OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESBYTERIANS OF OTAGO AND SOUTH- LAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10731, 20 February 1897, Page 7

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESBYTERIANS OF OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND.

| . No. 11. ■ The proposal to form an Incorporating Union between the two Presbyterian Churches iv New Zealand is no new one. Again and again , ifc has been submitted to the supreme courts | of both churches, with the uniform conclusion [ hitherto that fche time had nofc come and the ' circumstances had not arisen thafc would render : union practicable and mutually beneficial, or , even advantageous to either of the churches. ■ Though often before the supreme courts of both churches, no opportunity has been afforded to ascertain the mind of their congregations rela- ; tive to tha proposal of union. " These are the parties chiefly concerned, and vet tbey have never been consulted. The' whble movement has been m the hands of. certain members of the supreme courts who pose as leaders, who in succession have deemed themselves to be better able than those who have gone before to bring this union about. The people have been completely ignored since the movement commenced in 1861. In that year a conference of ministers and elders from all parfs of New Zealand was held in Dunedin at which a basis of union was adopted. This was submitted, to the several presbyteries and sessions then existing. These were requested to. consider Jihe basis, and to forward their views regarding it to a second conference appointed to be held in Auckland. This conference, ifc was agreed, should have power to consummate the union, on the understanding, of course, thafc the Dunediu basis met with general approval Unfortunately the Auckland conference made an addition to the basis, and having done so tself mto a general assembly, and proceeded to legislate and administer for the whole church, north and south. When the. Presbytery of Otago, then a supreme court, learned this t-rc-cedure ifc refused to recognise ifc as legitimate M d_ to be a party to a union on a basis wWch neither it noranyofitssessionshadhadtheopportumty of considering and assenting'to This action oE the Presbytery of Ota S o the latel)' Stuart strenuously opposed. For msny years he strongly supported every proposal ia favour of UIT- c ?u 7,SS' • ho™-«. °<*asion to, vfcifc X\° ft^ Mt! ki he Mt «*n.trai nß d to alter his attitude towards this matter from what he saw of the circumstances of the northern Church, and tbe lines it followed a» a fferent from what prevailed in his own I TE ¥ H!So. hanSe of view, with the reasons of the change, ne published unreservedly in th* Presbyterian, then conducted by him' From._ thai time onward, as often as the ikopesal for union was repeated, be continued his opposition by voice and vote. Such repetition was frequent. I ,s unnecessary to enumerate the attempts made by Dr Salmond, Mr Stein and others, aided by the committees of which they were conveners, to bring about this union lhese have a permanent record in the published, proceedings of synod. These attempts proved,m ereg instance futile, and had to be & *n -^ N^fy waa tbis the case in 1885? when De* Stuart with others lodged a Won; protest.agamst the synod persisting in prosecuting tbis union, wifch the result tnaton tee mot Ton "f convener of the Union Committee the synod came to the copclusion that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining unanimity in favour of an incorporated union, and di° nS ri°iw mmiS lee- By Dr S6uart aQ* iM- ?W.t °?wi th<\.couviction was strongly felt that until the charges in the north came iuto closer proximity to each o'her, and until the facilities of intercourse were greater and the cost of travelling lessened, an in^orXl union was impracticable, ahd could prove of nopractical benefit to either church. Dr Stuart was as every Presbyterian must be, favourable to union ; but from what he saw personally of the c,rcum ß t a nces of the northern chmchthl tt l^V* «ht fc, he wonld hav * continual faithful to his first love for union. True to his fuUer informatmn, he changed his sentimeiS and openly and manfully avowed the chance m Dunedin. A movement in favour of union nas been rtuewed undn* the impulsive guidance of Mr Gibb, a, if the circuSnTes of the churches had so altered as to be favourable now to union. Bufc is it so? The relative position of the churches is the same aslfchl. been—their respective condition continues unchanged. Much ground within the bounds ?. l-if^ re ua,- nS unProvi<Jed for. Both have thit ,° f7f m. ce* ,Dg the «quiremeuts of their separate territories ; access to a common centre is nofc more available or more practicab'e »£ a. tr. u H e„ P': esbyteriau administration than Hn I'r 1885 *»c Byn^ d ia 0t *co discharged its Union Committee. Dnnedin is such a centre to the ministers and elders of the southern church, wno can attend tcere at little cost of «tw3r «?°«»y.-. T^e time required to attend at Wellington, or Auckland, or even at Christchurchlis more than they can afford, especially the elaers. A hke difficulty meets the ministers and elders scattered over the wider area occupied by the northern church ia giving attendance at Duuedin. To this difficultv-a serious one as affecting the constitution of a common general assembly-others must be added, such as the increased expenditure that must be-incurred and be borne by the uncousulted congregations. Another difficulty arises from the circumstance thafc there is ho one season common throughout New Zealand convenient for a united meeting of any duration, especially tor those engaged in rural occupations, ss is tbe case with the great body of our rural eldership Over and above these considerations, the proposed basis of upion is such that regard to the true Presbytensfa character ofthe church courts must prevent acceptance of that basis and assenting toa union resting upon ifc. Especially can no minister or elder of the church of Otago ana Southland, pledged as they are to the coustituuion of that church in doctrine, policy, am! discipline, consistently adopt that basis a .,d rest the church upon ifc, for it violates that dortrine, policy, and discipline, and gives a uew creed and a. uew constitution to one of its court*. The standards of the church make no provision tor any departure in doctrine, government, or discipline thafc. these standards require Every i m'nl^ef and elder is pledged to observe, as *\sefc forth m the formula signed by every minister, and in the questions put to them and tbe elaers at ordination and inducfcure to office hdehty to these standards, chief of which is the Confession of Faith; is ths condition on which tbafc church retains the property originally gifted to ifc by its early members and ofcners, and on which the ministers occupy their respective churches and manses as set forth in the title deeds of these buildings Any oeparture from these standards destroys the church s right to that property fe nd to these buildings. What that wonld be to the church will read;:? Os understood. But such departure is involved m the adoption o£ the proposed basis, in that ifc makes ao open question, to be held or not held, as each individual mmisler may please whafc relates to the divine ordinance of marriage thafc the Confession of Faiih declares to be a positive Scriptural doctrine, binding on all men and everywhere. Ifc further concerts the synod' which is a spiritual court, iato an enlarge*'' deacons' court, contrary to the recognised con- i Stitufcion of the Presbjteri&u Church which knows of only one court that deals soldi/ with ' temporalities belonging to Cue church. AVeri'i* ' the doctrine cf the church, tbe proposed basis alters necessarily the discipline oE the church ' Based on this new foundation, tbe original ■ church of Ot?..?o and Southland would cease **o • have being. A new church would take its place a consequence which some are prepared to aver*' May they be many ! " ;