THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

Bruce Herald, Volume VI, Issue 402, 24 January 1872, Page 7

THE PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD.

The whole of the even ing's sederunt of the 16th was devoted to the consideration of the First Church displi rts. 'A.* on former occasions, the attendance of the public was 1 very large, and there were frequent demonstrations of applause irrhen the views expressed by the different speakers accorded with the sentiments of fne-list.eners. The proceedings /were opened by the reading 61 a memorial, signed by Messrs •J. Morrison, T. Stewart, A Mercer, J. Mackay, and W Reid, asking that thennames should be added to the memorial in favor ot the office-bearers, which was 1 done. The Rev. Mr Will then related the cir- • enmstances of the case, and the causes which had induced the Presbytery of Dunedin to refer to the Synod a matter which required " the collective wisdom of 'the whole Church to aivise and decide 'upon it. He then read a corrected st>ftp- ; ment of the financial affairs of the First 'Cburch. This statement showed a de--1 crease of L9B 12s (3d in the sustentation ; iund for 1871, as compared with the previous year. While. the preparef of the • statenien t acknowledged Jthe ' ; numerical "majority in favor of Mr Sutherland, the statement went to show that the greater -amount of contributions hati been made by the other party, it stated that during 1871 LI 61 lOs had been contributed by the officp bearers and those supporting 'them, and LlO6 Os 6a from other sources. The latter amount was made up of L 45, the amount, contributed by parties who re- ■ fused to mis in the dispute, and L 56 Os 6.1 by Mr Sutherland's supporters. With the ♦decrease forJ7Bl, there would, if the sub"scription* of the office-bearers and their : memorialists were withdrawn, be a total ■ dec.re.se of L260-- 3s. The memorialists Hoy the office-bearers held 287 seats of the ■471. leavintr a balance ot 18i.

Th«. parties were theu called to the bar. Messrs Lawson and Begg appeared for the office-bearers, and for those who signed 'the memorial in favor of the latter; Messrs 'Law and M'Landress for 'those who signed the memorial in favor of the minister; and Mr Sutherland on his own behalf. The 'pleading on both sides was necessarily very 'lengthy, and of a recriminatory character ; 'but no new facts, beyond those already published, were brought out. A motion 'for adjournment was moved after midnigar, : and havin» been lost,

The Rev. A. H. Stobo said that as a 'member of the Synod who had not been 'involved in the case hitherto, he thought Mt best that one not belonging to the ■Dunedin Presbytery should move first in the matter. 'The Presbytery had been finable to come to a decision ; yet it had been in a position thru the m j rakf< of the 'Synod coming from a distance had not : been in, viz., of having; private dealing with both parties. Still he Thought the .'Presbytery, in coming* to the decision it 'had, that "matters. had reached it stage that 'co-operation between the parties was impossible, bad l»een guided by their private ■opinions. He was very lofh to believe V+hat. matters had yet reached that pass; and, as a member of the Synod, he had •not heard anything to show him that it "was vo. Before coming to a conclusion of that kind, in justice to themselves and the great interests of .religion, the Synod *had a. duty to perform. Before taking any 'extreme course every means ought to be 'taken to 'effect a reconciliation if possible. As he' had before said, it appeared to him 'the Dtinedin Presbytery had acted more •upon -their private opinions than on anything "tangible, as brought before the : Synod ; and he had hopes that the Synod by private dealings wirh the parties might { bring about.a settlement. They bad an •advantage over the members of Presbytery, as they did not belonsr to Dnne■"din, and could not be .supposed to have '■any 'partiality, or be personally connected 'with.fiiiher ?ide. He was disposed, therp"forn, to move, "That a committee of •Bynod be appointed to confer with Mr Sutherland and his office- bearers, with a view to .bring about, if possible, a r^enn •ciliation; and to report at a fu'ure sederunt." With regard to Mr Sutherland 'himself, he thought he was entitled ?o ■credit for his independence and high tone, and for his determination to do his duty without. regard to mon«y power, or o r her •considerations. He (Ifr Sfobo) gave him great credit for a desire to do his ministerial work honestly and faithfully to the best of his aniliiy ; at the same time he 'was led to believe ihat the evidence showed he had committed very great imprudences.

Geisow seconded the motion.

The Rev. Mr Gillies tboug-ht it would be well if one of the documents on the table were read to the Synod ; it showed the steps taken by the Presbytery of Done'din in endeavoring to bring abour a recotfciliabion. A.t the private meeting two hours were spent with Mr Sutherland, and •'about the same time wirh the office-bearers. At the of the conference a written message was sent to the offioefoear&rs: — ""Will the qfficH- hearers agree to co-operate wiiti Mr Sutherland, provided be express his regret for past differences/and his willingness to act in harmony wirh the office-hearers as now constituted ?" and the reply received was — '• Believinjr. as we do, tliatthe co-operu • lion of the office-bVa-rera with Mr SntherJand would not restore peace and harmony *o the congregation, tbey feel shut unto 'the conclusion already expres-ed. by' their ideputies, and after consideration confirm that conclusion." To a message of similar import Mr Sutherland replied :— " Mr Sutherland declares rhnfc he is willing to. rCo-opHrate wjth the majority of tH« mein-berß-bf Session and Deacon's Court if they are willijjo- to co-operate -with him^ but there are two or three members of Session, and^ the same number .of mem bers of P«acon*B Court, in whom he has ceased to h»jvo co'n6'let)ce. from, their being 1 committed to kie removal, and as is in hiisj

opinion very natural, ho cannot co-operate wish them in the service of God whilst rhe.v are in that mind." Upon receiving these replies, the Presbytery "came to the conclusion that there was no 'hope of reconciliation between the parties. It was also stated to the Presbytery that the resignation of the objectionable members of Deacon's Court or Kirk Session would not l>e agreed to, as the .office-bearers must either stand or fall together. Whilst it was tfnirracions to oppose a 'proposal 'like that (if Mr S'obo's, there should be something like a reasonable prospect of success ; and after what had taken place in 'the Presbytery, asd before the Synod wdjburned, by doing which it would iiavfe to take up the whole matter again, it shoiild consider well what it ./as doing. The Roy: Mr Will ihought'it e?vident'to every meml)er of the Duneilin that it woul^l be hopeless to agree to the motion. The Presbytery's decision was not a hasty one; they received both parties, almost entrea:e(i Mr Sutherland to agree.ro terms which mitfht !>ring about a reconciliation. The Synod -had the answers before them.

The Rev. Mr Stuart agreeo" very much with what Mr Will had srated ; at . the same time he was not disposed~to oppose; Mr Stobo's motion, because a considerable number of mem))ers of Synod sympathised with it. He was, however, quire sarisfit^d that unless the discussion thai evening- had effected a change in the minds of both parties, .no good would result from it What Mr "Will had staged was a fact. Mr Sutherland was implored to make a trial, and say peccavi, to say that bygones should be bygones; to say that, he was prepared to crfrry on tie church work a' if things complained of had not occurred; but he had posifively refused. He repeated, he did not expect any good to result from the. motion. After some remarks by Messrs Ryley and Waters, it was agreed ro appoint a committee, consisting of Messrs Allan, S'evuns, and Stobo, ministers ; Messrs Thomson, Brown, and Geisow, elders, to report at next sederunt. Jan. 17th. The Rev. Mr Stobo brought up the report of the committee appointed last nij* lit to confer with Mr Sutherland and 1 the offioe- hearers. He reported that the committee had completely failed to obtain the end for which they had been appointed, chiefly on the ground that Mr Su'hprland would not admit that he had in any decree failed in exhibiting a due measure of Christian meekness and forbearance, and concluded by moving — "That the Synod express its deep regret at the state of things existing in the First Church, as disclosed in the papers on the table and in th« pleadings at ttie bar; find that rhi< state of things is due largely to the course pursued by ;he m'inisrer ; regret thai; instead of striving to conciliate those dissatisfied with the course pursued by Lim, j the minister 'has acted in a way rather to irr!'£ r (S and "increase the alienation of thos* dissatisfied with him ; find that from the j statement made by the minister »nd other at the nai 1 , as representing 'he sections into which the congregation is divided, there is no hope of areconcilintioo betwepn the minister and those dissatisfied with him, and ihrf't in consequence his usefulness is so impaired as to desrrov all hope of his retaining the congregation originally co in milted TO hife, ami therefore with a view to the ir:rcrests of the cOusrreoation and of religion, and (he good of the Church-, the Synod recommend th« minister to resign his present charge."

Mr Millar;, with a view to causing discussion, moved as an amendment that tlip offii-e-bearers be also commended to resign.

Mr Will in'imated his intennoß to support the motion, because he did not think that anything had been dime that required the resignation of the office-bearer.s. 1 1)** latter did not take up their present position until they were thoroughly convinced that they could not act wi'h their minister any longer in quietness and harmony — until they were convinced 'that it was essential that such a change us that recommended should take place. He did not mem to say that the office-bearers had clone nothing wrong"; but they had done nothing to justify the implication that they were to blame for the present disorganised state of the conuTPgHtioft. Ke felt quite sure if Mr Sutherland haft manifes'ed that kind of spirit wbichhe, o(!;J;tto have shewn, the office-bearers we'rfe 'quite willing to try to forget and forgive the past, ft was not bee mse of what had occurred in the past, but because of the conviction that Mr Sutherland continued to act in a spirit. which showed that it was utterly hopeless to expect peace to be restored. He. urged that there were difficulties of a financial character in the way of the office-bearers resigning, inasmuch as they had become responsible for liabilities in connection with tb'b erection of the First Church, on the understanding that the congregation would be coft'intiHd in its importance. The Rev. Mr Waters was not satisfied with the motion-, because it was not a fair deliverance. It only referred to one of the parties 'concerned •; it overlooked that the office-bearers had done any wrong. By some ii had been contended that there were Other matters behind which required to be looked at, he did no^ think so, nor did he believe that there vVas any financial difficulties in the way of the office-bearers resigning-. In his opinion there had been wrongs on both shies ; but the motion ignored that altogether. It appeared that a certain thing was aimed Ht; but the motion would not secure it. It was plain that there was a majority of the congregation with Mr Sutherland; and if thAy again elected him, he would find officebearers standing in his and there would be no harmony. They were not taking the means of securing peace, the elements of which -should be included in the deliverance. _

Mr Ryley was not 'satisfied with the fri&endaaent, nor with tiia motion 5 he was

especinllrdfss.it'l^fid with the latter, which was. hfti f «h and severe, in rpference 'to Mr SntherlHiid, whilst uppurenfly thtre was a ; shield of protection thrown round the officehearers. There were faults on both sides. He hnd an amendment to propose — " That the Synod havin£ v considered the reference from the 'Dune'dih Presbytery anent 'Fifst Church, express its regret that difference should hkve "arisen between the pastor and a Irirge n timber of his congrt)gatiou ; ; find that faults rihd irregularities have beeh committeH by both parties; and resolve for the 6f the Church to ask the mi'nist^'r »'hd office- bearers to resign-; andappoint assessors to 'form an interim kirk session." Be 'thohsht "the stricture^ on Mr Sutherland contained in the foofion were unfounded. He did not stand up to exonerate Mr Sutherland, because his firm conviction was that, he had be«n imprudent, and he had tolrl'him so ; but he oVd don v nothing to warrant the Synod apkihg him to resi^n withDiu calling upon the offi:e- hearers to do likmvi.-je. He went on to refer to the action of the Deacons' Court, which clearly showed that it had manifested a contumacious spirit , to act riirht in the face of the pastor, and therefore he could not exonerate the officebearers from blame. [A statement by the speaker was her 6 called in question, and an animated discussion followed. Mr Ryley concluded by saving 1 tk I had better leave the Synod. I seldom ever rise to

address a few words to the Synod, but a whole host rise up against me."] What should form an element in the Synod's decision was the fact that the majority of the congregation was with Mr Sutherland ; and he believed a good many signatures to the office- bearers' memorial would have been wanting if it had been known that the extreme measure now advocated was intended. He questioned very much whether Mr Sutherland would accede even to the wish of the Synod if the motion were carried. Heknew if he wei'H in his place he would f.-el that he had been injured, and that the Supreme Court of the Church was partial. To call upon both parties to resign at once was the only way by which the breach could be healed, and the First Church saved. Mr Watt could not agree wirh the amendment, because it was hinted that the office-bearers were very much to blame, which he did not think. There could not be any doubt that Mr Sutherland was more to blame than the office-bearers. Mr Kylev had gone too far in his remarks. He (Mr W-.it t) considered that the whole blame for the present disorganized state of rhe First Church rpstfcd on Mr Sutherland. Tt had been urged as an exfMise tha' he had been subjected to provocation. That was co excise, for a minister should be above provocation, and set an example of forbearance. In that respect he (Mr Wat:) thought h* had signally failed.

Mr S'Uiirt had mailfi up his mind to yore for Mr Millar's amendment Fur the last rwo days he had had the conviction that the object in view was to heal Iho breach ;n the congregation. He had repeatedly '•xpressKi his conviction that Mr Sutherland throughout tlie^fi proceedings had acted with, extreme imprudence, extreme want of tact and. practical wisdom; so rbat id would have been a downright miracle if he had succeeded in preserving the order and prosperity of the congregation. He could remember when Mr Sutherland receive! the congregation, it included a large hody of men better circumstanced than any other congregation as regards resources, ifcc, : and in the space of four years the first Dunedin congregation had become thoroughly dis-

organised, and he had no difficulty in coimriir to the conclusion that Mr Sutherland .-hould be etrnestly recommended to withdraw from the ministration of that Church. He did not sympathise with Mr Ryley in his views; and thought Mr Sutherland would withdraw when requested hy the Synod to do so; that he would not venture to m dot-iin the position held hy Mr Rvley, believing 1 , a* he did, that he (Mr Sutherland) had a regard to the peace and u;ooii of the Church — that as a ioval son of the Church he was bound r.o withdraw. (Mr Sutherland :'* Don'; he too sure.") He concluded hy pointing out that the adoption of Mr Millar's amendment would allow of the healing- of the breach ; of the divisions of the congreo'ution uniting to select a new pastor. If Mr Sutherland h<d to resign, he would carry with hinj 800 people i"h'> were attached to him; he thought they weve hound to do so.

Mr Blake declined to vote for either of the amendments, as they "rnplied censure on the office-bearers, whom he thought undeserving* of it.

Dr Copland . intended to vote for the motion. He attributed the sfcHting vStare of affairs in the First Church t6 Mr Sutherland's want of tacr^ want of judgment^ and want of that power t6 manage m(;n with sturce.ss. There wa-s also wanting in him that spirit of meekne.-s and Christian forbearance which they had a ri^-hr to look for in a minister. He also defended 'the office-bearers from the charge of defying the minister's nu'hority.

Mr Johnston supported the appointment of tie office- ben re i's as managers-, in the event of .Mr Millar's 1 motion lining carried.

Mr Chi-sholm condemned Mr Suthe>--land's action, and defended that of the office-bearer.* at s'dme length.

Mr Todd intended to support Mr Millar's amendment, saying that he felt sure lhac ministers who were the best judges 6f Isr Sutherland's ministerial a'crs could not support 'it-, He thought both parties resigning was the best way to pro mote peace in the future, and that seemed to be the view of elders he had conversed with. Consequences had been referred to, but for his part he would rather see no First Church congregation, at all than a

continuance of the present state of things

We cau only refer . to -the speeches of other members. Mr Bannerman defended

ihj». office-bpnrprs from tlie cbargfeof "contumacy," }ir<r(otTed' furainst them,, ; by Mr jßjl^y, and Messrs M'Naughton, M'Cosh, Smith, and Gregg spoke in favor of Mr Sutherland.

The vote was then -taken. Mr 'flyley's amendment 'on being put was declared lost, 13 voting- for'irand-22 'against. Mr Millar's amendment "was then put against theoriginal motion, "and also declared lost—the ayes bein'g 'l7'-; noes, 19. Mr Stobo's motion was therefore carried.

The Synod Voted as follows on the motion:—

For.— Ministers': Messf" Blake, Copland, 'Davidson, Gillies, Johnson, Wait, Stevens,. Will, Allen, Ctiisholm, and Stobo. Elders": Messrs J. Grant, A. Todd, J. E. Brown, W. Duff, W. jamiesnn, A Johnston, J. W. Thomson, and F. H. Geitsow.

Against. — Ministers: Messrs Bairci, ? ©liristie, Clarke. Greig, M'Naujrh'fcon, Rvley, Smith, Stuart, Todd, Connor, Waters, Alexander, Ro>s. Elders : Messrs G. Cl.uk, S. Clark, J. Miller, and Captain Thomson.

The lievds. Messrs A.lyes, Gow, and W. Bannerman, together with Mr G. Matthews, declined to vote.

The-iPresbytery of Dunedin vofpd — For : ministers, 7 ; against : elders, 2. Agaiust ; ministers, 9 ; elders, 4. Presbytery of Clutha. — For: ministers, 2; elders, 5. Against: ministers, 2. Presbytery of Southland. — For: ministers 2; elders, 1. Against : ministers, 2.

Mr Su'herland then <»-f»ve in his reasons for dissenting- from the decision just arrived at:--

1. Because he has a clear and decided majority of members and adherents of between 70 or 80, one half of them at least being members. 2. Because it lays the blame of past, disturbances upon the pastor, which he knows to be contrary tr> fact. 3. Because he knows it will not heal the breach but tend to widen and confirm it. 4-. Because it seeks to sever the pasioral tie where no moral guilt or heresy has been laid to the pastor's charge, and thar in the face of a large and deeply attached majority. They will he considered at this evening's sederunt. Mr Sniherlanil made the following alteration in the introduction to his reasons — " Mr Sutherland regrets that he. cannot comply with this finding of the Synod, for the following reasons." " [t was resol ?ed not to receive the reasons, nor enter them on 'the records. '1 he following was the mi no re made : — " Mr Sutherland intimated his regret ar, not lieing ablf to comply with the recommendation of the Synod to resign his charge, for reasons seated '0 the Synod."

A long* discussion t./ok place, and after sev^rnl motions and amendments had been proposed, it was finally resolved. "That the Synod, having- already declared Mr Sutherland to blame for the present state of mutters existing- in the First Church, .irid having 1 recommended Mr Sutherland to res i urn in order to effect a settlement of the difficulties, and Mr Sutherland having refuse?'-! to comply with the recommendation the Synod instrnci the Presbytery of Duneilin to enjoin Mr Sutherland to ace in a more befitting and constitutional manner towards "the Session and Deacons' Court. In the event oi further difficulties arising requiring rhe intervention of i he Synod, authorising the Moderator of Synod, on the request of the Presbytery, to oail a pro re nata meeting of Synod to dispose thereof.

The foll(?\ving dissent from the 'resolution in First Church case, signed by the Revs. Rv l es- 3 Connor, Greio- } Smith, Alves. Christie," and Waters'; Messrs Clark and Sinclair, elders, were received': — 1. Because while it was generally admitted that the office-hearers were to a certain extent to blame, there is nothing in the finding of the Synod to show this ; but Mr Sutherland seems condemned as the sole cau>e of the trouble* in >he First Church, and his minesterial character and usefulness are likely to- be greatly ih-

jiiivd. 2. Because the resolution coma to is likely only to widen the breach already made and to exasperate the majority of the congregation, who are warm supporters of Mr Sutherland, and whose feelings and interests the Synod appears to have

ignored. 3. Because while the minister has he^n recommended to resign, the present offi<:e-'n-arers, who are implicated in the disturbances which have . taken place, fire iillowed to remain in office, and are thus thrust upon the majority of members and adherent-! of the congregation, "with whom, after what has occurred, there cannot be cordial co-opera f ion.

The following- reply wag tabled in answer to the above dissent ; —

Ist. There was nothing in the papers and other evidence brought before the Synod relative to this case to shew that the office- hearers had been guilty of anythip£" worse than an error of judgment, holding a meeting- of Deacon's Coin 1 ! without the consent of the pastor, whilst it wms shewn that they hum'ilv and at ohce bowed to the decision of the Presbytery.

The deliverance of the Synod does not Ity any means necessarily imply that Mr Sutherland was t the sole cause of the troubles in the First Church, but only tliat he was the main cause'; and this finding the evidence brought before the Court abundantly warranted.

2nd. No parties are at "liberty to judge so hardly of the majority of the members of the First Church as to presume ihat they will support their Minister if he persistently adhere to & eoursn which has been all but unanimously condemned by the Synod.

3rd There is nothing to warrant the inference that the office-bearers are tbriist upon the majority of the members and adherents of the congregation; and the ibreguiug reasons sufficiently manifest that

there is no room for the assertion 'that there cannot be cordial co-operation between : them.

The Rev. Mr Sntlierland": Shall I be

Allowed to "reply to those answers ? ,|The f ßev. Mr Bannenhan : : I think not. The ! Rev. ftlr Sutherland : But there *<ire sortie 'very 'hafsh expressions "in them. .& Member: They can be printed? The Rev. Mr B'ahnerraaii: Oh, certainly; Wey are part of tWe'res^estae.