THE AUCKLAND PRESBYTERY AND THE REV. S. J. NEILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9314, 25 September 1893, Page 3

THE AUCKLAND PRESBYTERY AND THE REV. S. J. NEILL.

We have been furnished with the following correspondence between the Auckland Presbytery and the Rev. S. J. Neill, of the Thames:—

Auckland, June 19,1893. My Dear Sir,— Representations have on several occasions been made to the Presbytery that your public teaching is not in accord with the standard of our Church. These remained without practical effect until the last meeting of the Presbytery, when a committee, consisting of the Auckland aud suburban ministers, was appointed to confer with you ou the matter. That committee has met, and I am directed to ask you to meet the brethren in St. James' Vestry, Auckland, on Tuesday, the 27th, or Thursday, the 29th instant, at ten o'clock a.m., when it is hoped you will be able to make such explanation as will satisfy the Presbytery that public rumour has been unjust to you. " I beg the favour of a reply as early as possible, as to which of the days named would be convenient to you.—l am, etc., R. Sommerville, Convener.

Thames, June 22, 1893. Rev. and Dear Sir,— Yours of the 19th received yesterday, in which you say : —" Representations have ou several occasions been made to the Presbytery that your public teaching is not in accord with the standard of our church." They must in every instance have been made iu:my absence, as this is the first time I have heard of such a thing. You also say, "It is to be hoped you will be able to make such explanations as will satisfy the Presbytery that public rumour has been unjust to you." If the committee will kindly inform me when the " representations" have been made to the Presbytery, and what they are, and who my accusers are, for they are virtually that, I shall reply as categorically as possible in writing. As to " public rumour' it may be true, or it may not. be true. You know "public rumour" very seldom is quite true. However, if the committee will kindly inform me in writing what the public rumour is, I shall reply to it in the same way as to the representations. I am aware that the law of the church (§§ 332 and 333) does not say you are to do so] at this stage of the proceedings, but I think the law of Christ (Mat. vii., 12) does. Unless the committee is very eager to hurry the case, I think nothing is to be gained by my going up before the next meeting of Presbytery, when a meeting may be held in time to report, at which I hope to be present, if my answers in the meantime are inadequate. The amount of sickness and death here at present seems to me the first call of duty, and I have very little time even to write.— faithfully, S. J. kill. Auckland, 27th June, 1893. My Dear Sir, —I duly received yours of the 22nd, which I i have this day submitted to the committee, and am instructed to reply :— l. That no person appears as your accuser ; the Court pro--1 ceeds on the ground of public report, see rule •293. 2. That the representations that have been made to the Presbytery are, that your public teaching has been inconsistent with the doctrines of the proper divinity of Christ and the atonement as these are set forth in the Standards; of the Churtfh. 3. That in the opinion of the Committee these representations have an appearance of support, and are strengthened by the public rumour that you are connected with the Theosophical Society. 4. The Committee are still of the opinion that an interview would.be more satisfactory to all parties, and they will be willing to arrange a meeting with you any Tuesday or Thursday you my name.— Yours faithfully, R. SOMERVII.

Thames, 4th July, 1893. Rev. and Dear Yours to hand. In reply to 11., I have no hesitation in saying that I have never had any doubt in my mind about the divinity of Christ as set forth by Christ himself in his own words, and he should know best how to state it, e.g., "Ye believe in God, believe also in Me," "I am the way, the truth, and the life," "I am in. the Father, and the Father in Me,"'' "I am' the true vine," "I "came forth from the Father," etc., " I am the bread of lifo," etc., "The glory' which I had with Thee before the world was," and John I. I quote these as among the best known, and most direct statements. If a classical interpretation is desired, I would certainly apply the word homoomio* (of the same nature), consubstantial, to describe the essential nature of Christ in regard to the Father. Now, as 1 have never had any difficulty in accepting this, it is not very likely that I should have preached an unpopular doctrine contrary to my convictions, and I have never done so. In regard to atonement, I also accept all Christ has said bearing on the subject of His coining into the world to reconcile man to Cod, or to be the at-ono-ineiu, e.g., that " He is the Way," that " We come to the .Father Ly Christ the.Son." " This is eternal life that they should know Thee, the only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, even Jesus Christ," " That they may be one. as we are," &c, and all other words of Christ bearing on the subject. Or words of the Apostles such as :— " We rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the atonement." (Katallage, rendered reconciliation in revised version, the word atonement not occurring in the new version.) "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself," &c. " He was manifested to take away our sins." " God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son," &c. Speaking generally, I have tried to represent Christ in His own words, in His own life, and in His own Spirit. Perhaps not in the Salvation Army style, hut still in a way, I believe, the Great Master would approve; and those who have heard'me oftenest, and who who know me best, say that I preach Christ by word and life as much as anyone of the Auckland Presbytery whom they have heard. I am not axious to be either orthodox or heterodox; I am desirous to show Christ as He lives for us in the Gospels. The recent work by Principal Fairbairn, D.D., of Oxford. " The Place of Christ in Modern History," as reviewed by Professor Bruce, D.D., in the Contemporary for May, 1893, expresses my position more exactly than anything I could write ; and it is some satisfaction to me, after years of independent thought, to lind such able men say so well what I have preached for 19 years. Dr. Abbott (London) in "Through Nature to Christ," Dr. Marcus Dods, Robertson, of Brighton, Professor F. L. Maurice, Dr. Donaldson, in the " Apostolical Fathers," and many others, of what is known as the "Broad Church," express my position in regard to the Bible, and those matters of which I am called in question. If this be what my brethren call heresy, then "after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in tho Law and the Prophets." In regard to the Theosophical Society—it being established, not for a dogma, or any form of teaching, but for an object common to all the religions worthy the name, viz.. universal brotherhood, it necessarily follows that it has no relation to creed. Every minister in the world might belong to it, and so far as he strives to be truly a Christian, be does belong to it in reality, if not in name. To show that this is not my own opinion merely, I find that when, in 1884, Colonel Olcott started the Scottish Lodge in Edinburgh, neither the Scotsman nor Courant of Edinburgh, nor the Herald of Glasgow, had a word of abuse in their reports of his lecture—" Theosophy : What it is, and what it is not." And not only was a largo audience, which included clergymen and Collego professors present to hear him, but at the close a Rev. Dr., one of the most famous preachers of the city, came and shook hands with Colonel Olcott, and, in the hearing of several reporters, assured him of his entire sympathy. *' I find," said he, " that your Theosophy is the very essence of my religion. Every Sabbath I preach to my congregation the idea that it is possible for there to be a true brotherhood between man and man, as men, irrespective of race or creed. I want you to feel that to whatever country you may go, you will catry with you our entire sympathies." In contrast with this, the report says that Col. Olcott " was shown in the Antiquarian Museum the instruments of torture formerly used by one sect of Christians' to "compel other Christians to come over to their way of thinking, and the ' Scottish Maiden,' a rough guillotine which had chopped oil the heads of some hundreds of worthy persons who would not listen to reason, nor be made 'orthodox' by _ the thumbscrews, red-hot irons, or imprisonment !" And further, in the " Transactions of the Scottish Lodge for 1891" k is stated : " Following the constitution of the Theosophical Society, the Scottish Lodge is a brotherhood independent of creed" ;." We find our principal duty to lie in the careful study of the Christian doctrines.'' In Part 111., p. 33, it is stated: "An invitation to the President of the Scottish Lodge to explain the teachings of Theosophy to a gathering of some 30 clergy of the Scottish Church, which it is needless to say was willingly accepted, and whereat his necessarily brief remarks were most carefully listened to, and many pertinent questions asked, , was a notable sign of the hold Theosophic teaching is obtaining in Scotland. Many of those who listened have since read much of our literature, and expressed a desire to hear more of this ' new world which is the old."' Again, in Part IV., p. 50'. 1892. " No one is expected to hold that all religious are equal, tor no sincerely religious man ever did, or could hold this. Each one must think, and is fully justified in thinking, that his own exoteric form is the best and highest. The leaders of the Scottish Lodge are all Christians, and are proud of the title," &c. Nor is this the expression of Fellows of the Theosophical Society in Scotland only. Equally clear and strong words are to be found in the writings of members in London aud in New

York. So you see that being a F.T.S. does not imply anycreedal belief more than being a Freemason does. The time was when some churches anathematised _ Freemasonry, 'as some now do the Universal Brotherhood/' and for the same reason. I became-a F.T.S. long ago, and such I mean to remain.so long as its sole and laudable aim is 'universal brotherhood. You will concur with me, I think, that my written statement is more f satisfactory than any verbal one.— am, etc., S. J, Neill. Auckland, 13th July, 1893. My Dear Sir,— I duly received yours of the 4th, which I have this day submitted to the Committee, and am instructed to - reply That the Committee - regard your letter as wholly unsatisfactory, in that it dqes not state with sufficient clearness the views held by you of the proper Divinity, and the Atonement of Christ. [After this there follows a long list of references to the " Confession of Faith," and to the "Larger and Shorter Catechisms," too long to quote, and to which Mr. Neill was ! asked to reply. These include not only the two points of " Divinity and Atonement," but also a number of other things "God, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit," which were not mentioned in the first letter at all! The letter concludes with a denunciation of the Theosophical Society as " AntiChristian according to some of its exponents." And this in the face of the ample evidence that in Edinburgh and other places clergymen, much better able to judge than those in the Auckland Presbytery, have declared it the "essence of their religion." But the committee blindly or otherwise make the common mistake of confounding the Society with any member's teaching. The Society as such has no creed—those of all creeds or of none can belong to it, the only thing reauired being a good moral character and a desire to hasten Universal Brotherhood.] Mr. Neill's reply to this was sent to the' Clerk of Presbytery, who was also the convener of the committee, and was as follows : —Rev. and dear sir,—l meant to go to this Presbytery, but after seeing the evident designs of my. brethren, I think it batter for peace and harmony not to go. I have long had evidence of a hostile spirit on the part of several brethren— all, lam glad to say —but I did not think much of it, for I knew I was not alone in that respect, as last meeting of Presbytery and other occasions prove. I hardly thought, however, that a fine sense of honour, n6t to speak of brotherhood, would have failed to prevent anyone making accusations behiud my back when it was known I would not be at the Presbytery. I asked who my accusers were when former " representations" had been made to the Presbytery—as it was said had been done— what were the present ones ? Through the , courtesy of the committee I was informed 1 that the nature of Christ and the Atonement were the points, but my accusers merged themselves in the Court! Nor could 1 know when any "former accusations" had been - made. I said nothing about that, but replied \ fully to the two points raised in the words of Christ Himself, quoting some of His words, and saying I accepted all Ho had said on these matters ; also, quoting from the Apostles, for the Bible is professedly regarded as the standard from which the subordinate standards have whatever authority they posi sees. Then to my surprise I am told the words of Christ, given concerning His own nature were nob satisfactory, aud asking me to go to the subordinate standards. This seems to me unfaithful to Christ to put the " Confession of Faith" before His own words, and it means this : That if Christ Himself were to come He could not be received into the Church calling itself Christian unless He first bowed to a man-made creed—" entering in by lowly doors," indeed ! Would He not say, as He said before, "Ye leave the Commandment of God and hold fast to the traditions of men." No wonder that Professor Bruce says, " Christ has been lost in the creeds." And because I prefer the words of the Master Himself, and the power and simplicity of Christianity as it issued from its Founder, to the muddy waters of creeds, lamto be regarded as a heretic. It must, however, be evident who is Christian and who is Creedalist. I marvel at this holding up now of the Confession of Faith, seeing that some years ago the Presbytery of Auckland unanimously forwarded an overture to the Assembly for the revision of this same Confession. And it is well known that nearly all the world over it has either been revised, is undergoing revision, or is ignored altogether. In the last meeting of trio Free Church Assembly, I believe Principal Rainy clearly laid it down that ministers of the Free "Church may interpret clauses of the Confession of Faith in different senses, and even in our " Book of Order" there is an attempt made (1889) in the same direction. I do not refer now to precedent or authority. In the Church of Scotland, which the Auckland Presbytery might not recognise, if, however, they do recognise it as any authority, I would refer to Cunningham's Church History of Scotland, ii., 270 : " From the way in , winch the vote was ultimately taken, the Church did not give a direct decision upon the important point which had been raised, but the resolution come to was thought to imply abandonment of the right to question a man who was suspected of heresy and punish him if lie refused to reply— a wise and righteous decision, which brought ecclesiastical law into harmony with the civil law of the land." But passing from all these points. I notice that the committee not only put Christ's words aside as "unsatisfactory," and wish for the Confession of Faith : they also add a number of points about " God, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit," etc., not stated in the former letter. Now, either I was not told the whole truth at first, or the committee themselves are adding these points. This seems to imply sinister design, aud to give evidence of that hostile spirit to which I have referred. It seems to say : We cannot very well get hold of anything in your public teaching, nor can wo openly find fault with the words of Christ given by you, so we. will enlarge the field to the Confession of Faith generally, and see if we cannot trip you up there. If this is not the case I am glad it is not so, and express regret for supposing it. Wishing you all true brotherhood in Christ,— Yours faithfully, S. J. Neill. ;