PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 584, 3 May 1876, Page 4

PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

Tuesday, May 2. * The Synod met at 11 o’clock in the forenoon, and was constituted by prayer. Sederunt—Ministers, Revs J. W, Cree (moderator), 0. Fraser, W. S. McGowan, W. McGregor, Wm. Douglas, W, B. Campbell, James Wilson, H. B. Burnett; elders, Mr John Miln, Mr W, Johnston, and Mr J. G. Fyfe. According to previous agreement, an hour was occupied in devotional exercises, conducted by the Moderator, the Rev W. S. McGowan, and the Rev Wm. Douglas. The minutes of the previous meeting were then read and confirmed. It was agreed to add to the name of Rev Joshua Macintosh the words “now laboring within the bounds. The Synod then sat in committee for the arrangement of business. On the Synod resuming, the clerk reported that the following order of business had been agreed upon—lst, business connected with St John’s Church, Lyttelton; 2nd, report of committee on Presbyterial visitations ; 3rd, overture from Timaru anent Ashburton; 4th, business from the West Coast; sth, report of committee on Synodical sustentation fund; 6th, report of committee on title deeds of church property ; 7th, deputation from Church Extension Association ; Bth, report of committee on Sabbath schools—the last twp matters to be taken up on Wednesday evening. The Synod then took up the subject of protest, and appeal from petitioners in Lyttelton (asking to be allowed to provide a church station in Lyttelton) against the decision of the Presbytery of Christchurch. The Rev W. McGregor, clerk of the Presbytery of Christchurch, was allowed to read extract minutes of Presbytery, and all papers in his possession connected with the affairs of 8t John’s, Lyttelton. Mr John Grubb, Captain Hugh McLellan, and Mr W. Pitoaithly, were heard in support of the petition. They spoke at some length, and referred to the small attendance at Mr McGowan’s church, in consequence of his unpopularity, and preferred many complaints against him, the principal of which was that he neglected his parishioners. The Rev Mr McGowan replied at length to the various charges brought against him, and in reference to the petition generally. He said the people of Lyttelton were not desirous of such a station as that asked for ; not that he was in the confidence of those particular persons who had made the application. Indeed, the matter had never been brought before the Presbyterians of Lyttelton as it should have been. This he considered a great mistake, as the proper course would have been to have brought it under the consideration of the minister, who was accustomed to the modes of bringing matters before Synods and Presbyteries, and therefore would have been fittest to have given them advice as to how they should get their various documents drawn up, and so forth If their object was a fair and honourable one why did they not consult him. Instead of telling him openly what they wanted, they had gone about behind his back with a, lot of childish tittle tattle, vilifying him in his absence, finding fault with him, and endeavouring in that way to poison the minds of any of his congregation who would listen to them. He had even been told that some of them on a Sabbath morning, wben they had been strolling about the wharves with their pipes in their mouths, had made the remark to strangers enquiring for the church, “Oh I what is the use of your going there. You won’t get any good there.” This he had heard of some of them. This sort of thing had been goirg on for years. They had done their utmost to draw people away from his church, and undid any good that he might have been endeavoring to do. They had even advised the people not to go to the church on the ground that he was getting old. Well, what of that ? and why should the minister of Lyttelton, or anywhere else, be ashamed of getting old. He feared they had forgotten to read their Bibles, or they would learn what St Paul had said upon that subject. There was another mailer which had been alluded to, and to which he would like to refer. The petitioners said they could derive no benefit from the preaching of the minister. And he would a»k how could they expect to ? As long as they were what they were, and the Gospel was what it is, how could they expect to derive any benefit from the preaching. If they wonld be benefited, a very great and decided change must take place in them. He would tell them that frankly and seriously. As for their petition for a preaching station at Lyttelton, the minister of that place had no reason to deprecate the granting of it. It would take away none from his church that would be worth {retaining ; but only a few not worth having. Still he would like to know whether that was really the motive—whether it was desired to take away part of his congregation, and whether they had ever asked God’s blessing in this matter. If not, he did not see how they would expect such a station to prosper. If the Synod or the Presbytery—and he thought it Was a matter for the Presbytery—granted the application without very serious consideration, they would be very much to blame. Still, they could grant the petition if they saw their way to do so, allow the station, and then see what would come of it. Let them strive which should do the most for the conversion of souls, the church at Lyttelton or the preaching station. He would not stand in the way of the granting of the petition, for he had sufficient means, he was thankful to say, to be independent of them. At the same time he would ask them to count the result well before they granted it on the terms asked for by the petitioners. Mr M'Lellan replied to many of the remarks of the Rev Mr M'Gowan, particularly in reference of his alleged neglect in not visiting b m (Mr M'Lellan) in time of sickness and when in affliction. The latter averred that he had not been in his house at the very outside four times, while Mr M'Gowan rep’ied that he had been many many times, but that Mr M ‘Lellan was always out. Mr M'Lellan said he had often expressed a wish to have a minister visit his dwelliug, but not Mr M'Gowan. In consequence of not having visited him in sickness and affliction and for other reasons he had withdrawn his subscription of five pounds a year towards the snstentation fund. The Rev Mr Fraser thought the consideration of the particulars of this case should be discussed in committee. The reason he was of this opinion was because they could give the matter so much fuller consideration if discussed in private. ■He wonld move the adjournment of the Synod.

The Rev Wm. Douglas, of Alcaroa, did not agree with Mr Fraser that this was a matter which should be discussed in private. There wn Uttli quwuon vhct,»» m«, mi

constituted at present, it could deal with the subject either in public or in private. As it had began publicly, he thought it should be finished in the same way. After some discussion, Rev Mr Fraser’s motion for adjournment was agreed to. It was resolved that the question should afterwards be discussed in committee, but that the petitioners from Port Lyttelton should be allowed to be present during the discussion, in order to know what took place. The Synod resumed at 3 o’clock, and went into committee, the Rev Mr McGowan in the chair, to consider the case of protest and appeal from the decision of the Presbytery of Christchurch on the petition from Lyttelton. On the Synod resuming, the Rev Mr Cree again took the chair, and the clerk reported the finding of the committee—“ That the Synod having found that the appellants withdraw any expressions that may be found unsuitable, remit simpliciter to the Presbytery of Christchurch, the case of the appellants, to consider and decide on the whole matter without reference to the Synod, and instruct the Presbytery of Christchurch to meet forthwith for the decision of this case.” The Rev Chas. Fraser moved that this remit be approved of, which was agreed to. The Synod then adjourned until 7 o’clock.