THE PRESBYTERIAN UNION QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Volume 11, Issue 2280, 11 November 1897, Page 24

THE PRESBYTERIAN UNION QUESTION.

The Presbyterian Synod on the 2nd resumed consideration of the. proposed basis of union between the Presbyterian Church of Ofago and Southland and the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand.

The Rev. J. Gibb moved and the ti«v. J. A. | Ashee seconded the adoption of the fourth j article — "That the. first meeting of the assembly shall be held in Dunedin, and the assembly sh\ll itself determine and fix its, place of meeting from year to year, but ordinarily the assembly shuli mtet alternately at Wellington and Dunedia." ■

The Rev. J. Johkstqn moved as anamendmeut — " That the fitst meeting of the assembly shall be held in Daaediu, and thereafter the assembly shall meet alternately, at Danedin and Wellington."

The "Rev. W. Banne&maf seconded the amendment, aud said there was every reason that care- should be taken; how the article was framed, for there was no doubt that.the Auckland people were anxious that the assembly should meet there.

On being put to the vote the article was adopted as originally submitted, the ameudm nt being lost by a. large majority.

The Rev. J. Gibb moved the adoption of article 5 as follows: — "That, in order to seoure a satisfactory attendance at the General Assembly, each presbytery of the united church shall appoint one-third of the number of their ministers and as many elders, whose travelling expanses to and from the General Ass* mbly shall* be paid from the assembly expenses fund." The chief reason why one-third had been subsututed for one-half whose expenses were to be paid was, he ,said, ,that by that means there would ba a rotation of members" whose expenses were to be paid to the different places. If a half were paid each year; then the same ministers and elders would ba at Wellington at each meeting of the assembly thtre, and when at Duuedin the same would be tbe case. By having a third of the members' expenses paid every year this difficulty would be obviated.

The Rev. A. M. Finlayson seconded the motion.

The Rev. W. Bannebman asked where the money with "which to pay these expenses was to come from./ , The- Moderator ruled that the quastlon was not one which that synod could answer.

The Rev J.Clarke eaid tbao.the proposal to reduce the number whose expenses were to be paid, from one-balf to. one-third.. made the basis of union more unrighteous than it was before, and if carried he "would, be compelled to vote against union when the final tesb came. Union on these lines was one-sided, and in equity it was an unrighteous basis. The third only guaranteed a united assembly of 116, which was less than the Otago Synod was at the present time, when 130 had voted on one question, aud there were several who did not vote. The great argument for union had been that it would give a much larger assembly, but that was an impossibility on the one-third basis, and therefore that argument for union fell through entirely. When the various questions in the basis were , sent to presbyteries, two presbyteries voted against the whole proposal for union, two voted for the one-third proposal, and two voted for the one-half proposal. Therefore, a 9 many presbyteries had voted against the one-third proposal as had voted for it, and if those who voted against the whole proposal were included there was a majority of two to one/against the one-third proposal. Of the sessions 18 had voted against the whole baßip, two had voted foe the one-third proposal, and 47 sessions had voted for the one-half as against the one-third proposal. He could not understand why the committee had decided to accept the one-third proposal instead of their original proposal of one-half. The reason that had been given by Mr Gibb was as lame as would be an endeavour to build an Eiffel tower on the end of a sick man's crutch. He would move as an amendment — " That ' one-half ' be •substituted for ' one-third.' "

The Rev. D. Borrie seconded -the amendment. , - ■ • • ,j. The Rer. J. Gibb said he would" willingly, if the synod would allow him, withdraw in favour of Mr Clarke's amendment. He said &t the outset that he was not particularly enamoured with the one-third proposal. The Rev. P. B. Phaser said he opposed the committee perpetually altering their basis and accepting amendments of members. The committee were sailing uadec false colour*.

Permission w»s refused Mr Gibb to withdraw in favour of Mr Clarke's amendment.

The Rev. J. Cummins moved, as a further amendment — • ' That the need of paying the expenses of members be recognised, but in the meantime the details ba not settled but loft for further consideration at the hands of the uuited church." The R9v. J. K(lt?atrick seconded this amend* meat. The Rsv. J. Johnston moved, as anothgr amendment — " That the ministers whose expenses are to be paid be chosen from those wh*o have an annual income of not more than £350."' Tho Rev. S. W. Currie seconded this pro forma. The Rev. G. Miller prop9sed, as a further amendment — " That the grant towards expense? bs made to all members who attend the Supremo Court, and tke allowance be made in accordance with the distance travelled and salaries received." The Rev. W. A. Kyd seconded this amendment. Upon tho questions being pat to the meeting, Mr Johnston's proposal was carried against Mr Miller's on the casting vote of the moderator, very few membars voting ; Mr Cumming's was carriad ss against Mr Johnston's by 21 votes to 14 ; Mr Clarke'a was carried as against Mr Curomiog's by a large majority ; and Mr Clarke's proposal was then carried, also by a large majority, as against the original mottou. The Rev. J. Gibb' moved an.l the Rev. G. Lindsay seconded the adoption of article 6 of the basis :— " That the principle of the sus--teutation fund — namely, that every ordained minister in a charge in the servant of the church, and entitled to an adequate maintenance from the collective church — shall be recognised as determining all arrangements for the support of the ministry." The Rev. A. M. Finlavson asked the precise meaning of the sustentation fund. The Il'-v. J. Gibb replied that sustentation fund in the article was meant to be the sa,me as tho sustentation fund as it at present existed in the Otago Church, with any modifications by way of improvements that the .aob of tho assembly might devise. The Rev. J. Clarke proposed the substitution of the following words for the article :—: — '*That the sustentation fund 'shall"'be"taffiintained where and to such an extent as it exists at the present time in the two churches." In moving this, he said a susfcentation fund did not fxist in the Northern Church. As a church the Northern Church did not spesk of a sustentation fuud, and did v.ot reeoguiss a sustentation fund. He asserted also that the church <xtension fund in the Northern Church, which was said to represent the sustenfation fund, was not managed on any discoverable principle.

The Rev. P. B. Fsaser «econded Mr Clarke's motion.

The Rev. A. H. Stobo suggested that the amendment be altered as fol'ows :—": — " That until the methods of ministerial support at prtseut existing in the two churches respectively can be unified the t-usbentation fund shall be maintained where and to the extent to which it at present exists."

x The Rev. J. Clarke accepted the suggestion.

Mr Reid thought tbat if the principle of the sustentation fund* were adoptsd by both churches they coulS nob do better.*- -

The Rev. E. C. Tjjnnent said th-i there waa a principle underlying the susbentation fuud in Victoria. The principle was to_ encourage cbn- # gregaLions to raise their own funds. > The more a congregation raised the more was. their supplement. " / - The Rev.,>V. Bannerman said that that .was not the principle of the sunfcen'alion fund ia Otago. The-'su*tentation fund a« existing iv this church had no existence in the Northern Church. To call the. latter's a* lustentation fund was a misnomer. Was the OSago Church to impose its sustentation fund on the.North.em Church, or was tbe Northern Church to impoie its fund on the Otago Church, as a sustentation fund ? If so, the church would soon drift into Congregationalism.

The Rev. W. Nichol stated that there seemed to be a lack of information regarding the system of the Northern Church, and proceeded to explain the two systems.

The Rev. J. Gibb, in reply, urged tbafc the article as it stood placed the matter op a more satisfactory footing than was suggested by the amendment.

> vote being taken the amendment, was carried by 45 to 42.

The synod then' adjourned till 330 p.m. Oo its resumption.

The Rev. J. Gibb moved the adoption of article 7 in the basis of union as follows :—: — •'That, considering the difficul'ies attendant on an immediate unification of the financial methods hitherto in use, the General Assembly shall at first recognise: t (l) The sustentatioiv fund scheme and church extension fund as at present in operation in the Church of Otago and' So"uthl«nd'; (2)^ the church - extensionscheme (which ia tor the double purpose of sustentation and extension) of the Northern' Church as now administered ; it-tbeiog under- J stood that 'the 'General Assembly shall address | itself wilhout .delay ,-tp gradualljreffset uniform ] schemes for the support of the ministry and j For church.ex* ension ,; and (3) meanwhile th'esa, funds shall be administered separately by committees of the General Assembly of the Uuited Church, in terms of their respective regulations, and until the sustentation funds and church extension funds of the two ohvirches be'amalgamated the rules and regulations of tho said funds may be amended from time to time, those of the Church of Otago and Southland by a committee consisting ot the whole membership of tbat synod, and those of the Church of New Zealand by a committee conßis!>iag of members of the assembly representing congregations north of the Waitaki." j

The Rev. W. G. M'Laren seconded the motion.

The Rev. W. Bannerman opposed the article as doing away with the sustentation fund, and said that many of the country ministers would see what risks they were running if it was to be left in the hands of a mere committee to see how they were to be supported by tbe austentation fund or a .fund substituted for it. He moved — "-That article 7 be remitted to the committee on union to ba framed so a* to continue the eustentation fund a3 a means, of minister*' support and for providing Christian ordinances throughout the -bounds of the synod of Otago and Southland."

The Rev. J. U. Spence seconded this motion

The Rev. J. Clakkb- proposed as a further amendment the addition of the following words before the third subdivision of the article : ••And that no vital change shall be msde in the sustentation-Jiund of either church until at -leaat a -three-fifths majority of kirk sessions and presbyteries within the respective branches of tbe united church affected by the change shall declare themselves in favour of the change." In support of this amendment he mentioned that after the rising of the synod that forenoon several influential unionists had expressed their belief to him that the amendment he had proposed in the morning in article - 6 did nob luffioieatlj safeguard the nustontation fund.

The Rev. R. R. M. Sutherland seconded this amendment;. The Rev. I. Jolt,? protested against the diftrusfc of the Northern. Church which he believed to be involved in Mr Clarke's amendment. He wonld not have objected to a proposal for ft' three-fifths majority of the united church, J though he held that was unnecesiary ; but, ha held that it was unworthy of them as. a supreme court of the church to be treating their brethren in the north with suspicion. The Rev. A. M. Frar,AYSON said that the point raised by the Rev. Mr Jolly rendered tha regulation neceisary. -An assembly in tha •outh would ba prejudiced in favour of tha susteatation fund, and an assembly in tha north would favour the system obtaining there

frotn'£he minds of their northern members any suspicion that the Gtago Church in turn entertained any suspicion towards them. The Northern Church had acted verj generously. | toward* them. He supposed he should not refer to letters in the newspapers dealing with thss movement. Certainly members of synod ehould not write letters while the matter was sub judice. In one of thtse letters it was stiatad that the committee wa"s defeated on clause 2 because.the form of article presented the preceding year was reverted to. In this % instance, in amending the article it must nofc.be j regarded as a defeat of the committee, qr id any way reflecting on the success of -the move* meat, - *. , ' * „' , On unvote being taken as to whether Mi? Clarke's proposal should be added' to the mot : OD, the addition was carried"4fjr a small ' rdft-jority, arid the article as amendeS*,was then agreed to. i - ■ • ' \_, • 1 On the motion of the Rev. J. Gibb>" seconded by (he. Rev. A. M. Dalrymple, article 8 wa« adopted : " Tba*: the missionary funds of the two churches shall be amalgamated, and devoted to the support of the missions which are bow being carried on by the respective chnrehfs." The Rev. J. Gmn moved the adoption of article 9 :— "That while aiming at an amalgamation of the widows and orphans' funds and of the aged and infirm ministers' funds at 1 as early a date as possible, yet having rsopect to fcho duty of administering thtse funds on sound financ'al principles, ib is agreed : That the " respective funds iv each church shall be kept riittiuct ; widows, orphans, and ministers having claims only on the fund wherewith they # were connected at the date of the union ; (2) that after the union, and untU f urbhet arrangement* are made, ministers phsll connect themselves with the fund to which they belong 1"^1 "^ territorially, and the funds shall be administered separately by a committee of the United Church in terms of their respective regulations; and until the widows and orphans' funds (and aged and infirm ministers' funds or- the two churches are amalgamated the rules and ".regulations of the said funds may be amended from time to time, those of the Church of Obag'o and Southland by a com en it tee consisting of the whole membership of that synod, in terms 'of the present regulations, and fchose,of the Church of New Zealand by a* committee consisting ,of members o£ the assembly representing congregations norhh. of the Wait akt." ' "■'' •", - - i • The acapb'cn o£ r rh« i artiqle~wa> seconded) bybe Rev. A. Ca'sirbon and carried..' 1 . •.*- > '■ - ' > The Rev. J. Gibb moved and the Ifcev. J". 11. , I'Kerrow B»canded - the adoption' of article 0— «-• 'J&afc Dunedin .shall- bertjfee^sea't of. the"... 'beolotfical Hall >" - > , > > • The- Rev. P. B.^tßkaser suggested ■ that" it • loujd be left open to the Aiucrably of the United Church to ■ pot 'the- < ! Theological" [all where it chose— at Anderson's B»y — nughter) — or Auckland or elsewhere.^ It had p.en eaid that it w*s gererou* on the part of'" ie Northern Church to concede this point, but; hat was wanted was a fair thing and a jusb aing, and this looked like a Bribe to accompany itnHhing, unpalatable. If jthey wece to h*ye a nitfid church it must be on different terras' to he bargaining that was now being conducted, [c moved—" That Dunediu shall be the seat of lie Theologicil Hall' unless otherwise deter--••lined by ths General A«serobly." The Ray. R. R M. Su rii<SRT,AND did not seer why Mr Fra?er's motion fhoald not be seconded— (laughter), — and seconded it accordingly. 11 The Rev. W. Bannerman proposed the following further amendment :—": — " TBat until a , theological hall shall be erected by the northern branch of the United Church Dunedm shall be the seat of the Theological Hall." Mr. M'Oaw seconded this amendment pro mna - l Mr Bannerraan's amendment was carried as gainst Mr Frasec's by a large majority, bub 'hen pat as against Mr GibVs motion was lost, ie voting being 47 to 29. At 5 20 p.m. the synod rose, to meet again at P. m > At the evening sederunt, • ; '• Theil^v. J. Gißßmoved and the Rsv.,l. Jott-if' icondedthe ado,pt ! on particle 11, as^followstS' 1 That while the appointment and removal- of leolpgical profe-sors must- reniain , wjth .the;-ynod'of-Otago;a-u4. Southland, in t'erim of-the"' ct.of 1866, yeb, ipastnnch^as such appoJTitmjntß nd r emoVals'ft re' hf «- the ihrghesir ;impor fc'ais ce ; to >•■ - 1 ac whole church, it ie necess'%r?' '*'*'' c ssetnbly and synod should acfc'hftrmbniou»ly,in. .. aia " matter; ' and thaf, therefore, prior- to any ppoiritment or removal being made by the ynod, the mind of the General Assembly shall c ascertained." The Rev. A. M. Finlayson moved— " That ills article be deleted." The Rev. A. B. Todd seconded this pro onna. The R^v. P. B. Fbaser moved, as a further meudment— " That the article read as follows : That the appointment and removal of theoigical professors still remain with the Synod of >tago and Southland, in terma of the act of 866, but no professor shall bs appointed to, removed from, or retained •in his position. against the express decision of the General Assembly.'" The Rev. A. Camkron seconded this amendment. The R9V. Dr Dunlch?, speaning from the viewpoint of one of the professors, said he thought that practically the right way was, in some way or o bher, to leave the appointment of profewors to the united church; and that' the profesaor* would feel-f ar" happier if they were subject to the jurisdiction of a united church even tban i£ they were under the Synod of Otago and Southland. . / The Rev. W. Bannbrman supported Mr Fin- ' layaon's amendment. He maintained, thafc article 11 was in direct opposition to article 3 % and that, as it stood in the basis and also in Mr Fraser's motion, article 11 was 1 opeoing"'€b."e door , for t an invasion^ of churoh property in other directions, and might leid to the deprival,of-tha > church of many of the privileges it now enjoyed in virtue of this property. " " " ' The Rev. J. Gibb expressed, a hope that Me Fi'Aser'B amendmeot would be carried. On the vote being taken Mr Fraser'a amendment was carried against Mr Finlayson's by 70-

The ReT«. A. M. Finlayson and W. Banhe*«

TtASr dissented from this decision on the ground that ft was contradictory to article 3. , The Rev. J. .Gibb moved the adoption of article 12 : " That the operation of the Barrier Acfc shall apply to all proposals for fresh legislation."

' The Rev. J. O. Gblmb moved as an amendment—" That, the article road : • That the Barrier Act ihall apply to all proposals for fresh legislation.'"

The Rev. J. Gibb said he had no objection to accept this, and, the original motion being withdrawn, the amendment was carried.

The Rev. J. Gibb moved — "That the synod reappoint the committee and instruct it to forward the basis of union as amended by this synod to the assembly of the Northern Church to meet at Auckland and report to the meeting of eynod in March* next." After referring to the returns to remits, he said the membership of the Otago Church was between 12,000 and 13,000 in full communion, but the petitions j/cmduced to the synod against union covhaißeA between 700 and "800 signatures all told. Ho did not kaow if these petitions were pushsd actively in all parts of the church — (" No "), — but he knew that very considerable activity was displayed in obtaioisg signatures in e*m« districts of the church, and he regarded it as a very significant fact that out of a ncmnWrekip of between -12,000 and 13,000 only 700 or 800 members could be got to sign a petition again* t union. With regard to * statement by Mr Sutherland that his (Mr Gibb'«) m»ti«a which ■was carried last week was only equivalent to tke firstt eading of a bill,' hedrclaredtbatthe mowent the term* of Mr Sutherland's motion were read in the synod the question of union or no uci*n Was before the synod — (tear, hear), — and th« synod, by a majority of 36 — a very great majority considering the enormous efforts that had been made to obtain a majority on the other side — said 'that union was to go on.

The Rev. J. Chisholm seconded the motion, and said the synod would stultify itself if it did not agree heartily with it. He confessed he had been unable to get up much eatbnsiaem over that day's proceedings, for he felt that the nynod had been dealing with matters that •bould have been left to the consideration of tha united church, Mr A. C. Begg moved as an amendment — •' In view of the divided state of tbe STnwel and of the church, and the extreme difficulty of finding a satisfactory barn's on which t« f«raa » union of incorporation with the Pre*bjte»rian Church of New ZeaUnd at present, tke synod reluctantly pats from the subjoet." H« declared that when the 6yno4 west to Parliament in the present divided state cf the church they would be 6014 t* go back until they were unanimous a&d then to approach Parliament again. — (Hear, bear ) He hoped the synod would accept the atmendinent and terminate for the prestnt this question •which had practically spoiled this meeting of the synod.

Mr John Reid seconded the amendment.

Mr K. Ramsay, in supporting the motion, said that after last Thursday's vote a better npirit would have been exhibited by the minority if they hid joined with the majority in framing a basis of untou instead of tferr>*ri«g «verr possible obstacle in the way. He complained that trivia.l obj-ctfont had been o&e ed to the union proposals, and said that fee kad come to tbe conclusion that there were leading members of the synod and wou^-be leading members of the ayn»d, who seemed t+ live and meve and have their being in hah>«plitoi»g, dividing on this and th*t little thing, %md gir'mg every possible attooti-ea to the letter of a thine altogether oblivious of tbe spirit ; and he thought that was a state of affaire that should not ba encouraged in the eysod. — (Applause.) t Tbe Rev. J. Clarke; moved an a fartber amendment — "That toe basis bo sent back to the committee for further consideration mk! amendment, and that the oanicaittafi be instructed to confer witb the union eorn«ittee of the north on all questions that mny arias ; the report of the result to be submitted at tbe ntxt meeting of the synod " He held that it was clear that not sufficient earnest thmight and inquiry had been given to the matter of union. Wrtb an ea'iiest desire for union a*4 in ike interests of union, the only thi»g that tbe synod con Id reasonably do, and do with #»tisfaction to itself, wag to adopt the o«urn he had suggested. — (Hear, hrar.) He expwMed his regret tbat an acute 'parly spirit s4oald bares during the discussions, been exhibited im the eynod, where there ought to be bretherly love and oneness of thought. He was very s«rry to say that he believed that the tine bad ernie for two distinct statements to be asate in the synod. The first wai a personal rßaVet»«nt, and was tbat, with all the amen<!»emt« ttrat bad been made in the basis of uaion, he f«lt constrained to say that he must oppose tke present basis of union on the floor of the H«uae of Representatives if necessary — (hear, h#ar), — and he was going to do that, cot on the grounds of expediency, but if it mu«t be done it would be done on the grounds of unfairness $m 4, to the. extent tbat there was UDfAiniees, of unrighteousness. It was a matter of conscience with him, and not a matter of opini«n. The second statement wai . a general ' statement : that the time had come, he thought, wjken they must look at the fact that no basis could ba satisfactory to their church asd, in his opinion, to the Northern Church unless it provided for a representative assembly. — (Hear, hear.)

The Rev. J. Gibson Smith asked if Mr Clarke's amendment was competent at that stage, because if it was he thought that not only himself but a good many members of the synod were under a false impression. He asked whether Mr Clarke's amendment did not mean the rescinding of what the synod had been doing.

The Moderator did not know if his ruling would be accepted, but he decidedly thought that Mr Gibson Smith was perfectly right, and that Mr Clarke's amendment was incompetent at that stage.

The Rev. A. M. Finlatson challenged the moderator's ruling, appealed from it to tbe synod, and moved — '*That Mr Clarke's motion is a competent motion on the question now before the synod." — The Rev. J. M'Cosh Rmith seconded this motion. — The Rev. J. Gibson Smith moved as an amendment, which the Rev. W. G. M'Laren seconded — "That the moderator's ruling be sustained." — Tae motion was carried by 48 votes to 44

The Rev. J. M'Cosh Smith seconded Mr Clarke's amendment. He complained that the Union Committee had not considered the question as seriously as they should have done, that they had been carrying things with a sledge hammer, and tbat they had not shown that amount of concilia* ion they should have shown. He urged that the synod ought not to have a discussion of that sort, in which the members were greatly provoked, come up in the Jubilee year. He predicted that tbe unionists would break up the church if they went on with union at the present hour, and it would then be made impossible to have union for many years to come.

■ The Rev. Dr Watt thought that those who were opposed to union ought to have spoken out; before the church had committed itself to the movement, and he felt that for it to withdraw now would be infamous and dreadfully dishonourable. He believed that the immediate

advantages of union would not be so great as many on his side of the house believed, but every day that passed would diminish the disadvantages. If Mr Clarke's motion was carried he would be inclined to say that they should stop all negotiations there and then — he would r«tber do that than continue on in the preient state of things.

• The Revs. R. R. M. Sutherland and J. CnmaHng rose simultaneously, and the Rev. J. Gibb Moved that after they had been heard he should reply and the debate be then closed. — The Rsv. J. Gibson Smi th seconded this, to whick the Rev. W. Bansehman proposed as an RninJißUt that the diecussion be continued. — The motion was carried by a narrow majority. — The Ray. W. Bankbbman protested against the taouthi of members of the synod being closed in that way. The Rev. R. R. M. Sutherland, in tho cours* of a speech ia favour of Mr Begg's awttwlßtent, said the movement in favour of union Hi not come out of th« heart and 1 fe of fcbo «k«rc%, and declared that it was un-Presbj-teriaa to force union ou the church when there wm s«eh opposition and division in the synod and ti»r*ufW«t tfie whole church. Th« Rev. J. Cukmivg said that of the 12 articles* in the bads of union he found he was in favour ef nine and opj»o-ed to three. He was one «f the minority of 40 in the vote the other night who wished- to retain the synod as an eccle*i««H«al body, bat he was prepared to fall in with the majority. The Rev. J. Gibb replied, traversing much of the gronnd previously covered by him.

Mr Clarke's .amendment was then put as against Mr Begg'«, with tbe result that the latter was carried by 39 votes to 35

On Mr Begg' 8 'amendment being put as against Mr Gibb's motion, the latter was carried by 65 votes to 36, lh<) votiog being :—: —

For Mr Gibb's motion. — Ministers : Grvig, Kirklamd, Waddell, Borrie, Cameron, Gibb, M"Kerr»w, Dunlop, Dutton, Jolly, Camphell, Paulia, Hewitson, J. M. Fra«or, J. phisholm» Cui-rie, D.ilrymple, Fairm»id, Kilpatrick, J. A. Will, J. S Roid, Gray, fitobo, Ewen, Lindsay, Blair, Macd»»ald, Gibson Smith, M'Lsren, Brows, Staadriag, Milne, Todd, dimming, Gr»nt, .Tohsston, Asber, Adam Begg, Miller, Kyd. Elders : Waddell, Martin, W. Somerville, Coutton, Marshall, Scott, G. Reid, D. A. M'Nicoll, Tjeiehman, Smsitfl, Breruner, John Johnston, T. T*it, Hatn, IC'Caw, Ramsay, Hutchison;; Dow, J»ck»on, Oarfill, M'Gregor, K. Chisholm, -JDickie, M'Kinwa, Knowles. ITor Mr Beee's motion.— Ministers : Sutherland, Cbristle, BaaaernMn, Spenca, P. B. Eraser, Al«x««d«r, Bistjett, Steven, H*r. Nichol, Wright, OUrke, IWneen, M'Cosh Smith, Gellie, Smellie, Carter. B3d«rs : John Reid, George Moir, ThonsMin, O. VLotre, Harvie, Taylor, Rt'JLay, William Hr£g, Btackie, Dawson, Goodall, A. Fraser, R«b«rt«ou, J. T. J«h*«ton, A C. Bagg, Copland, Ay»«n, W. Stewart, M'Kuy.

He A. C. Beg a bunded in and read the following protest signed by 40 miuisters and «\dcrs :: — ** We, the underaigoed members of ttie Synod »f the Presbyterian Church of Otago and Southland, in view of the votes taken, do hereby, f*r ourselves and all cohering, ptotest againet any «v-ert action on tbe part of a majority of tfcvg sywo'd to consummate a union with the H*rtl»ern Oavroh on tbe present basis, and we signify our intention to take all legitimate meant under the constitution of this church to prevent its f-xticction, unless on a basis generally mifcisfactory to this church."

The Rev. J. Gibson Smith asked if all who had fcigocd the protest had takeu part in the vote junk taken.

Tbe Rev J. Gibb said . Messrs Davidson, R«ee, a«4 r*uUar bad not voted in the division jtwt b*k«a.

Tfe* R«v. R R. M. StrmeRLAND said all the protesters had taken part in one or other of the votes.

The Moderator : That does not meet the present qtaesttou . • The Rot. J. Gibb nslsed tbe ruling of the m*4enttor as fee "whether any nama could be ftfiired 't* a protect of that kind of a person who wM'not present, and who did not take part ia tike vote. The MoDSHti.TOR : I «ay, no. The R«t. J. Gibb: Then a number of the d«mm sfcavid he reasored.

Tfae Mo»iiKATOK«aid he ruled that the names of th«*« wb« ware uvb present that night and who did not take part in the vote could not be ifcken.

The Rev. Tf. Bannerman gave in the following profcMt : — " I further protest against the bMM adopted mi involving a departure from the ordioabi«m>#ws and responsibilities of ministers and •JK«*-be*rer» l and fro in the constitution on wfetck tttifl cfcurch waa originally constituted -with wbMii the trast property of the church has been linked bo tb*t taa church's title must be flerkrasly eeadaogered by that departure, and farther bec*«e the office-bearers and members of the efeureh have bad no opportunity of learning th« new fora and constitution propased to be given to tke church."

The R«v. J. Clarke was granted leave to give rea«oos n?xt day for a protest.

At 10 40 p.m. the synod rose to meet next morning at '10 a. tn.

The question of union with the Norther Church was again considered by the synod * Wednesday morning's sitting. The lUv. J. Clarke handed in the following protest : — " In my own name, and in the name of any who may agree with me, I protest against anything further being done to consummate union with the Northern Church on the basis as it now stands, for the following reasons :—(l) Because the multiplicity of amendments proposed and suggestions accepted and embodied in the basis necessitates further and more deliberate consideration. (8) Because the present basis is unfair, and to that extent is un-j-nst t<» many ministers and elders in the church. (3) Beoaute it is both injudicious and dangerous to the best interests of the church to press this proposal heedlessly forward in the present state of warm feeling and divided opiniou. (4-) Because the voting ou the whole question calls for the exercise of patience aud for earnest inquiry."

Ou the motion of the Rev. James Gibb the following were appointed a committee to answer the protest lodged against the adoption of the basis of union — viz. : Messrs Jolly, Gibson Smith, Dunlop, Stobo, Cameron, Borrie, Chisholm, and Gibb (convener).

The Rev. A. D Thomson gave notice of the following motion : — " That, in view of the mind of the synod being so strongly divided on the question of union with the Northern Church, the synod, in remitting the question back to the Union Committee, instructs the committee to reconsider seriously the advisability of bringing in a clause to retain the Synod of Otago and Southland as an ecclesiastical court, aud provide for the assembly of the united church being a representative assembly with the hope of conciliating all parties, and to report to the next meeting of synod "

The Rev. J. Gibson Smith moved, and the Rev. J. Gibb seconded — "That- the notice be not received." Tho Rev. R. R. M. Sutherland moved, and the Rev. M'Qosh Smith seconded an amendment—" That the notice be received."

After some discussion, the motion was carried by a considerable majority. The Rev. J Gibb then moved—" That the synod now proceed to consider the draft of the proposed bill,"

The Rev. J. Gibson Smith seconded the motion.

The Rev. Mr Bannerman moved as an amendment — " That consideration of the bill be postponed until -we receive an answer from the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand relative to their adopfcio* of the basis of union as agreed to bj this synod." Mr A. C. Begg seconded the amesdmsnt. ,On the question twing put the motion was carried by 48 votes ta 32.

The synod proceeded to consider the draft of the bill to provide for the incorporation of the churches and to define the rights in respect of the property of suehoiiuro'jes. The adoption of the preamble of the draft bill was proposed by tbe Rev. J. Gibb, but was opposed by the Rev. W. Bannerman, who held that tbe second clause of it was inconsistent with the character of the church and with the spirit of independence which the church maintained and awerted, and he moved that the consideration of tbe pr«amble should — iv accordance with th« parlia»entary practice— be deferred until the clause* of the bill had been decided upon. — This was accepted and agreed to. The first clause of the bill having been adopted, The Rev. J. Gibb moved the adoption of the second clause as follows :— " On and from the passing of this act, thß "Presbyterian Church of Otago and Southland and the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand shall be held to be united as one church, spiritually and ecclesiastically, under tbe name of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, subject to this act, and the term* and provisions set forth in the schedule of this act."

The Uev. W. Bawnkkman suggeated that the clause should be r^framed, and that the reference to the union being " subject to this act " should be omitted.

In the course of the discussion ivhich followed,

The Rev. J. Gumming observed that on ono hand they appeared to be in danger of Brastianism, and on tbe other hand they were in danger of losing their property. For his own part he preferred to run the risk of the loss of the property.

The R«v. A. M. Finlayson did not feel himself competent to proceed with tbe consideration of the bill in the absence of the synod's legal adviser, and he thought they should secure the attendance of that gentleman.

The Rev. W. Bannerman moved in that direction, but bis proposal was not accepted, and tbe motion was agreed to.

Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6 were adopted as contained in the drafc.

The Rev. J. Gibb moved the adoption of clause 7 :—": — " Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to limit or abridge the power or right of the general assembly of the said united church to alter or modify from time to time its polity, dccbrintt<>, or rules of discipline or to legislate in respect to any spiritual or ecclesiastical matter."

The Rev. Mr Dalkymple Bfconded the motion.

The Rev. Mr Bannerman moved an amendment to tbe effect th*t the clause read as follows :— " Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit or abridge tie power or right of the General Assembly of the said united church in respect of any spiritual or ecclesiastical matter." Mr Johnston seconded the amendment. On the question being put the motion was carried .

Mr Bannerman entered his protest against the adoption of the clause, and intimated that he reserved nil his rights to oppose it.

Oa the motion.oi! Mr Gibb the preamble of the bill, as already published, was agreed to on the voices.

•The, Rev. J. Gibb moved — "That the committee be instructed to forward the proposed bill as amended to the assembly iv Auckland, and report to the meeting of the synod in March next."

The Rev. W. Bannsbman moved »s nn amendment — "That this bill, along with the basis of union, be transmitted to the presbyteries and church session* ; the returns to be reported at next meeting of synod." The motion was carried by a large majority.