QUESTION OF CONSCIENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 210, 4 September 1919, Page 7

QUESTION OF CONSCIENCE.

REV. A. A. MURRAY. BAPTISED AT GOSPEL HALL. THREE PRESBYTERLAN MINISTERS SUGGEST HIS RESIGNATION. The fact that the Rev. A. A. Murray (minister of St. Andrew's (Presbyterian Church, Symonds Street) had been baptised by the Rev. W. L. Salter, at the Gospel Hall of the Open Brethren in Parnell, resulted in his being waited upon by three of his Presbyterian brother ministers, who suggested he should resign from the church. Mr. Murray was interviewed this morning by a representative of the "Auckland Star to get a statement on the subject.

Sir. Murray said that three members of the Auckland Presbytery, the Revs. J. W. Shaw, of Mount Eden. Rev. G. Budd, of Devonport, and the Rev. G. B. Inglis, of Mount 'Albert, waited upon him on Tuesday evening. They asked if he had been baptised by immersion. He admitted such was the case, whereupon it was suggested by the deputation that his action was not according to the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. They claimed that Presbyterianism stood for infant baptism.

'' I claimed," said Mr. Murray, " that the Church gave ministers some latitude in the matter. The deputation said the only honourable course was for mc to tender my resignation as a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Xew Zealand. I replied that I had no intention of doing so. The deputation then intimated that the case would be brought before the next meeting of the Auckland Presbytery."

" Was this being baptised a matter of conscience with yon?"

"Yes, it was; but understand clearly, I do not consider immersion as essential to salvation. I certainly hold, on the other hand, that infant sprinkling is not believers' baptism. How can an infant believe at the time of its baptism. My father was originally a member of the established Church of Scotland, though he eventually joined the Free Church, lie did not believe in infant baptism, therefore none of us were sprinkled when infants."

"Is any latitude allowed in this matter by the Presbyterian Church?"

"According to a brief statement of the reformed faith held by the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand," said Mr. Murray, " which was written by the Rev. P. B. Eraser, M.A., and endorsed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand in 1909, we find, under the heading of 'Baptism,' as to the 'mode' of baptism, water is applied to the body of the person to be baptised, "and we believe that while sprinkling, pouring, dipping or immersion are legitimate, sprinkling, which is the common mode in our churches, sufficiently indicates the cleansing nature of the element, and for reasons of convenience and propriety is to be preferred."

"Further on the book states: 'Theproper subjects of baptism are believer?, and infants presented by their parentis or guardians in the Christian faith.'

"The three 'brethren who called upon mc." added Mr. Murray, "endeavoured to show mc that my action had not been above board in this matter. That remark was made by one of them, also that my being baptised was inconsistent with the doctrine of' the Presbyterian Clmrch."

-'•Do you think it was your baptism. or the Tivoli Theatre Sunday night services that brought forward the suggestion that you ought to resign?"

"I know that some members of the Presbytery have been incensed against mc because of the?e services at the Tivoli Theatre. That building is, however, within the bounds of St. Andrew's Parish. We have not poached on any other .parish. My action in opening services there is based upon the authority of the church. It is the inherent right of an}' session to conduct as many services as it pleases within its own boundaries." "Are these services justified by results?" * | "Amply. We get people at these ser-1 vices who certainly would not come to St. Andrew's formerly. Now, however,! we have larger congregations at the] morning services at St. Andrew's, and als-o a 'better attendance at the mid-week meetings. I may also state that holding services at the Tivoli has the consent of the whole congregation." i

"In my judgment some members of the Auckland Presbytery are exceedingly anxious for mc to leave the church of my forefathers, but 1 have not the slightest intention of doing so. I am acting within my rights, and am prepared to fight tjiis matter out to the bitter end. I will defend the position I have taken up by all legitimate means." A LAYMAN'S VIEW.

"It is a great pity to give publicity to what -after all is really a private matter." was Mr. A. .7. Entrican's opinion regarding the baptism of Rev. A. A. Murray. Having been a member of -the Kirk Session of St. James* Presbyterian Church for -over a quarter of a century, Mr. Bntrican siould know something about procedure. He said: "The Presbyterian Church regards both modes of baptism as [ right. The christening of infants is ■pretty general in our church, but both that form and immersion are accepted. 1 do not think there is a Presbyterian minister who would object to baptise an adult by immersion if requested to d*> so. After all baptism is a symbolic ordinance, and can be observed either by infant christening or immersion of adults. If Mr. Murray wished to be immersed there was no need for him to liave gone to another church for it. We Presbyterians, however, d-o not believe in regeneration by baptism. I understand that at St. Matthew's Anglican Church facilities are provided for those who desire to be immersed." FRIENDLY VISIT OF MINISTERS. The Rev. I. Jolly gave a version of the incident which dillers in several .respects from that put forward iby Mr. Murray. At the outset he expressed surprise that Mr. Murray should have made any statement on the subject, inasmuch as the visit paid 'by the three clergymen was a purely private and friendly one from 'brothel- minister-. It was cunrently stated 'that Mr. Murray ihad been reUiptised. and they went to ascertain the facts of the case from Mr. Murray himself. When there they expressed their personal opinion in regard to the course which they would advise Mr. Murray to take. This was in no way official. Pro-1 eeeding, Mr. Jolly pointed out .that the question raised by Mr. Murray as to whether Presbyterian rule permitted of immersion or sprinkling was entirely beside the mark, and it had no bearing on ihe real issue, which was iwfljetiher the re-baptism of a person who had already been baptised in accordance wtit'h Presbyterian rule did not involve fie invalidation of the Presbyterian rite of baptism. The question was not at alii one of the mode of baptism, but where

a member of the Presbyterian Ohurcli had been baptised in accordance with the rites laid down by the Church the action taken by Mr. Murray raised the whole question of the validity lof'Presbyterian baptism.

With regard to future action, Mr. Jolly pointed out that the matter would eotne befoTe the Presbytery in due course, and until then he did not know what would be done. If Mr. Murray gave an assurance that he upholds the validity of baptism as prescribed under I Presbyterian Church law and usage the matter would be much simplified. As for the statement that I the services at the Tivoli had any--1 thing to do with it, he denied that aibbolutely. The Presbytery had praci tieailly waived the objection they had j taken to the services held at itihe Tivoli, and the matter had dropped. It bad nothing to do with this.

| One of the deputation, the Rev. ,T. W. Shaw, in conversation regarding the deputation to the Rev. A. A. Murray, cxI pressed astonishment that any publicity was given to the matter. "It was simply a friendly act on the part of the three of us. Our object was to let Mr. Murray see how the fact of his having been baptised appeared to his brothers in the ministry of the Presbyterian Church. It was purely informal. "We had no authority whatever to wait upon Mr. Murray, 'beyond the fact that as. ministers in the same Church wo wished to get him to see our point of view."