OPEN LETTER TO THE PERESBYTERIANS OF OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10755, 20 March 1897, Page 3

OPEN LETTER TO THE PERESBYTERIANS OF OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND.

j No V. "A Member of Synod" who wrote " Opei Letter No. 3—A Reply " admits that he fonnc it "difficult to pen ati effactive reply to ' Opet Letter No. 3.'" He tries to get ous ot th; difficulty by having recourse to cmicatute, misrepresentation, aud abuse, and to confident assertions which are noS ia accordance witt facts. The csuw that needs this kind of support stands flelf-coiideuiaed ia the estimation o{ intelligent men. The awkwardness and weak ness of his position are some excuse for him. It is represented that those who are opposing tbe movement for the incorporation of the two Presbyterian Cburches are the enemies of Christian union, of Presbytsrianism, and of religion in New Zealand. This is an entire misrepresentation of their position. There is no uushristiat disunion between the two churches. There never has bsen. There is only territorial divij sion, which is not in any way opposed either tc the spirit or the letter of y our Lord's pr&yei (John xiii) or to anything else in the Scripture. The advocates of this miscalled union ad mil this when they say, »3 they do say, that the} have no intention of consummating tfii3 uuior unless they can carry all the property of ths church with them. If loyalty to Christ, to Christian duty, and to the interests I of Prasbyterianism and of religion impels I ministers and elders to seek tbi3 unior | and to vote for it, as " Veritas," " A Membei ' of Synod," and others who have spoken for th€ i unionists would h&ve us believe, then surely the same loyalty must cotnpsl them to go oq with I it to the end, whatever becomes of the property. I It ia neither dignified nor edifying for Christian ! ministers and elders to say with one breath, j " Loyalty to Christ, to the interests of Presbyi terianism and of relizioD, compels us to seel ' this union and to vote for it," and then to say, [ as many of them have done, with the vary ccxi breath, "We have no intention of going on with \ it to the end unless we can carry all the propsrt? o? the church with us." Their eagerness to get ■ votes and make thsir majority look moce hnpoa- ! ing his forced them iato making these ioconsisteut and unbecoming statements. They must try to lay voting for this union as a burden ol Christian duty on tha consciences of ministers and elders if they are to get votes for it. II will be difficult to do fuis so long as they continue saying "We ha.ye no intention of sousam--1 mating the union unless we can cstrry all the church's property with us." The sooner thej cease saying one of the two inconsistent things the better for themselves and for the interests of religion. Their present position is neithei intelligible nor respectable. The. position of the opponents is both. They saj the church is under no obligation of Car:stiau duty to seek this union because there is no unCauati&u disunion between the two chursfcss. It is nob self-evident, and it has not yet been shown, that any good of a substantial kind will come to either church through this union. It has not yet bean shown that God's work will be doae. or can be done, more efficiently than it can be done under the existing arrangements. The proposed union is a very partial and incomplete thing—it is union only in the General Assembly and in foreiga mission work. Everything else is to be carried on as at present. It is not at all certain that the desired union will result in gain to foreign mission work, wbiie it is quite certain it will result in serious low to Prwbyfcerianism and to religion through inadequate representation of large sections of the cnureh in the meetings and, work of the General Assembly. The proposed basis of union is in its principal provisions most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it is a wide and uncalled-for departure from the present doctrinal constitution of the Otagb church, and requires the extinction of tho Otago Synod a* a. church court. The cose of au assembly moving from city to city between Dunedin and Auckland must be very great—a grievous burden upon the congregations—a waste of the people's money—money that is very much needed for other better purposes—for church extension, say. The basis provides that theae heavy expenses shall come out of the funds of the churches and out of the pockets of the people—that is, outof.sustentationfund, church extension fund, foreign mission fund, aged and infirm ministers' fond, and widows' and orphans' fund, and out of the pockets of the people by a tax on each . congregation. for assembly expenses. The expenses <>f the Otago Synod have come almost exclusively out of the endowments of the Otago church. Not one penny can come from that source for assembly expenses. It is desirable that the office-bsaretfeiiud people of the church should eqow these things. The congregations of the Otago church are in a better financial position ; she has larger funds and a larger membership than the northern church. I presume the tixing of funds and oE congregations for assembly expenses will bf according to ability to pay. That will be th? fair and equitable way of fixing the tax. 1 cannot conceive the assembly doing it in an> other way. Of course the lion's share of the entire cost of assembly meetings will fall en the Otago church. That will be right, and no one can object to the right being done. Will she get value for her moaoy ? Will the kingdom of God get the best possible value tot this money ? The church ol the north will geb som<s relief from a harden which many congregations feel to be oppressive. So f&r so good, but would it not be better for both .churches and for the cause of Christ to spend these hundreds of pounds every year on sending the gospel to the heathen or on extending on« or both churches ? AU this talk about a paltry £4-00 or £500 will appear unspeakably sordid and loathsome to the high-souled "Member of Synod," whose eagerness in this business is the outcome of profound loyalty to Christ and to the interests of religion, but who at the game time has no intention of consummating the union unless he can take all the property with him. It is very easy being generous and even extravagant ..with othec people's money. The people who will have tc pay may probably see things ia a different light. Half the ministers of both churches and as many elders will get a pleasant holiday from year to year, we are told, and have their expeuaes paid. No one will grudge them this. They need aud deserve it; but the thing looks very like an attempt to bribe ministers and elders to vote for union, aud enjoy a pleasant holiday biennially at other people's expense. I do not say it is an attempt at bribery, I only say it looks like it, aud was jocularly spoken oi in that way by the gentlemen who prepared the basis of uuion. It is comforting to think that " the best laid schemes of mice and men," &c. "A Member of Synod" assures us '• She assembly is not going to meet in Aucklaad." How does he know ? Wny not in Auckland aa well as in Dunedin ? Presbyterianisni in that fair city of the north cannot afford to lo3e the impetus that will be given to it by meetings of the great assembly oE the united church. What a splendid outing, too, for us poor ministers of the south. AH will surely to a man votts for union. I doubt it. To speak of expanse is sordid aud mean in the estreme, especially when other people pay. It is a fact that the ministers and alders occupying the outposts of the northern church do not in any numbers attend the assembly when it meets in Aucklnud, or in Christchureh, or even when it meets in Wellington—the strong assertions of uuionist3 to the contrary notwithstanding. It is not a fact that " the ministers and elders of the Auckland province were present almost to a man, though only onethird of them had their expenses paid," »t the Chriscehurch assembly last mouth. The fact is that not more thaa six or seven njinisters from the Presbytery of Auckland were present at the la»t Christchurclf'assembly. It is doubtful if one elder was there from that presbytery. My authorities for the last two statements are a minister and au elder of the northern church who were there. I challenge " A Member of Synod" to prove his statement by giving the uames of those who were there from Auckland. He csuaot do it. This h a sample of tbe rtcklesa statements, contrary to fact, by which this ardent, it not wise, advocate for union tries to win support for his cause. There are 24----separate charges in the Presbytery of Auckland. They were represented at the last Christchurch assembly by only sayan or eight members, exclusively, or nearly no, from Auckland city and suburbs. The representation from the south when the assembly meets in Auckland is on a. par with that from tuts uorth when it meets ia Chrisfcchureh. This I know from personal obsorvatiou. I have beau there. The Otago church is not committed to this uiiior. on the proposed basin, the strong assertion of "A Member of Synod" to the contrary not-

withstanding. The facts are: (1) That at the synod oE 1895 the Union Committee was continued with the avowed purpose of framing, if possible, a basis of union which would leave us our Olago Synod. There was not one, unless it was the convener of the Unioa Committee, who bad a word to siy in favour of union oo the suggestions for a basis then given in. AH agreed ths,t our synod must be left to us. That was the iniud of the synod of 1895. There were as many as 15 voted that the Union Committee should be discharged ; many more would have voted for that motion had it bean known I that oar synod roust ba given up. Tfce mind of | tho synod of 1895 was distinctly against a union | with that condition in it. (2) Tho niiud of ! the 1893 synod should not be counted anybhing ; ) the synod was taken by surprise. The old { suggestions ware dished up aod called a new j basis. It'was kapt a profound secret till it wa3 j laid on the table of the synod. Then it wa3 rushed through in hot haste before members had time to look into it and understand it. That was how the vote of 77 to 26 was obtained in the synod of 1896. Is it reasonable to think that tha minority of one favourable to the extinction of our synod in 1895 had become a majority of 77 to 26 in 1896 ? (3) Article 2 of the proposed basis j is such a marvel that some of those who helped ! to frame it are to this day unable to gay what | it means or what pnrposes it is intended to j serve. Is it reasonable to say that the rushed j vote of the synod of 1896 committed the church to unioa with such an article as that in it? Are we all children playing at religion, or are we men dealing with matters of grave concern in a fair and manly way ? We may not have the spleßdid imagination of "A Member of Synod," aud consequently do not see the many and great advantages from union (things of the imagination) as he see 3 them, but I believe j we are his equals in common sense and in desire j to do the will of Christ and to promote the good of 4he churches. (4) In the synod of 1895 it was found tha1; the Presbyteries of ths church' were equally divided upon the question of marriage with a deceased wife's siater, and all but half the synod (the vote was 51 against 48) declared its continued adherence to the doctrine and the Confession of Faith on that subject. That doctrine is that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is forbidden of God a-j incestuous. It is not reasonable to think that half the.church (it was all but that) which declared against that marriage in 1895 committed itself to union on the proposed basis—and to toleration of that God-forbidden marriage—■ in 1898. Again I ask are we children playing si religion, or are we men—honest and earnest— put into office in God's church, entrusted with God's word and God's book ? "A Member of Synod" mu3t tike many of the ministers and elders of the church to be taea of a very strange kind if he believes they have committed themselves to union on the proposed basis. I have amply shown that bia strong and couGdent utterances require to be'largely discounted, and evea then to be taken with caution for what j they may be considered wocth. Only a man who is ignorant or who is aot wiae or whose first object is to secure votes for his cause would commit- himsalf to such a pronouncement as the following, with which he closes his letter : — " The church cannot now draw back from the work to which she has put nor hand without deep dishonour." What if she cannot carry the property with her ?