inaccurate. Did V r Dunn, to the best of your recollection, at that lecture deny the divinity of our Lord? I think he treated him more as a man. In the lecture in question did Dr Dunn deny the doctrine of the Trinity ?- He may have done, but I took no particular notice. Do you recollect whether he denied the doctrine of original sin. He may have done, but I took no_ particular notice. Did he deny the doctrine of the Atonement ?—I cannot recollect what he said about the Atonement, Do you remember whether, as according to this report, he denied the doctrine of eternal punishment ?—My belief is he did believe in eternal punishment. Do you recollect whether he ridiculed the accepted interpretation of the Scriptures in regard to these doctrines? —My recollection is that he did not. At that lecture did he teach that the accepted Saviour of mankind was simply a man, but superior to all men ; and the works he did were now performed by true and good men who lived to benefit the world ? Ho may have talked in that strain, but I have no notes of what he said. If Dr. Dunn advocated the views as stated in the paragraph read f om the Morning Star of March 3, would you characterise those teachings as “calculated to make men better here and hereafter?”—l don’t agree with all that Dr. Dunn said in ihat lecture, but I believe his aim and object -was toe elevation of the race. Will Mr Logan explain more particularly what ho means by tke expression “ calculated to make better,” and more particularly the word calculated? —That his aim was the elevation of the race. The Moderator then read the extracts from Mr Peebles’s lecture as reported in the Daily Tims of Feb. 3, and asked “In view of what I have read from the Daily Times o' Feb. 3, and the Moening Star of March 3, do you hold that these teachings of Mr Peebles and Dr. Dunn are fitted to make men better here and hereafter?”—To which Mr Logan replied, “I speak generally, I don’t attach so much importance, perhaps, to doctrines, as people generally. I refer more to their instructions apart from their doctrines, and I consider that their tendency is in the right direction.” The following resolution was also drafted to Mr Logan on March 31;—“ The session having considered the whole circumstances of the case as regards Mr Logan, resolve that the matter is of such gravity as to warrant its reference to the Presbytery, in accordance with chapter 6 of the Forms of Process, and resolve accordingly; instruct the Clerk to forward the Clerk of Presbytery all necessary extracts from the minutes of the session, and all relative documents; and further request the Moderator to take charge of the case when it goes before the Presbytery, It is further resolved that the Clerk be instructed to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr Logan, and to inform him that in the meantime he is suspended from the office of the deaconship. ” On the motion of the Rev. Dr Stuart, it was agreed that the reference should be sustained. Dr Stuart, as representing the kirk session, epoke in support of the reference. He said he regretted very much that cause had arisen in Knox Church for occupying the attention of the Presbytery. They would gather from the papers just read that the matter of reference was of such a grave nature as to warrant the Church bringing it up before them. Mr Logan was a very old friend of his. He was one of the few men in Dunedin whom he had known ever

since his arrival here, and from time to time he had had a great deal of conversation with him upon various subjects. He had been an officebearer of Knox Chuich for the last twelve or thirteen years. He was a man who was very outspoken in the matter of his views. Dr Smart was aware that for some years he had been studying the subject of Spiritism, and times without number had had discussions with him about the doctrines of Spiritualism as these had reached Otago, For a time his study of these views did not interfere with his Christian doctrine. He had no reason to find fault with Mr Logan for the interest he manifested in the subject. When the subject was first started in Australia, Mr Logan manifested a great desire to get it introduced into Otago. Even then he did not find fault with him for bringing their men here. No sooner did Mr Smith, the Spiritualist, come to Dunedin, than Mr Logan began to manifest tendencies of an anti-Christian character. Attention was drawn to the subject, and Mr Logan was mildly remonstrated with, and begged to abstain from giving public countenance to the opinions taught by Mr Smith. Up to this time his (Dr. Stuart’s) imnression was that the predilections manifested by Mr Logan for the teachings of Mr Smith, and his persistence in countenancing the same, arose from some sort of romantic ideas about the freedom of opinion. Then came the two other advocates of Spiritism, Messrs Peebles and Dunn, to whom Mr Logan rendered alt the services that lay in his power. Personally, he (Dr Stuart) was glad to have had an opportunity for hearing the dogmas*of Spiritualism, pure and simple. It became clear, however, from their proceedings in the theatre, that they were the apostles of a Spiritualism material and infidel. (Hear, hear.) As the minister of Knox Church, he was bound to do his utmost to defend the principles of the Church, and he accordingly drew the attention of the kirk session, as they had heard from the papers just read, to the position Air Logan occupied at that lecture on the Sunday evening. The result was the session appointed himself and Mr Rennie to wait upon Mr Logan. They met Mr Logan in a friendly manner, and pointed out to him the tact that, unintentionally or otherwise, he was bringing an ill reproach upon the Church. Mr Logan received them in his own house, and treated them both hospitably and kindly, and entered freely upon the subject of their visit. They endeavored to reason him into the belief that the position he had taken up was extremely unfair to the Church of which he was an office-bearer. He (Mr Logan) claimed the right to take the position he had done at these lectures. Of course they could not deny his right te attend the lectures, but they pointed out to him that, as an office-bearer of Knox Church, he had given in his adherence to doctrines that were sharply defined, doctrines which he was pledged and which he had voluntarily promised to maintain. They also pointed out to him that he was doing himself an injustice, and the Church an extreme injustice, by openly fraternising with these apostles of infidelity. It had been said that he (Dr. Stuart) himself had manifested a kindly feeling towards these men. In the course of his duties he was necessarily brought into contact with many men; and amongst others, he was brought into contact with Mr Peebles, who called upon him, and to whom he rendered some services, i ersons of a very tender cast of conscience looked upon this as a serious offence ; but all that he (Dr. Stuart) would say is, that, if it was a fault, it was a fault which leaned to virtue’s side. He had an hour or two’s discussion with Mr Peebles as to his doctrines, which was the means of convincing him that these were far from being orthodox. As would be gathered from the documents read, the Kirk session decided upon bringing Mr Logan before them. Mr Logan did appear before them, the result being the session could come to no other conclusion than that Mr Logan, both in feeling and conviction, had departed from the orthodox faith. At his own request, and in order that bis answers might not be made on the spur of the moment, he was allowed time to consider the questions put to him by the session. The answer handed in in writing, as set forth in the documents produced and read, was handed to the session by himself ; and he (Dr Stuart) ventured to say that it was extremely damaging to him ; at all events, that was the impression it left on the minds of the session. In carrying on the case, the session was extremely anxious to reach the conscience and convictions of Mr Logan ; and every effort was made to get him to withdraw the statement, but he would not. They felt it to be painfnl in the highest degree that Mr Logan could have written sueh a document, and ■till more painful to find him adhere to it. Again and again he expressed his firm adherence to the statements contained in that paper, and the session was shut up to take up further

proceedings in the matter. Mr Logan says, in the paper, that it is not fair to judge these men by the garbled reports of their lectures which appeared in the newspapers. They had satisfied themselves that these reports, although not full reports, are nevertheless substantially fair abstracts. Gentlemen by whom these reports had been prepared had been called before the session and testified to their authenticity. And here he (Dr Stuart) wished to say one word. A great deal had been said about newspapers and newspaper men. He was aware that, in many instances, they were extremely unsound ana sceptical in their views and doctrines. To the credit, however, of these men, he said that on being requested to appear before the lowest Court of the Presbyterian Church they at once complied, and gave the session such assistance as was required of them. After making more pointed allusion to the evidence given before the session by Messrs Bell, Spencer, and Wilson, the speaker continued to say that some of the views put forward in the lectures by Messrs Peebles and Dunn were in direct opposition to the doctrines of the Bible and several of the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church. They denied the fundamental principles of the Gospel, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity. But why, he continued to say, should they go over all those ? It seemed to him that those gentlemen had proved enough to justify them in suspending Mr Logan. No doubt it would be said Mr Logan never admitted his rejection of the divinity of Christ, of the Atonement, of the Trinity, &c. It was, however, quite impossible to reconcile his conduct and conversation with the principles of the Church. Want of strict adherence with the doctrines of the Church by its professing members was calculated to operate most prejudicially upon the minds of the rising generation. It was a painful position for him (Dr Stuart) to occupy, to have to stand up and make the statements he had done about an old friend and office bearer of the Church of which he had been a minister for the last thirteen years, but he felt that the doctrines of the Church must be maintained, even at the cost and sacrifice of all such considerations as those of private friendship. The matter was now fairly before the Court, consequently it was unnecessary for him to say anything more, A question arose as to whether the Presbytery would proceed to a final decision on the case, or after taking certain steps, remit it back again to the kirk session. After the point had been discussed, it was decided to proceed with the case, leaving their final decison in the matter to be decided by such facts as might be elicited. Air Logan was then called upon, and said that beseemed to misunderstand the object of the case. So far as he understood the case, ho was charged with having occupied a seat upon the platform of the Queen’s Theatre, on a certain Sunday night, during the delivery of a lecture upon Spiritism by Messrs Peebles and Dunn, In the statement of the case that had just been submitted to the Presbytery, Dr Stuart, as Moderator of the kirk session, had travelled out a very considerable distance from the question. He had dwelt at great length upon a paper sent in, in reply to a question put to him by the session. As he understood the proceeding, he was not charged upon any statement that appeared in that paper. The charge had no reference to that reply. The question raised was about his having been sitting in the Queen’s Theatre on a particular night, it was not about any reply to any question. The Rev. Mr Will : The whole case is before the Presbytery. You are here to answer to all the statements set forth in the papers produced in the reference. You may either answer these charges, or say nothing, as you think fit. Mr Logan ; I cannot say anything until I know what is the precise nature of the charge. Mr Will : In the meantime we will hear what you have got to say in reference to these papers. In the meantime, you are simply asked to reply to anything Dr Stuart may have said about you, or that the papers contained in the reference from the session brings against you. Mr Millar; I scarcely think it is right to hurry Air Logan into an answer. If he has come here unprepared to answer all that is contained in these papers, it is hardly fair to force him on to a full explanation of the full question to-night. Mr Will : It is absurd to say that Mr Logan is not prepared to answer the statements contained in these papers. He must have had the whole thing on his mind for months past. To my mind the whole case seems to be plain enough. If Mr Logan asks the Presbytery lor time, then let his request be made explicitly. Mr Logan got clue notice that the subject would be taken up and considered at this time, and he was invited to be present, practically he was summoned to attend and answer the charge. He is not bound to say one word if he does not choose to do so. If Mr Logan says he is not prepaied to go into the case, then how does it come that he seems to consider it one of a very simple nature ? Air Gillies (clerk): The case stands thus: Mr Logan was first charged before the session with having publicly countenanced Messrs Peebles and Dunn, on a Sunday evening, at the delivery of a lecture, at which doctrines of an anti-Christian character were promulgated. Upon being brought before the session, he elected to send in a written answer to the charge. The written document goes still further, and acknowledges that MrLogan wishes “God-speed” to these men and their doctrines. Upon that admission being made, the session finally resolved upon remitting the whole question to the Presbytery. Air Logan has all along known this to be the case. He has had in his possession the copy of a minute to that effect. Mr Logan: I consider that it is unfair to make the charge against me before the session, and then when I come here before the Presbytery, to prefer another charge. I have stated over and over again that I did not agree with everything taught by Messrs Peebles and Dunu. Dr Stuart made a statement regarding an endeavor made to induce me to withdraw that paper, which is hardly correct. In a private communication I received from Dr Stuart, in which he recommended me to withdraw my reply, that recommendation was coupled with something I looked upon as insulting. With regard to Messrs Peebles and Dunn, all I can say is that I regard their views a little more charitably than you, gentlemen, think should be done. I do not believe in all they taught, I do not believe in being tied strictly up to a belief in any dogma. Even in the matter of a Presbyterian Church sermon, I do not always agree with everything it contains, In fact, I very seldom agree with everything that is said in your own pulpits. A very great deal of error indeed is taught from these pulpits. Still, I believe that, as a whole, their sermons have a tendency in the direction of good. Dr Moran, the Roman Catholic Bi hop, is, I believe, the best preacher in Dunedin, but I should be very sorry indeed to say that I agree with all Dr Moran says.- -(Laughter.) Still, I think Bishop Aloran does good, and that hi* preaching has a tendency to elevate the community. I consider, then, that I have a perfect light to say the same thing about Messrs Peebles and Dunn. With regard to Spiritualism itself, I tiduk it is the very thing the Church wants now. It is generally admitted that there is something seriously wrong in the Church. Perhaps I know a little more of the opinions of your congregations than you ministers do. Generally speaking, when persons fti e speaking to you ministers, they color their opinions. If you got their real opinions, you would find that very few of your congregations agree with the Confession of Faith. I see by the last number of the Evangelist that Spiritualism is dead, ana that its funeral oration has been pronounced. Now, if that is true, and Spiritualism be dead, I think the least the Presbytery can do is to send the case back to the session and censure its members for taking up the time of ministers in this way. There are a good many other points I might have touched upon, but I have kept you too long already, more especially as I am not exactly prepared with a set speech. The case is, indeed, an odd one, and I may also tell you that I believe it has been laid hold of for ulterior purpose. Another thing : I am told that several members of Presbytery have been consulted about this case, and having given their opinion upon it, they must be looked upon as having prejudged it. I would, therefore, ask that these gentlemen would not have anything to do with adjudicating upon the case. I think you will admit that that is only fair to all parties. I am also given to understand that an ecclesiastical lawyer has been consulted #n behalf of the prosecution, and certainly I do think that I had a perf. ct right to expect that you would allow me to be represented by coua sel, sc that the matter might have been fully gone into. The Church is sometimes considered to be a little narrow in its views, but I do not think it is quite so narrow as to prevent one of its member* attending a public lecture and forming his opinions on the subject of it. I do not intend troubling you any further in the matter. Dr Stuart said that Mr Logan had questioned the truth of a statement made by him, to the effect that every endeavor had been made to get him (Mr Logan) to withdraw the written answer. It was quite true the request was not made to him in so many words ; but certainly the object of their repeated interview* and

remonstrances was to get him to withdraw the statement. Mr Will : When you became a member of the Deacons’ Court of Knox Church, did you subscribe to the following questionslst. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the only rule of faith and manners: and 2nd. Do you sincerely own and declare the Confession of Faith, approved by former General Assemblies of this Church, to be the confession of our faith, and do you own the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which you will certainly adhere to ?” Mr Logan ; There was a certain formula read over, but I do nob remember what it was. Mr Will : Do you approve of what is stated in these questions ? Answer, yes or no. Mr Logan : We did give our consent to something. Mr Will : Mr Logan, that answer will not satisfy the Presbytery. Did you or did you not subscribe to these questions ? Mr Gillies : It can be proved that he did, from the records of the kirk session, which arc here. Mr Logan : I cannot remember definitely the words that were used on the occasion. Mr Will, after reading the question again, said he would press for an answer, yes or no. Mr Logan : Well, yes, I believe I did. Mr Will ; Then you subscribed to the articles contained in the Confession of Faith ? Mr Logan : Yes. According to my own interpretation. Mr Will : You comitted yourself to support the doctrines of the Church.as contained in this Confession of Faith? Mr Logan : Yes, I did, but I did it in accordance with my own interpretation. Mr Will : In going on to the platform with Messrs Peeb es and Dunn, did you understand you were supporting their teachings? Mr Logan : Only to a certain extent. In reply to other questions put by Mr Will, Mr Logan said: That he considered that Peebles and Dunn might be Christian men, even although they did not hold with the doctrines as taught by him (Mr Will); that he had stated over and over again that he did not approve of all that Messrs Peebles and Dunn had said. Moreover, he had told Mr Peebles that he did not think he followed the right course in his lectures. He (Mr Logan) believed the doctrines of the Trinity as interpreted by himself. Mr Gillies : Do you believe in the divinity of Christ ? Mr Logan : I believe he was divine. Mr Gillies : That he was God equal with the Father ? Mr Logan : That 'is a point I scarcely com prebend. I believe he was divine. Mr Gillies : Do you believe him to have been divine in the same sense that Moses was divine ? Mr Logan : I’ll not say. Mr Gillies : Then am I understand you to say that you cannot make any distinction between the divinity of Christ and the divinity of Moses ? Is that the case. Mr Logan : I do not make these fine distinctions.—(A laugh.) In ca ling the audience to order, the Modebatok expressed his regret that a subject so painfully solemn should be thus lightly treated. Mr Gilli s : Do you believe that the difference is one of extent or one of degree ? Mr Logan : I never went into the subject so very deeply as all that. Mr Will : is very desirable that we should know your opinion more fully on that point. Do you believe that Jesus Christ existed as a person before he was born at Bethlehem ? Mr Logan : That’s another very deep passage in theology. Mr Watt : Do you believe he did or did not? . Mr Logan ; It’s rather too deep for m«. Mr Gillies ; Do you believe tnat Christ is the very God of very God, or that he is as much man as God. Mr Logan : I never found out anybody yet who understood that deep part in theology (and on being further interrogated) : I do not think it is fair to bring me here on a certain charge, and then put such questions as those to me. There is no charge of heresy preferred against me that lam aware of. All that can be said is that I am a little more advanced in my views than the Church. Mr Gillies ; Or rather you should say you have advanced beyond the teachings of the

Church. On being further interrogated by Mr Gillies, Mr Logan said that his views of what a minister ought to be were that when he.went into the pulpit he should be free to say what he thought, and not be tied down as he was in either one direction or the other. Mr Gillies : Tied down neither to Scripture nor anything else ? Mr Logan : Yes. The congregation should be left to judge of the soundness or otherwise of his teachings. Mr Gillies : Then you claim for ministers the right to preach anything they please, whether it be sense or nonsense ? Mr Logan: I have often heard things preached from the pulpit which I did not think were in accordance with Scripture. Mr Gillies : Then, as a member of the Church, it was your bouuden duty to call the attention of the Presbytery to the matter. Mr Logan : Why, I never remember hearing a single sermon which was altogether in accordance with Scripture. Had I laid informations against them all, I would have had little else to do. Mr Gillies : Then your opinion seems to be that all our ministers are heretical? You certainly do not seem ro agree with the teachings of the ministers of this Church. Mr Logan ; I think I have heard you yourself preaching a sermon in Knox Church on Election, with one word of which I did not agree. Mr Will : You stated, I believe, that you considered our Lord Jesus Christ was divine ? Mr Logan ; I have already given my views on that point. Mr Will: Never mind that. Let me have your opinion again. Mr Logan : I must protest against this. I was only brought here to answer a charge of having appeared on a certain platform ou a certain occasion. Mr Will : You acknowledged Jesus Christ to be divine ? Mr Logan : Well, yes. I think I said so. Mr Will : Do you think that you yourself are divine ? Mr Logan: Yes; I think there is a good deal of divinity iu me. Mr Will : Do you think Messrs Peebles and Dunn wore divine ? Mr Logan: Yes. Mr Johnston : Do you believe that Christ is God? Mr Logan : I gave my answer to that before. Mr Johnston : Then repeat it. Mr Logan : My answer was that Christ was divine. Mr Johnston : My question is a very simple one. I simply ask you if you believe that Christ is God? Mr Logan : Then my answer simply is that I adhere to my previous reply. Parties having been removed from the Bar, the case was proceeded with. After various members had expressed their views on the matter, Mr Gillies said he rose to propose a motion. Mr Logan had endeavored to make light of this matter, a matter which he regarded as one of serious solemn importance. The mode resorted to by Mr Logan in answering the questions put to him was most dishonest. In his opinion, the matter ought never to have been brought before that Court. The session ought to have dealt with the matter itself. He concluded by moving the resolution which appeared in our Thursday’s issue. The Rev. Mr Gow seconded the motion, after which it was supported by the Rev. Dr COPLAND, and passed unanimously. Mr Gillies said that it was due to the session of Knox Church to say that in the opinion of the Presbytery they had dealt with this unfortunate circumstance with firmness and judgment. The sentence, as adopted, was then read over. Mr Logan ; I beg to give notice of my intention to appeal to the Synod. Mr Gillies : In the meanwhile the sentence as pronounced will take effect, pending the appeal to the Synod. You (Mr Logan) are hereby cited to appear before the Synod at its meeting in January next. In the meantime your reasons of dissent must be sent in to me as Clerk within ten days, otherwise your appeal will be held to have fallen to the ground. The Presbytery then adjourned. Six twelve-ton guns, for the defence of the Sydney Heads, have been landed safely. A consignment of Paliiser shot and shell has all* arrived. A Dandenong Black, known as Bill Mooney, was discharged by the City Bench on a charge of drunkenness. The sam* day he got more drink, and became so boisterous that he was again locked up for insulting behaviour. He pleaded that it was "all same drunk/’ and •n promising to go back to Dandenong he was again discharged,