BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17327, 26 November 1919, Page 9

BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

MR. MURRAY'S CASE. DECISION OF ASSEMBLY. '. "LIABLE TO "DISCIPLINE." RESIGNATION SUGGESTED. [BY TELEGRAPH— CORRESPONDENT.] 'I INVERCARGILL. Tuesday, j i The Presbyterian Assembly considered, i as its first business this morning, the report , of the large committee set up to inquire into the case of the recent baptism by ' iimmers'on of the Rev. A. A. Murray, of St. Andrew's Church. Auckland. The case , had been referred from the Auckland : I Preshytery to the assembly for decision. ] The following report of the committee I was presented to a full attendance of dele- j gates by Dr. Gibb :— j That the assembly having carefully con- I sidered the reference from the" Presbytery of Auckland, anent the Rev. A. A. Mur- ■ ray, finds ' I (1) That it is desirable to reaffirm the' historical position of this church in re i ference to the following points :—(a) That '■ ' i bapt/sm by sprink'ing is valid ; (b) that I the infant children of those who profess their faith in Christ are rightful subjects of baptism ; (c) that the sacrament of baptism can be received only once. 1 _ (2) That the action of the Rev. A. A. Murray in being immersed after having I been baptised ty sprinkling, in accordance ' | with the ordinance of the Church, and ] his refusal to administer baptism to in- , fants, are irregular, and render him liable , to discipline. (3) »Mr. Murray's request to be permitted to immerse persons already baptised cannot be granted. (4) That this finding be conveyed to the Presbytery of Auckland, to St. Andrew's , congregation, and to Mr. Murray. > j Dr. Gibb said the committee had dealt I with this perplexing question in a spirit ; of deep seriousness, and with a strong dej s'.re to deal with Mr. Murray, not only justly, but also kind'.}* and considerately. They were all most anxious to do what was best, not only for the Church, but ' also for Mr. Murray himself. Mr. Murray had been present at some of the numerous meetings of the committee, and had been invited to take part in the discussion. They felt that Mr. Murray, in submitting to inmersion after baptism, had ■' very little conception of the seriousness of the situation, or of how the assembly , would regard it They felt that Mr. Mur ray fu'.ly believed that he was protected By the Declaratory Act, which left certain decisions open to tne assembly from time to time. It became evident that the first thing required of the committee was to set forth the doctrine of the Church, and to make it clear that they did not regard Mr. Murray's case as covered by the Declaratory Act. Mr. Murray had I indicated that if that were done he "would know -where he stood, and how to act. He , would go to the length of beseech. Mr. Murray to save the other brethren from this tribulation by sending in his resig- ■ nation. (Applause") Not a Matter for Applause. Dr. Gibb said he d"id not think this was a matter in which there was occasion for any kind of applause at all. (Hear, hear). They did not wish at all to interfere with Mr. Murray's usefulness, but th.s "Church had stood for infant baptism, and this Church was going to stand for infant baptism. The abandoning of infant baptism woull mean the abandoning of this position, for ■which the Church had stood, and all the theology that lay behind it. They certainly proposed to send the case back to Auckland, but they sent it back prefaced with the clearest and most unmistakable 1 statement of the assembly's views on the matter. It meant that if Mr. Murray i should refuse to baptise infants in future, j or be guilty of any of the other irregularities complained of, then the presbytery j mus* take action and take the disciplinary I measures it considered right. He moved the adoption of the report as a whole. Room for all in the Church. The Rev. W. J. Comrie seconded the j motion. There was room, he said, for those holding very different views on doctrine and order, and he differed from Dr. Gibb in this, that he hoped the carrying of the resolution would not lead Mr. Murray to tender his resignation as a minister of the Church. He. hoped that there would be no further need for any disciplinary measures. Let them regard Mr. Murray as a weaker brother if they liked, but don't let them "jostle him.' He was thinking of worthy elders and members who were in a somewhat similar position, and- he hoped that room would I be found for them all within their Church. '. j The Rev. J. H. McKenzie asked if an j opportunity had been given by the committee to Mr. Murray to resign. • An Opportunity to Resign. Dr. Gibb said the question of resignation had certainly been presented to Mr. Murray. It had been pointed out to hirri that that was the best solution Mr. McKenzie said he could not accept i : the report. The case had been sent down •' to the assembly from a scene of turmoil j in the Auckland Presbytery, and the committee proposed to send it back there. The mover had said he hoped Mr. Murray would resign, and the seconder said he hoped he , would not resign, To his view it was not ! possible for them to allow Mr. Murray to continue in the Church and for that J Church to continue as the Presbyterian j . Church of New Zealand. For other men in similar case the way of honour had been to resign from the Church, but Mr. I I Murray had not seen tit to do so. An Amendment Moved. I In conclusion he moved as an amendment: "That the assembly, having heard , i th'i representatives of the Auckland Pres bytery anent the reference from them in ■ regard to the immersion of the Rev. A. j A- Murray, finds that Mr. Murray acknowledges that he no longer holds the doctrine ot this Church in regard to infant baptism, and that he cannot discharge in that connection the duties devolving upon a Christian minister; hence the assembly resolve that Mr. Murray be required to send in his resignation ironi the Presbyterian ministry to the regular j . meeting of the Auckland Presbytery in ■ January next, and that the presbytery be , instructed to accept the same. Further, | that Mr. Murray lading to send in his ', resignation the presbytery is hereby in- ■ stiucted to declare Mr. Murray from" that date no longer a minister of this Church." The Rev. A.- Finlayton seconded Mr. MeKenzie's amendment, because he thought it ought not to be allowed to drop, though he thought Dr. Gibb's motion would ultimately come to the eanie result. Professor Dickie said he would have been content to give a silent vote if it , had not been for the interpretation put upon the committee's findings by Mr Comrie. If Mr. Comrie really meant that ! he hoped Mr. Murray would submit to the findings of the Church, he was wholly in sympathy with that Plea for Further Consideration. • Mr. J. Rodman (Oamaru) moved as a further amendment that " Whereas in view of the short time this matter' has been before the Church, its mind cannot be adequately known, and the assembly refer the matter for further consideration I by the appointment of a committee to • sessions and presbyteries to report their opinion on the same to the next assembly " He believed that there was a great deal of unrest among office-bearers and women workers in the Church, and there was an impression in some parts that the Church was too "hidebound with theology."

, There were a number of eldere who held decided views on baptism. What was to be their position if Mr. Murray was disciplined? Could those who believed in 'adult immersion remain in the Church ' The Rev. J. Paterson asked if Mr. Rodman had any right to make such suggestions about the elders of their Church. He was making a most serious charge against them. The moderator said he thought Mr. Rodman had got a little off the track. Elders Might Leave Church. The Rev. A. Cow (Waikaka Valley) seconded the amendment on behalf of the elders referred to by Mr. Rodman Mr Murray had been trained and brought up by hie Presbyterian mother in th e views i he now held, and it would not b e fair to put him out. The speaker's own elders had come to ask him what would be their position should the assembly decide , against this minister. They might feel it was their duty to leave the Church if the decision went against Mr. Murray. The Church should com? to &om e more definite . finding as to the relation of the eldership j and membership" of the Church. I Dr. J. K. Elliott (Wellington) said hp ; had never felt so puzzled and pained in ! any public meeting as he had that morning. A great deal of sympathy had been | given to Mr. Murray but was there no sympathy to be given the Auckland Pres- ■ bytery, which had had all this trouble : brought upon it? Was there no sympathv j due to them as a Church when they were , asked to alter the whole of their historic j position? He appealed to Mr. Murray to j bow to the call of the assembly. j Mr. T. C. Brash said the "great bodv I of elders were loyal to the teachings o*f j the Church. Liberty of Conscience. j The Rev G. S. Young (Waikaka), speak- ! ing of union, said that if ever they were to unite with the Baptist Church the barriers would have to be taken down. He stated that five of the elders of his Church ■ had been baptised by immersion, though they were loyal to the Church in every other respect. Personally, he was thor- ! oughly loyal to the Church's doctrine in ■, this respect, but he felt it was a question in which liberty of conscience should be granted somehow. He would like to ' have proposed that liberty be granted to Mr. Murray provided he would baptise ; infante. j The matter was about to be put to the ' vote, but Mr. Murray was first asked to ! speak. Mr. Murray' said it seemed the I assembly regarded him as the troubler of Israel. A Member : Does Mr. Murray put this assembly in the position of that? The- Moderator: Mr. Murray should not be interrupted. The Rev. W. Scorgie: Mr. Murray should not insult this assembly. The moderator stated that Mr. Murray must be allowed to proceed without interruption, and this ruling was faithfully followed. Mr. Murray's Defence. Mr. Murray said, in doing what he did. he, believed he was following the clear teaching of Scripture and also the views j held by many stalwarts of the Presbyterian Church. He quoted Principal Lindi say in support of his views on believers' j baptism and of the view that the prac- ' tices might exist side by side without disi rupting the Church. He was a Presbyj terian to the backbone, and he felt "it ; ' keenly that members should ask his rej signation because he differed from them ;on a subordinate question. If he had difI fered from them in any essential doctrine ! tie would have tabled his resignation from I the Church. He referred also to Princi--1 pals Rainey and Cunningham, quoting from a work on the question of baptism recently prepared by the Rev. P. B. Fraser to show that infant baptism was not the practice of the early Church. Continuing, he pointed out that lawyers differed as to their interpretation of the I Declaratory Act. He had no desire to I leave the Church of his fathers, which was the Presbyterian Church. He had been I in no other Church, and he said, without i fear of contradiction that he was true to its historic doctrines. He thanked the 1 moderator and the house for its patient hearing. A Fire Which Might Spread. Dr. Gibb, in replying before the vote was taken, said that in many respects the ! teaching of the early Church was in a dei fective state. The question was :Is the i celebration of infant baptism an obligation which their Church laid upon its minis- : ters? What would happen if. they simply I said, " Mr. Murray is rebellious, but it is ] not a vital matter, and will not trouble j the ' 'Church much." Would it not? They could gather what would happen from the speeches made on that platform. It was high time that the assembly made a definite statement on the subject, not only for Mr. Murray's sake, but also for that of many others. This thing would spread if it was not promptly dealt with. It was a small fire now. Let them put it out. The assembly could immediately expel Mr. Murray, uut he thought that would be j harsh. He did hope that Mr. Murray | would see good, for the sake of the Church I of his fathers, to send in his resignation. He thought Mr. McKenzie's resolution was too drastic, and did not give Mr. Murray time to turn round. If these resolutions were carried, and Mr. Murray persisted in . his refusal to baptise infants, then it would be clearly the duty of the Auckland Presbytery to remove him from the office of minister in their midst. Result of the Voting. Mr. Murray asked that the names of the voters on both sides be recorded by a calling of the roll. He was anxious to get the names so that they might be handed down to posterity. (Laughter.) It was eventu illy decided to take the vote by calling the roll, but not to record j the names. The doors were closed and ; guarded, and members proceeded to vote : by calling out the name of the mover of the resolution they favoured. Members ! of the Auckland Presbytery nearly all de- ! dined to vote". It was soon evident that the resolution submitted by Dr. Gibb was I favoured by a large majority. I The result of the voting was announced 1 as 131 voU'3 for Dr. Gibb's motion, 44 for i Mr. McKenzie's, and seven for Mr. Rod- | man's. The report was therefore declared adopted by an absolute majority. The Rev. J. Paterson (Christchurch) subsequently gave notice that he would move a pastoral letter be issued by the moderator in consultation with the Life and Work Committee, setting forth the . doctrine of baptism as held by the Presby- ( terian Church, this letter to be read from ! the pulpit of every congregation on at least two consecutive Sundays. i :