THE HERESY CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9404, 10 January 1894, Page 5

THE HERESY CASE.

REV. 8. ;J. NEILL AND THE

PRESBYTERY.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. , At the meeting 'of the Auckland Presbytery, held last evening, the greater parb of the time was occupied' in dealing with several matters in s connection with charges of heresy against the Rev. S. J. Neill, of the Thame?. 1; C '"' J -' :-$>

The matter was brought up by the Rev. R. F. Macnicot., who moved the following resolutions;— (1) In reference to the case of the Rev. S. J. Neill, it is the unanimous wish of the Presbytery that the Assembly give final Judgment in the matter, if possible. (2) That the Rev. S. J. Neill be cited to appear at the Assembly in support of hie own interest; and (3) that the clerk be appointed to state the reference to the Assembly." ■'•"■' ' Mr. Brownlee seconded the resolution.

Rev. T. Norkie said that it was his desire to leave the matter to the wisdom of the Assembly. He did not want any resolution of the Presbytery to influence in any Way their judgment. i Rev. D. J. Btekle did not see any object to be gained by passing such a resolution. The whole matter would come before the Assembly, and he thought it objectionable for' the Presbytery to send any request. Rev. R. Sommerville thought ib was competent for the Presbytery to express a desire that the Assembly should take the matter in their own hands, so as to arrive at a final decision.

Rev. D. J. Steele thought it would be much better to leave the matter as it was at present. \ Rev. R. F. JdACNicoL said that by the carrying of his resolution the Presbytery expressed the wish that there should be no bias in the judgment of the Court. It merely meant) that they expressed their desire that the Assembly would give final judgment in the matter, and take the onus of deciding the matter from the lower Court.

Rev. G. B. Monro said he could not agree with the resolution, because he thought thab the constitutional course would be for the Assembly to refer it back. They were instructed by the Assembly to do a certain thing, and in their report they asked the Assembly for judgment in regard to future action.

Rev. D. J. Steele thought thab the passing of such a resolution looked as if they wished to shirk any, responsibility that might appertain to them. If it was their duty to see the matter through and come to a decision on it, he did not think they ought to shirk it. Ib showed weakness and a want of courage to send a resolution like the one proposed to the General Assembly. He thought it very»desirable to have the matter settled as quickly as possible ; bub, at the same time, it there was delay, they were not responsible for it. He moved, as an amendment, " That the report stand as left at the last meeting of the Presbybery." After further discussion, the Rev. R. F. Macnicol withdrew the first clause of his resolution.

The Rev. D. J. Steele then withdrew his amendment, and the resolution, with the exclusion of the first clause, was carried unanimously. The Clerk (the Rev. R. Sommerville) said there was another matter from the Thames that he wished to bring before the Presbytery. He then read a letter from members of the Board of Managers of St. James's Presbyterian Church, Thames. The letter was signed by Messrs. Robert Gibb, John Mair, James Coutts, and William Dunn) who protested and appealed against the actions and ruling of the Hev. S. J. Neill in his capacity as chairman of the Board. The letter referred to certain disagreements and alleged irregularities in the felling of vacancies which occurred at meetings held on December 11 and 18. The question as to whether certain gentlemen, who, it was stated, had left the Church, could vote, was warmly discussed, and Mr. Neill's ruling caused greab dissension. The letter contained detailed reports of what must have been rather extraordinary business meetings at the Thames. The writers concluded by stating that they had nob loft the church, bub they could nob attend while Mr. Neill was preachcsr. They could nob send the letter through the session, as there was, they said, really no session ab present in connection with the Thames Church. The Rev. R. Sommerville said that on receipt of the above letter he wrote to the Rev. S. J. Neill, telling him that he had received it. He reoeived the following reply from Mr. Neill:—" In reply to yours of the 3rd January, I beg to inform you that since 18S5 there has existed a session here, though at times one or two members thereof may have been temporarily employed a few miles distant. Further, the session met a few days ago and took into consideration matters connected with the church, one of which was the case of Mr. Lang ; but they received no protest or communication from the persons mentioned in your letter, and consequently can take no notice of such persons until they come before the session. Bub having left the church, and gone to other churches, it) is questionable if they have any longer the right to approach the session. In any case, if an appeal is made to the Presbytery H must bo against a decision of the session." The Rev. R. Sommorville commented at length on the reply received from the Rev. S. J. Neill. Ho considered the four gentlemen were quite justified in appealing to the Presbytery. It was not within the province of the Court to dismiss those men as they had been dismissed. He therefore moved, "That their appeal be received."

Mr. Ramsay seconded the motion.

, Mr. J. C. Mack* moved as an amendment, That the appeal should not be received." He contendod that their rules should be observed. Rule 109 stated that when a member left the Church ho ceased to be entitled to act as manager. The gentleman admitted having left the church. He though the Presbytery had no right to ignore the session. . After further' discussion the motion was carried.

, The Moderator (the Rev. A„ Carrick) stated that the merits of the petition were now before the meeting. The Rev. G. B. Monro wished to know if the Presbytery had any evidenoe that the session had removed the names of the men. . ■ h -^' Mr. Madkv said that ab the previous meeting of the Presbytery the men had not objected. As the men had ignorod the rules of the Church, the question should nob be considered. -

. Mr. Robertson moved, That the parties be cited to appear at a meeting of the Presbytery to be called next Tuesday, when all documents would be produced." : Mr. Grandison seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. I The Rev. Mr. Sommervillb said he had one other matter that he wished to bring before the meeting. He had been informed thab day by letter that the, Rev. Mr. .fteill Was proceeding to enlarge the session. On Sunday last 1 he had given notice from the pulpit that the session had nominated ten persons, and of these six were to be elected. He had nothing to say against the gentlemen who had been nominated, bub he thought ib strange that under the present circumstances the < session should take upon itself to nominate ten persons. ;In view of the fact that Mr. Neill's case was going before the Assembly, and solemn issues were to be decided, he moved, "That Mr. Neill be enjoined nob to proceed with the election of elders during the present divided state of the congregation." ( The Rev. D. J. Steele seconded the motion, which after a brief discussion was carried unanimously. ' ' : '