UNION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10731, 20 February 1897, Page 3

UNION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES.

TO THE EDITOE.

Sir, —Judging from some of the letters which have appeared in your paper lately upon the above subject, there appears to be a considerable amount of alarm among some Presby terianV of sordid minds. One signing himself "Lex" has thought fit to sound a terrible alarm, and to try aud give the Presbyterians an awful scare. " Ler," doubtless, is perfectly righfc upon the matter ; at any rate, if he is a lawyer, as he appears to bs, he should be. But whafc if he is right and the church property must; go ? Should thafc prevent union taking place? I would like' to ask " Lex " to explain what righfc the Presbyterian Church haa to be endowed auy mora than the Koman Catholic, Episcopalian, Wesleyan, or Baptist Churches. Our community has a largo number of these sections oftheChristian Church here. To my mind the thing is a gross injustice, and the sooner fche.se endowments are got back by the State the better.

I happened to go to the synod to hear this debate upon union as I feel interested- in it. I listened with great interest; to the able, telling, and noble speeches of the Revs. Gibb and Waddeli. Theso man proved mosfc conclusively that union would promote the Redeemer's Kingdom greatly, and thafc was the keynote of their speeches, and one felt proud fco think \rn had such men iv our midst. Would such men aa these tremble before "Lex's" awful blast ? No, verily no. I feel sure they would not. They could not have spoken with the fervour they did had not fche promotion of God's Kingdom been their great, consumisig desire. It U such men as these who are the backbone of our Christian Church. If " Lex " thinks they will be frightened to give up their lands for conscience' sake I am sure he judges wrongly. It would not be the first time that a band of noble men had given up for conscience' sake lands, churches, and manses, and preached to fche world a sermon which will echo and re-echo through the ages. If union will do the good that these men said it would, they too, I believe, are ready to give up their endowments, and so "Lex's" clarion note of warning will simply sound and die away. Another matter I trust is presenting itself to the _ minds of these men—the injustice of retaining these lands of theirs when they must feel, as a great number of the laity do, thafc they have no more righfc to them than fche ofcher .denominations have.—l am, &c,

Lovee of Justice,

Dunedin, February 13.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —The letter in your columns this morning Bigned «'A Member of Synod" set me thinking as follows :—Human nature in " A Member of Synod" is extremely like human nature outside that sacred circle. The bar lost of an ornament (of its kind) when " A Member of Synod " took to tho pulpit. He is a master in the art of heaping abuse on the other side when his case is bad. The atmosphere in which gentlemen with wigs as well as gowns do their work would surely be more congenial to him than thafc of the church and the pulpifc. The bar will survive hia absence; will the church long survive his presence ? Can there be a Christian question of union between .churches where there is no unchristian disunion? There ia no such disunion between the two Presbyterian Churches in New Zealand. They have always lived at p*ace and in good fellowship with each other. Is not this rumpus then a case of "much ado aboufc nothing"? Union must be in "a very bad way" when it needs advocacy of this kind. Can "A Member of Synod" imagine that such advocacy can make for union anywhere? He surely does not believe the ministers, office-bearers, and people oE the Presbyterian Church of Otago to be such children as to mistake the stage thunder and abuse ot "A Member of Synod" for the voice of Heaven speaking ? Whether the union of the two Presbyterian Churches in New Zealand is enjoined by Christ may be open to question, out it can be open to none that tbe discord and divm-.on which exist in the Otago Church ia for-bidd-tu by Him. Who is responsible for thafc disunion, and who iv to originate a movement to end it ? Does the Prince of Peace require of His servants thafc tbey shall fighfc for union abroad at the price of disunion and perhaps rupture afc home? Does nofc "A Member of Synod" know that many vsfced for union, not from desire for union, but for rest from this ceaseless troubling? Does he not know alao that his saying, "This union will greatly promote the interests of Presbyterianism and further the cause of religion in New Zealand" is very insufficient proof of it ? Can men be thoroughly sincere in telling the world that God is caliiog them into this usion, when in the next breath they say, as "A Member of Synod" and "Veritas" both do, that they have no intention of going into ifc unless they can carry all their worldly belongings with them ? Is God's' call to be obeyed only when obedience will cost; nothing? Can this profession of being called of God in this matter be whafc " Veritas" woiild call _*' bluff," without the men who make it knowing that ifc is so ? Can a church violate a solemn compact and still have a righfc fco hold on to material benefits which are lawfully hers only on condition that that compact is kept ? Is nofc this what " A Member of Synod " and the party for which he speaks purpose doing in fche name and iv the interests of Preshytcrianism and of religion in New Zealand ? Is Parliament likely to "aid and abet" them in doing this—the valuable opinion ofthe Hon. W. D. Stewart notwithstanding ?—I am, kc, Dnnedin, February 16. Inquires.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir,—You have published the first of a series of " Open Letters to the Presbyterians of Otago and Southland," in'which the design of the writer is fco raise opposition and obstruction fco the projected union between the two Presbyterian Churches of Kew Zealand. Before^ the other letters are issued, will you allow me to correct an important error in the one whichjhas appeared ? Possibly some one may thick it worth while to answer the letters in detail. It certainly is not my intention to do 30. If they are all like the first they will consist chiefly of reiterations of the writers opinion as to the undesirableness of the proposed union. Some one has said thafc "there is only so much force in any man's opinions aa there is force in the reasons for them." Judging letter No. 1 by this rule, I cannot regard the opinions expressed as having any force at all. _ The matter to which I request yonr permission to reply is not an opinion but an alleged face. I wish to show that; ifc is not a fact, but jan error. The writer compares "the relative position of the two New Zealand churches" with " the relative position of the Presbyterian Church in England to tbose in Scotland." It is well known that tbe Presbyterian churches in EDgland and Scotland are separate and distinct. _ "It ii to be noted," says the writer, I" in view of the close correspondence between the relative positions of the two New Zealand ' churches and that of the churches in England 1 and Scotland, that there has never been any proposal to unite that in England with any church in Scotland with which it is mosfc in sympathy. They stand to this day separate and apart, and it 13 deemed for the interests of both they should so stand." This fact, as the writer imagines it to be, he uses in support of his opinion that the Presbyterian Churches in thia colony ought not to unite.

Ifc might easily be shown that the cases are nofc analogous, but thafc the conditions under which Presbytetianism exists in Scotland and England respectively are so different as nofc fco furnish a parallel to the circumstances of the New Zealand churches north and south of the Waitaki. But I content myself with saying that the writer ought to have known better than to affirm that there never has been any proposal to unite the Presbyterian Churches in England and Scotland. The fact is that negotiations were entered into, and for a considerable time carried ou, for union among four Presbyterian Churches—two in Scotland and two in England. These were the Free Church of Scotland, the United Presbyterian Church (comprehending congregations in England as well as Scotland), the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the English Presbyterian Church. The idea was to constitute a British Presbyterian Church, and that idea, although nofc realised (for a reason which I shall presently state), is still favoured by many and may be realised at lome future time.

When the union of Presbyterian Churches took place ia England in 1876 a memorial volume was published, containing among othsr interesting articles one written by George B. Bruce, Esq. (now Sir George B. Bruce), entitled "A Sketch of the History of the Union Negotiations ie England." Tnis article shows that, iv 1863 the United Presbyterian Synod "dueusied fhe question ora union of all ' non-conforming Presbyterians iv Great Britain, and appointed a committee 'to meet with any committee that may be appointed by the General Assembly of the Free Church, or by the Syncd of tbe English Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, cr sho Original Secession Church, and fco confer with thorn respecting the relative positions of the several bodies aud the United Presbyterian Church, and fche steps proper to be taken for their present co-operation and ultimate union.' " Ifc lurther utates thafc " the step thus taken by ihe United Presbyterian Synod waa reciprocated by the General Assembly of the Free Church a few days subsequently." Ifc gogg on fco show that, although there ware those in Scotland who "wished to confine to the limits of Scotland any union into which they might enter," and those in Eegland who desired only au English union, the progress of events leu to the constitution of a Onioa Committee representing the ehurchei or. both sides of the Tweed. True, the Presbyterian Church iv England, as Sir George Bruce *aya, " entered upon the union negotiations iv the General Committee, anxious thafc the outcome of these negotiations might be a united, bufc independent, church iv England ; yet prepared, we fully b'elicvs, to fail in with

the larger incorporating union if, in the provi- ] dence of God, that should seem to be the path ! of duty." The extent of fche union was neces- ! sarily one of fche most important questions that came before the Joint Committee. In a manner it concerned the English Presbyterian Church more than the English congregations of the United Presbyterian Church, which was neither exclusively Scotch nor exclusively English in geographical area, but belonged to both countries. The desire of the English Presby- ' terian Church as a*whole was to have separate supreme judicatories in England and Scotland _ respectively, each having independent jurisdiction—a scheme somewhat analogous to the proposal to retain in the handa of the Synod of Otago and Southland certain independent functions after beinx; united with the Northern Caw-ch. If ifc should be said that a basis of union allowing separate and independent jurisdiction would nofc effect real but ouly nominal union, may not the same be said of the proposed basis? of union between our New Zealand churches ? Bufc to declare fchafc the union negotiations 5.5 Home were" not intended to promote real u;;ion would be a presumptuous and false assertion The " ninth head of programme," which Xayed a mosfc important pnrfc in fche arrangements, declared "thai under any adjustment or these two portions" (the English and Scotch respectively) i " which may be proposed it will be necessary to ! make manifest and maintain their nnity." j The negotiations for union were arrested in ; consequeuce of the attitude taken by a minority • in the Free Church. They were not prepared to mane the question of endowment of religion by the State an open question. Hostile motions ; were made in presbyteries and general assem- ! blies, and great disturbance and unsetfclemeufc ■ arose. "Pamphlets were circulated in vast i numbers, and afc enormous expense; a periodical i was even instituted and sustained for the pur- '■ pose of writing down the union and its pro- \ moters, and bringing the whole great movemsnfc '■ to an untimely end." The question was also raised oi the soundness of the United Presbyterian Church on the subjecfc of the extent of I the Atonement. _ These, however, are matters j which ifc is foreign to my purpose to discuss. I Suffice ifc to say that the work of 10 years was' \ leffc unfinished. Negotiations were suspended. I The Joint Committee was discharged. But; had it not been for thafc virulent opposition \ on the part of a minority in the Free Church j the four churches would have become one. ; Taere would have existed afc the present day a ■ British Presbyterian Church. It may con- i fidenfcly be predicted that one day it will exist. \ A separate movement for oSecting union in '■ England was the result of the breaking off of* •' negotiations for the larger union. That; move- I ment was successfnl, and the union" was con- • summated sfc the Philharmonic Hall, Liverpool, I on Tuesday, the 13bh day of June, 1876—a day I which those who were present on the occasion ' will remember while they live. j If the writer of letter No. 1 had heen - acquainted with the above facts he surely would \ not have said that there had never been any j proposal to form a union of Presbyterian : Churches in England and Scotland.—l am, &c„ j Mosgiel, February 15. J. M. M'Kerrow. j