CHURCH DOCTRINE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2064, 6 December 1919, Page 4

CHURCH DOCTRINE.

CHARGE AGAINST MR. .JOLLY,

REJECTION BY ASSEMBLY,

BOOK COMMENDED TO CHURCH

T!u; charge of leaching contrary to tlio doctrine of the Presbyterian Cimreh of New Zealand made ngainst the Rev. Isaac Jolly, of Auckkind, by the Rev. B. Hutson, of Brooklyn, at the Presbyterian Assembly last week, did not arouse much discussion, the motion t bisits rejection being carried on the voices.

The charge was supported by two extracts from a recent book published by Mr Jolly on “Our Lord's Second Advent.’’ Dealing first with the doctrine of the inspiration ot the Bible, he took strong exception to Air Jolly's statement that “in dealing with the attitude towards the expectancy of our Lord’s return the example of the apostles is not authoritative for ns. It. Mr Jolly was rigid, he said, the Church was wrong. Mr Hutson's declaration that, Air Jolly must .either withdraw his booklet or resign his position in the Church was greeted with amusement. -Mr Jolly dearly believed, went on Mr Hutson, that >SI. Paul did not know what he was wilting about. Other passages in Mr Jolly's book wore brought under scrutiny with a view to showing that they denied the inspiration of Pauls teaching with reference to the Second Coining. He said it was the Rev. Isaac Jolly who was inconsistent, not the Apostle Paul. He appealed to the assembly to call on Air Jolly to withdraw the passages complained of, and to rcadirm his adherence lo Iho Church's doctrine of the inspiration <>f Scripture. .Mr Hal soil held Ids hand to .-lay the applause at the close of his speech., “It is too serious to applaud,” ho said.

A member: It’s a farce! REPLY BY MR. JOLLY

Air Joll y said some of them were treating the whole thing as a joke, !ml it was a serious and painful thing to him to have, sueh a charge brought against him. even by Air Hutson. In answering Ah’ Hutson's charge, he pointed out Hint the Cimreh had no doctrine of inspiration, It had a doctrine of Scripture, one ot.' the grandest ever penned, but that was a different matter. It was a mere commonplace that the inspired records of the New Testament

varied somewhat in their attitude, and illustrated the different emphases in the four groups of Paul’s epistles,, .and their doctrine of inspiration must lit in.to such facts as these. He believed in the inspiration of Paul as firmly as any man present, but he did not believe that his inspiration enabled Paul to know flic time of Christ s return. Air Jolly ((noted from various theological authorities iu support of his views on inspiration. This seemed to him part of a campaign of slander, and he quoted a passage I non Air Hutson’s book charging those who wore not prc-millenarian with not seeking lo regenerate men, hut only Lo reform-them. Was not Unit a slander'? {Voices : Yes, and hear, hear). He asked the assembly to give Air Hutson severe censure for bringing a baseless and malicious charge against another minister. “A BROTHER BELOVED."

Dr. ffibh said that Mr Jolly in hd excellent statement had really been wasting his strength, for the absurdity of the charge must be clearly evident to all. Mr Jolly was a tower of strength to the orthodox faith, (Applause.) This was the most absurd charge of the kind he had ever known, and if that sort of thing was to 1)0 adlowed their whole judicial procedure would be brought down to the region of the farcical. He therefore agreed that Air Hutson be brought to the bar and severely censured for his action. He had no words to express the absurdity of challenging the orthodoxy ot. Mr Jolly. He moved that there was no case to answer.

Professor Dickie, iu seconding the motion, expressed, the opinion that Air Kittson deserved censure fur frittering away the tune of the bouse with this case, and more lor frittering it way the diameter ot an honoured minister of the Church. The motion was carried on the voices, hut Dr, Gibb, Air Jolly, and others demanded that a vote be taken bv show ol hands and counted. The tellers announced the result as 111 voles for, and two against, the motion,

The Rev. A. Miller asked if no further motion was to follow. Dr. Gibb said he did not think it would-be wise to go further. The vote had very splendidly and emphatically indicated what they felt for Mr Jolly, a brother beloved, and what they felt for the other brother not so greatly beloved. (Cries of dissent and disapproval.) He indicated that it would be unwise to press the matter further. (Hear, hear,)

The incident was rounded off by •the Rev. A. Trotter as convenor of the Publications Committee preparing a motion, which was carried with applause, commending the Rev. I. Jolly’s book to the Church.