BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17258, 6 September 1919, Page 11

BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

REV. A. MURRAY IN REPLY.

NO INTENTION OF RESIGNING. Rev. A. A. ' Murray writes on the baptism by immersion incident as follows — Mr. Jolly's letter in Friday's Herald demands a reply. In the- first place" the matter under discussion would j not have been made public but for, the . fact that the Revs. Budd, Inglis, and Shaw came to my manse and after a little 1 discussion not about " re-baptism," to ] use Mr, Jolly's phrase, but awut immer- i 6 ion, asked me to tender my resignation ] as a minister of the Presbyterian Church, j j I was assured .that if I do so quietly it j would save the presbytery taking any J 1 action in the matter. If I refused it j 1 would force their hand and 1 would then ' appear as a, martyr before the public. As i the deputation left my house, the leader, ] j Rev. Budd, said they were sorry I would j not acquiesce in their desire. They certainly came for the purpose of getting my resignation,, and they asked for it. It now 1 appears from Mr. Jolly's letter that members of the presbytery held an informal meeting, discussed my action, and deputed the above-named brethren to interview me with the idea of obtaining my resignation. It may he that the three brethren went beyond their powers in asking me j for it, but they did it, and I considered, and still consider, their unwarrantable. And it was this request | to slip out of the Church of my ! forefathers without more ado that | led me to make the matter public. It is all very well for Mr. Jolly to say that the Tivoli Theatre episode has nothing to do with Viieir present action, but Mr. Jolly's references to-pur services in the . theatre, in his letter, show that he is still very sore about it. Mr. Jolly c?.nnot disguise the fact. And now that Mr. Jolly has gone into the Tivoli Theatre matter somewhat fully and has apparently succeeded in making me out to be a fearful character, it may be well for me to give the public a few facts about it. First, legally we were within our rights m opening sen-ices there, even although the theatre is near the confines of two neighbouring Presbtyerian parishes. My session consulted the ablest exponent of church law in Now Zealand, the Rev. P. B. Eraser, M.A., of Hokitika, who has forgotten more church procedure than MrJolly and his co - presbyters ever learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt our action was legal, and if Mr. Jolly still harps on the string of the illegality of the action, why does tie not take the matter to a higher court and have it settled once and for all. Further, Mr. Jolly is constantly singling me out as the culprit, whereas it was the action of a congregation deeply anxious to reach the masses who do not go to church. Secondly, as to the morality of the action (again Mr. Jolly singles me out and characterises the act.oa as " intensely selfish in relation to neighbouring ministers and their congreI gations"), the public Ought to know that j before my session and congregation did | anything in the matter. 1 consulted the ! Rev, W. L. Walker, of St. James', the I Rev F. A. Thompson, of St. Peter's, and the Rev. J. M. Saunders, of St. David's. Mr. Walker and Mr. Thompson assured • me that our holding services in the theatre would not militate against their work. So we had the good wishes of these two neighbouring brethren. But Mr. Saunders cou d not see his way to agree. In order 1 to induce Mr. Saunders not to put any' ; obstacle in the way, members of my ses- : 6ion met with members of his session in ' the Sunday School board room and discussed the position, but with no success, for Mr. Saunders was still opposed. We felt that as St. David's Church is a reasonable distance from the Tivoli Theatre and that as St. David's congregation comes chiefly from Mount Eden and Khyber Pass it would do St. David's no harm if we ! began in the theatre. Surely, we did all we could in a reasonable and friendly way* to induce St. David's session to acquiesce! Yet Mr. Jolly says that I (again he sin- ! gleg me out) % "not seem to care how 1 I injure other congregations if I can only * get an audience myself." I leave readers I to form their own opinion of such utter- ' ances. Wag I far astray when 1 said that ' the present action to get me out of the Church of my forefathers was influenced j - by the Tivoli episode? And does it look * as if I owed my brethren an apology for j 5 imputing such motives to them? In con--5 elusion, and in connection with the main 1 issue, viz., my baptism by immersion, I have no intention of leaving the Church of ray ancestors, where my saintly mother has been a Sunday School teacher for nearly half a century and where she still labours for the glory of our riser: and coming Lord and for the salvation of perishing men. 5 • A LAYMAN'S VIEW.

PRACTICAL HELP OFFERED.

Mr. Thomas Miller writes — am astounded at the Rev. Isaac Jolly's, letter aDd the severe, and one might almost say, unbrotherly criticisms of Mr. Murray, when he accused him of "getting into the limelight," being " absolutely unfair," making statements " contrary to fact," "incorrect," also "misrepresentation." These are strong statements for one minister to use about another. To my mind, Mr. Jolly in a way lets the cat out of the bag, when he says, " he wag present at an informal conference of members of the presbytery which sent the deputation to interview Mr. Murray." Mr. Jolly does not say whether Mr. Murray was invited to attend this informal and apparently secret meeting of the members of the presbytery. I consider, in the interests of British fair play, this would have been correct under the circumstances, es- , pecially as he was the subject of discussion. 'At any rate, Mr. Jolly statement clearly proves • that the visit was not as previously stated '' a purely private and friendly one," but instead a deputation appointed, and sent, by an informal conference of members of the presbytery. The fact that Mr. Murray, and with the consent of his session, opened Sunday evening services for the purpose of reaching the masses of non-chttrchgoing people who throng KaraDgahape Road on Sunday evenings, was surely a commendable one, and instead of the "presbytery " contenting itself in crnsuring Mr. Murray," he should, in my humble opinion, have had their most ardent support and help. Mr. Jolly says Mr. Murray's conduct was "dishonourable" and "intensely selfish." and that he (Mr. Murray) does not seem to care how he injures other congregations if he can only get an audience , himself." I'm quite sure the great bulk j of Presbyterian li'.vmen will not concur in this most uncharitable judgment, and which as a member of Mr. Jolly's congregation, and holding him in the veryhighest esteem, I deeply regret that he has given utterance to. I am also somewhat afraid th.it many people will hold the opinion that as Mr. Murray's Sunday evening services have been very successful. in spite of the presbytery's censure, perhaps unconsciously there may be some i little feeling on the part of some member" of the presbytery. I have not spoken, to Mr. Murray for vears. have never been to any of his services, do not hold with him in his adult baptism, but reports from reliable sources lead nip to believe i* doing * Christ-like work in reaching the people, and in the interests jof freedom of conscience, for which so many of our ancestors bled and died. I enter my protest against, what seems like trying to squeeze a man out of the Church of his forefathers. If the presi bytery do cast him out, I «hall be most happy to make one of ten to subscribe £100 each annually, so that Mr. Murray may continue to go into the highways and byways and freely preach the gospel to everyone.