ST. ANDREW’S CHURCH.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2706, 9 December 1882, Page 3

ST. ANDREW’S CHURCH.

A special meeting of the congregation of the above church was held last evening, in pursuance of a resolution of the Kirk Sessions, for the purpose of appointing additional trustees to the church and manse grounds and for other business. The meeting was called for half-past seven o’clock, at which hour about thirty persons were present, but the attendance after wards increased to about 100. The proceedings began shortly before eight o’clock, when the Rev, Charles Fraser took the chair. Mr McHaffie at once rose, and said that before the meeting commenced he had a very painful duty to perform. He had received a letter from the Clerk of the Presbytery of Christchurch, intimating to him, and through him to the congregation, that the Rev. Charles Fraser had been suspended by the Presbytery from the position of minister of the congregation, and that consequently he was not warranted in presiding at any Church meeting or Church Court. If the meeting desired it he would read the letter. The Rev. C. Fraser—There is no necessity to read it. It was read at the church

door on Sunday. Wo need not repeat these things. We are all very well aware of it. Lot us pray. The rev. gentleman then opened the meeting with prayer. The Rev. C. Fraser said the first thing he wished to do was to read the resolution calling the meeting. [Read.] Since then the Kirk Session had held a meeting and they found that it was necessary that there should be a roll of communicants, made up to the last communion, and also a roll of adherents before trustees could be appointed. They were taking care for various reasons to have that roll formed, and therefore did not propose that evening to proceed with the appointment of trustees. He was very anxious to take that opportunity of making a statement to them on his own behalf. They were aware that certain charges had been made and spoken of, and he wished to come forward and say that he had from the first distinctly denied them all, and that every action he had taken had been in the direction of showing that he had done so. When ho was told some time ago that some acts of his had been regarded with suspicion by his fellowministers, he at once said that ho would be glad to give them an explanation. He met them for that purpose, and, so far as ho could learn, the explanation was satisfactory. But he found that this was simply a move in order to bring up some matters that had occurred several, he might say many, years ago. That was the object and intention, and it was enough, he thought, for him to say that he came forward at a former time quite prepared to meet those charges then, as he was now. It would be for the congregation to say whether they intended to go back beyond the fair and reasonable period that was usually employed. The Presbytery, the congregation, and himself on that occasion met together, and the decision was entirely in his favor. In fact, though challenged, no charges were made at that meeting, and to his mind it was very doubtful whether they would be able to frame a charge even now. But ho felt very strongly in the matter, as might bo imagined. Having a thing said about a minister was as bad as if it were proved against any other man. That was the difference consequent upon the position that a minister occupied, and it was not desirable that imputations should bo allowed to rest against his name. In all the actions he had taken he had done his best, in accordance with his own knowledge of the Church law, and according to the best advice ho could get. He might say that he took the perhaps somewhat bold step of offering to submit the whole case to the General Assembly, that they might decide upon it, while he could easily have refused to accept their decision. But ho offered to submit the whole case to the General Assembly, quite prepared to stand or fall by what they might say. That offer, however, was refused. He was told that the case would be pressed on against him, but he did not expect they would have taken the very sudden stop which they did take. With regard to the suspension, to which some reference had been made that evening, in old times the practice of the Established Church was that the parish minister could on no account be interfered with in his work until something was actually proved I against him. In the Free Church the rule 1 was simply this : that the indictment, or I libel as it was termed, must be prepared, | discussed, and proved, and then a resolu- j tion must be passed to serve it before the minister could be suspended. He was then practically put upon his trial. Now nothing ! of that kind had been done in this case, j He had simply taken up the position which he held in Canterbury before the Presby- 1 tery was in existence. He received his | ordination long before, and was in no sense dependent on the Presbytery. But he i thought it only right that the congrega- I tion should be informed on those matters, j and it was certainly a surprise to him that * somehow or other things that took place in j a secret committee of the Presbytery were I made known all through the town, while j there was no actual communication with the ! congregation. His desire was to stand well i with his congregation ; that they should | know the reality of all these things, and the resolutions which would be sub- • mitted to the moating to-night would be in that direction. He considered they had | a right to know these matters, and that it 1 would bo well for steps to be taken to I enable that to bo done. Lot him just express a hope that the result of all these things would ultimately bo for the good of the congregation, and to promote those objects for the sake of which they met together; and especially he hoped that the offer he had made to go before the Supremo Court of the Church —the General Assembly—in order that the case might be decided by that tribunal, and the offer he nov made that the matter should go in a plain and deliberate form before a committee of the congregation, would have that result. He would simply then, in the circumstances, ask Mr Pirie to move the first resolution.

Mr D. Craig before they proceeded further, would like to ask if it was competent for a congregation to discuss any resolution relating to the conduct of a minister after he had been before a committee of the Assembly ?

The Eev. C. Fraser said that in the first place he had not been before any committee of the Assembly, and in the second place the congregation stood in the exceptional x 3oS dion of a body that was in existence long before the Presbytery.

Mr Craig said he had never shown any animus or enmity towards Mr Fraser in any way. But the statements in the public prints in connection with the church, and with the minister’s conduct, were so horrible as to bo calculated to do immense damage to the congregation, and before any resolution was put to the meeting he would like Mr Fraser to say whether or not a committee of the Presbytery, at his invitation, had been inquiring into his conduct almost weekly for the last two months.

The Kov. C. Fraser would like the business to go on in a regular manner. lie thought the proposal he made would bo accepted unanimously. The committee, which had been referred to, instead of asking for an explanation and making inquiries concerning the matters first submitted to them, wished to travel back for years and to go beyond their jurisdiction. Ho protested against the conduct of one of the ministers on the committee, on the ground that he had been guilty of malicious and dishonorable conduct, and he stated the facts upon which he based that charge. That was one protest he made. Ho also protested against going back to things which had been considered and debated before. Yet his protests wore not of the slightest use, and the suspicion at length dawned upon him that they wished to put him aside and lay their hands upon the property and everything else. When he found that that was the determination he asked that the matter should be referred to the General Assembly, by whose decision he wonld stand or fall. Nothing could be fairer than that. Hut he distinctly refused to submit himself to the Presbytery, knowing that it was contrary to all church law, and that they would at once sweep him aside, in, and without saying “By your leave” to the congregation or anybody else, usurp absolute power and control over the

I Church. There was a congregation there before there was a Presbytery. He had seen three sets of Presbyteries pass away, and might be allowed to see another. But ’ both himself and the congregation were resolved to stand upon what they had, and lie now offered to submit these matters to the congregation, the Presbytery having refused to give him the opportunity to which ho was justly entitled. Mr Pirie then moved the first resolution, as follows :—“ That a committee, consisting of the Kirk Session, along with two other members selected by the congregation, and two selected by Mr Fraser, apply to the Presbytery for a certified copy of the evidence taken for and against Mr Fraser, and examine into the same, and rorort thereon to the congregation at an early date.” Mr George Ferguson seconded the resolution. Mr J. M Paxton quoted from the Victorian rules of 1876, which were adopted by the General Assembly of the Presberian Ch urch of New Zealand at Wellington in 1877, where it was laid down {that it was the duty of the Presbytery to investigate petitions from congregations in regard to the conduct of any minister within its bounds. If the Presbytery permitted Mr Fraser’s appeal to go to the Assembly, the latter body would remit it back to the Presbytery, informing them that they had not done their duty in so sending the matter on. This would involve a suspension of the whole question for a period of twelve months from March next. The speaker quoted from authorities on the question of Church discipline to show that it was the duty of the Courts of the Church to exercise discipline over such of its members “as are guilty of known sinthat no scandal was to be inquired into after five years had elapsed since the offence was said to have been committed, I unless some new scandal requiring to be ' investigated should have subsequently 1 arisen. He was proceeding with the quo- j tatiou when I

The Rev. C. Fraser hoped ho would keep his extracts within reasonable limits. A formal protest was a very lengthy thing and they could not enter into it The discussion must be strictly confined to the resolution.

Mr Paxton submitted that he was proceeding to show that Mr Fraser was not, as he himself contended, outside of the jurisdiction of the Presbytery, hut Mr Fraser ruled him out of order. Mr McHaffie, speaking to the resolution, said they would be acting very foolishly if they asked a higher Court to send down documents to a lower one. They could only approach the Presbytery by petition. The business before them was to find out wbat was their constitutional duty under tha laws of the Church. The Rev. C. Fraser called the speaker to order. Mr McHaffie and Mr Paxton both insisted upon their right to speak. The Rev. C. Fraser said a resolution had been moved and seconded, and he must ask them to say “ Aye ” or “ Nay.” Mr Paxton protested against the motion being put, as he had the ear of the meeting. Mr McHaffie said the right to speak should be allowed as an act of justice. The Rev. C. Fraser would bo obliged to take steps to secure order. He had made arrangements for that, and could not allow any one to speak three or four times. He had made an offer to have this matter examined into by the congregation. That was fair and reasonable. There should be no hot temper or hasty language, but the motion should be put and decided. He would read it again. Mr Paxton again insisted upon his right to speak, and was called to order. Mr Craig said ho wished to speak to the motion. The Rev. C. Fraser was not sure but that for the sake of peace and to avoid disturbance it would not he necessary for him to press the matter to a vote. Mr Craig protested against discussion being burked in that way, and asked that a note of his protest might be taken. Dr. Turnbull rose to a point of order. The question before the congregation was not as to the merits of the accusations that had gone abroad, but as to the advisability of the congregation being placed in possession of definite information as to those accusations before they proceeded to pronounce any opinion concerning them. They bad had no information whatever, except statements from Tom, Dick, and Harry. He had known Mr Fraser for twenty-six years, but if the committee of tbo congregation after knowing all the facts, said that Mr Fraser was guilty of the offences charged against him then let them part, but if the committee said he was not guilty, then let the congregation stand to Mr Fraser like men.

Mr Boag supported the resolution, which he regarded as a straightforward and commsn sense one. The resolution was then put and declared carried by a considerable majority. Mr Paxton demanded a division, and that (he roll of members and adherents should be called, according to the terms of the Victorian rules. The Rev. C. Fraser said they were not bound to call the roll at a congregational meeting. On the motion of Mr Reece, seconded by Mr Martin, Messrs Wm. Boag and John Deans were appointed committee men for the congregation. Mr Boag moved —“ That the congregation considers it unnecessary and uncalled for to go behind the resolution of the congregational meeting held under the presidency of the Presbytery, or further back than five years ago, and instructs the committee to confine itself to charges made from that time to the present date.” Mr Leslie seconded.

Mr Craig thought this proposal was inconsistent with the first resolution they had passed, as it limited the extent of the inquiry. He objected to the investigation being confined to the last five years. Let the first resolution stand, and let the committee consider the whole evidence. He thought Mr Fraser would have acted more wisely if he had stuck to his colors and proceeded constitutionally, instead of calling a number of people together, many of whose faces were not seen in the church from year’s end to year’s end, and who had been dragged into the pi ace for the purpose of upsetting the constitution of the Church. He moved the following amendment: —“ That, with a view to consistency with th e first resolution the committee consider the whole of the evidence instead of a portion of it only.” The amendment was seconded by Mr Baglesome, and supported by Mr McHaffie. Mr Reece asked why'should they harrow a man’s life out by bringing up charges twelve and fourteen years old. It was contemptible, and unworthy of a body like the Presbytery. Why did they not bring forward the charges at the time like men, and not keep whimpering like a lot of curs about matters that occurred years and years ago. Such conduct was disgusting and contemptible. Mr Paxton, referring to the question of the authority of the Presbytery to deal with Mr Fraser, quoted from the deed of transfer of the Cemetery from the Trustees to the Deacons’ Court of St. Andrews’ Church, in which Mr Fraser described himself as “ a minister of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand.” In a deed Mr Fraser declared that the Free Church of Scotland was known in New Zealand as the Presbyterian Church of Now Zealand. The resolution was then put, and Mr Fraser, after counting the show of hands with Mr Smart, declared that 43 voted for it.

The amendment was put, and the number supporting it was declared to be 13. The resolution was, therefore, declared carried. Dr. Turnbull moved—“ That the trustee or trustees of the church and manse property be requested to have the manse grounds laid out in sections for leasing purposes, reserving at least half an aero around the manse, and that the financial committee be requested to assist in carrying out this object.” The resolution was seconded by Mr Pirie, but withdrawn after some discussion. Mr McllalGe read a protest against the legality of the meeting on the ground that it was presided over by a suspended minister.

Mr Paxton moved—“ That the congregation call upon Rev. Charles Fraser to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Christchurch, and defend the libel about to be served upon him if he can do so.” The Rev. C. Fraser ruled the motion out of order, and declined to put it. The rev. gentleman then closed the meeting with prayer