Friday, January 20th.

Otago Witness, Issue 1157, 31 January 1874, Page 8

Friday, January 20th.

MORNING SEDEEUNT. MINUTES. The minutes of the previous sederunt were read and confirmed.

DINNER,

The Moderator announced that members of the Synod, members of other Churches, students, and probation ei s, would dine together at Murray's Hotel at 3 o'clock p.m.

MR LOGAN'S CASE.

The Synod then proceeded to hear John Logan's appeal against the decision of the Presbytery, in expelling him from his office as Deacon of Knox Church, and from his membership of the Church. The Cleric called on Mr Logan to take his place at the bar. This having been done, the Clerk proceeded to read the n mutes and documents relative to the case and to Mr Logan's application to be heard by counsel, which was refused, on the ground that it was against the usage of the Church, and that the Synod was a Court of Conscience and not a Court of Law. The reading of the documents occupied a considerable time, and after it had been concluded the Clerk called on Mr Lcgan to state what he had to say in support of his appeal, Mr Logan then stated that in order to put what he had to state iv a more concise form he had written it. He read as follows : —St. Matthew says, "When they deliver you up, take no thought how, or what ye shall speak : for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak"; that means no anxious thought. I have complied with that advice. At tho same time 1 have noted down a few points on the subject of my appeal from the decision of tho Dunedin Presbytery now under consideration, in order to shorten my remarks as much as possible. I regret that the Synod did not comply with my request to be heard by counsel, as no man should be compelled to conduct his own case, more especially before a Church Court. I am ignorant of the ground on which tho Synod came to its decision prohibiting law agents appearing befoie it. The Established Church of Scotland, you are n ware, always allows agents to appear in its Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies ; and in " MoncreifF 'a Practice of the Free Church of Scotland," which, I understand, you have adopted so far as applicable to your Church, law agents are only prohibited appearing before the Kirk Session, "unless authorised by the Session to act for the accused"; implying that they may appear before the othor Church Courts without leave, as in the Established Church of Scotland. I believe lam the first who has asked to be allowed a law agent in your Church since the beginning of time* and I resnectfullv submit that no practice can have been established hitherto in the Church of Otngo and Southland. Tho Spanish Inquisition obligod prisoners to choose an advocate : and no prisoner can be tried in Scotland for a serious offence without an advocate. And should not greater care be taken with trials before a spiritual court? When the case was before the session I asked to be allowed an agent, but was, told that a preliminary investigation was only then goiog on, and that the request might be considered wheu the real trial commenced ; but so irregular have the whole proceedings been, that I have not been nblo to find out when the real trial did begin. v\ hon before tho Session, I pointed out some of the proceedings aB unfair to me and unjust, but was told that tho Kirk Session was a Court of ConacUnee, and that they did not pretend to be tied Jo few like a Court of Law, Well, wb&t couW

one make of that ? Are not the Courts of Justice obliged to adhere to certain forms in order that they may, if possible, aim at just conclusions; and are not other Courts bound by the same obligation? lthereforebegtoprotestagainst the decision of the Synod in not allowing m c a law agent. When before the Presbytery 1 stated thatl had not been charged with any offence against the laws of the Church, or against any other law, on which the Rev. Mr Will dangled some papers, and said "The offence is there." I believe the Synod will agree with me, that even although an offence may have been contained in the papers alluded to, still I had nothing to do with them in such a shape. To me it appeared that the Presbytery was so eager to arrive at a conclusion hostile to* me that they overlooked every other consideration. It will be necessary for me to state that for several years past I have been the object of a heresy hunt. Persons have gone from door to door endeavouring to get evidence against me fir some supposed offence, but did not succeed. One gentleman was approached very cautiously, in order to get evidence against me, but, being rather sharp, he saw the drift of the con • versation, and said if it was to witness against me he was wanted it was no use bothering him, as he was a far bigger heretic than T was. The heretic hunter escaped from that gentleman. I pass over a lot of similar cases. Various attempts were made by one or two busybodies in Knox Church to get the deacons to resign in a body, but that did not succeed. At a congregational meeting, a long speech was made by an active member of the Church in support of a motion that one-third of the deacons be requested to resign yearly until the whole were disposed of; a roundabout way to try and get quit of me. There were ten members of the Deacons' Court that year, and I objected to being thirded. That number showed that during some short period of the past ages, elders were, in some out-of-the-way corner, elected for three years only, and that, therefore, electing deacons for three years was according to Presbyterianism. Ono might as well argue that to burn witches and herotios was in accordance with Presbyterianism. A common mind would have come to the conclusion that, the system did not work well, and was not in accordance with Scripture, and therefore vas abandoned. Our only rule in such cases does not appear to be of any use. The Rev. Mr Johnston said in the Dunedin Presbytery that to elect for three years was contrary to Scripture. Mr Rennie, in the same place, said the opposite, and the Presbytery did not solve the problem. The Presbytery of Southland says that the very proposal deserves the utmost reprobation. You have the opinion of the other Church Courts before you. The proposal was carried in Knox Church. It was well known that the resolution did not oblige the deacons to resign, and therefore on the strength of the resolution they were asked to resign. They all agreed to resign but myself, and I had several reasons for refusing— among others, the resolution was aimed at me, and unscriptural ; the law of the land would prevent the resolution being carried out, as it would have necessitated one-third of one of the members to resign each of the three years. I repeatedly objected to go through the operation of being thirded. What is the one-third of 10, for instance ? I must again pass over a lot of detail. I have been asked, again and again, "Why not withdraw my appeal, as it will do no good ?" My reply was, " 1 did not begin the fight ; so far from that, I was for peace, but for battle they were keen." I retreated, and showed the white flag, and agreed, in deference to the opinion of the Session, to refrain from going to the platform when the Rev. Mr Peebles lectured. That was all the Rev. Mr Will even wanted, judging from his remarks in the Presbytery, and entirely met tho objection raised by the Kirk Session by removing the cause of the war. But when [ fell back, other demands were mado in consequence of something frosh, outside of the case, having got into the Session. I had then no alternative but to fight out the case to the end. I nevor prevented the other side withdrawing and leaving me in] the same position as I was in°bcfore the proceedings commenced. The Rev. Dr Copland said in the Presbytery, according to ono paper, that I was hunting after " popularity," and, according to another paper, "notoriety;" which word was used I leave the Rev. Dr Stuart to determine, as he veuches for the correctness of newspaper reports, although I have seen letters, purporting to be frorr Dr Stuart, finding fault with reporters. It will be remembered that Dr Stuart complimented the reporters who took down the speeches of Mr Peebles, although the reporters did not at all agree as to what was said ; unless, indeed, like n, 'barrister at a celebrated trial in Dunedin _ some timo ago, when commenting on the evidence, for the prosecution i\nd the Crown prosecutor's remarks thereon, he considered that "like the Gospels, the more they disagreed tho greater tho harmony." The reports of the lectures of Mr Peebles were said to be substantially correct. What is substantially correct ? or what had t to do with the lectures, even supposing they were correctly reported? But supposing they had been my own lectures, hud the samo charity been shown me us was sliown to the reporters, 1 might have been pronouueed substantially orthodox. It is a nice convenient word that. Substantially correct cannot moan correct, but the reverse. ' I may state here that immediately after the lectures were delivered, and long bofore any action wsis taken by tho session of Knox Church against me, I complained of the reports as being very far fiom correct, and explanations were mado to mo which satisfied me that there had been no intention to mis-report. I henrd tho lectures, Dr Stuart did not. I testified that they were not correctly reported. The Doctor could not say that I was wrong, bit went out of his way to compliment reporters in general, " whom he had no reason to find fault with," although frequently before he carried on a correspondence in the newspapers trying to show that the reporters were wrong in certain cases. But the Doctor complimented tho reporters as being extraordinarily correct in general, in ouler that the Presbytery might conclude that the reports in question were correct. But, again, i say, whether correctly reported or not, tho lectures were not mine. Et would be a new fcaturo in history if a member of a congregation was taken up for hearing an erroneous sermon instead of tho prosichor for delivering it. But to roturn to Dr Copland. Does ho judge of me front what animates himself ? Was it notoriety or popularity ho hud in view in all that ho did to get up a cuso against me, or io a late case in whiph he laid aside his clerical robes, and with some other members of the iSsauliipi&a profession, brought to bay in th«

office of the Clerk to the Bench, Dunedin, a stranger from a strange land, merely because he could not produce a small piece of paper which was demanded ? This man is now a lecturer in the Clinical Hospital, Melbourne, and is considered to be one of the best men there. Melancthon, shortly before his death, gave two reasons why he welcomed death. One was that he should no longer be exposed to the vexations and rage of the divines. "We have not much to complain of that now, but the spirit is not altogether dead. I was threatened by one of the leading members of the Presbytery, not residing in Dunedin, to the effect that if I came before the Synod with my case, I " would catch it." Presbyterianism, on the other hand, provides Courts, in order that justice may be done to the members of the body. I was also coolly told that if I resigned my membership of the Church I would not be bothered further; I could do what I liked. In other words, "We will pursue you to the utmost ; but when you are entirely beyond our reach, we will have mercy and leave you alone." (I do not apply this to all, remember. ) That was exceedingly generous, no doubt, although I could not see it exactly. 1 might leave tho ship, no doubt, although lam part owner. I might show that although, you have a chart, no two exactly agree as to what it means. That it is not an exact copy of the original, that some of the rocks are not laid down on it, that the ship is not fitted out with the requisite modern appliances, that those on board miscalculate as to the nature of the difficulties they have to encounter. All is reported well ; but lam of opinion that something like a white squall is at hand. You all know what that is in the tropics. That no warning is given which an ordinary observer would take the slightest notice of. Only a small cloud like a man's hand, is seen at a distance ; everything is calm where the ship is. Some might order all sail on, yet unless the utmost expedition is used to take in all sail, sure destruction would follow. lam of opinion that if I am left on board, I would be of use in such an emergency, and it would be cowardly in me to leave the ship. If lam put in the boat and forced ashore, then I will wasli my hands in the briny deep, and take a last look at the old craft, and be content with the thought that I did not for ease to myself desert. — (Applause, and cries of " order, order.") I gather from the dangled papers that I am found fault with because I called the Rev. Mr Peebles and Dr Dunn eminent Christians, and that they were doing a great Christian work. Well, is that a crime in the eyes of the Church? Have not I a perfect right to make up my list of Christians without consulting the Session or Presbytery. If so, members of the Church had better be made aware of it. Suppose that I give you a sheet of paper, and request that you might eaoh be kind enough to make out your list of Christians, do you imagine that any two lists would agree ? Or were all the lists spread out before Heaven, would any of them agree with the record above ? Is it not therefore the height of folly to excommunicate me because there is an error in my list ? My friend, the Rev. W. Gillies, congratulated me when before the Presbytery iv that they might have pronounced a more severe sentence. Well, I have been deposed as a deacon, and excluded from the Church— a sort of mixture of the greater and leas excommunatioa. 1 1 is true that I might have been "delivered unto Satan for the destruction of my flesh, that my spirit might be saved iv the day of the Lord Jesus " (I quote from the Church of Scotland books); but even the Presbytery might be puzzled to know the meaning of these words, as we have arrived at a stage of ihe world's history when that personage Satan is I almost ignored. Mr Logan went on to say that he had not written any more of his statement, as he had been busy with other matters, and he thought that the Synod would have been generous enough to have allowed a law agent to have appeared for him. There were several other matters that he wished to deal with, and the first was the power of the Presbytery to pass the sentence that had been passed. Was there sufficient compliance with Church law to enable them to do so? In Moncrieff, chapter 6, they would find that the cases which should be sent from the session to the Presbytery were of a different kind altogether. They were murder and adultery, and other most heinous crimes-besides en or and heresy. Error here meant something more than a, slight error, for if they were all to be punished for error, they would all be punished together. He would not like to name some of tho offences that the authority said were to be sent from the session to the Presbytery. The session, he submitted, had no right to send up his case. They called it by a peculiar name, but lie held that it was one of the most trivial imaginable. He had simply sat upon a platform with a person who was delivering a lecture. If they ransacked all tho annals of the Church, they would not find a similar case, and the Presbytery had never attempted to show that there was a similar case. In the second place, assuming that the Presbytery had acted quite within its jurisdiction, he would ask it the sentence was a just one. They went all tho length they could go, and gave the highest sentence that was ever given in any Church Court whatever. He had given them a brief resume of the case before it came before tho Presbytery, ami he would now go further into detail, though he did not want to detain thorn too long. The documents that had been read showed pretty well what had boon, done, and ho had said that his reason for appealing was that he was taken by surprise. The Moderator would bear him out that he was of opinion that the documents woro simply sent up to the Presbytery for advice. He nover knew yet when the cuse commenced in the Presbytery, The papers were read of course, and some remarks were mado upon them, and the Rev. Mr Will read out a certain formula, und asked whether it was road over to him when he was made a deacon. It was gonerally pronounced from the pulpit, and no ono could tell the exact words that were used. Dr Stuart might know that these were the words ho had read, and a member of the Presbytery might rocollect that he spoke to Dr Stuart, and tound fault with him for the sormon that took placo at the induction of a minister. He vopliod that it was not docoiving them, ns it was a ceremony something like the induction or making of a mason. He (Mr Logan) replied that people should be made aware of it. No one could tell from momory a formula that was read from the pulpit. The question that was before the Presbytery was altogether out of order, Ho knew that ho did not require to nvmweqr questions unless he liked, and he did not choose to answer them oatcopt in a certain way, beoauae ha knew they bad no right to put thorn. Ho opuW

I have answered them in a different way. The question might have been put in a different way until he had uttered something heterodox. A few days before he was before the Presbytery ho was at a meeting in Great King street, and Mr Bates gave an answer with reference to the divinity of Christ, than which he could not suggest a better — that He was as divine as His father, and as human as His mother. He quite agreed with this. It was unfair for them to renew this case upon the questions that were put to him before the Presbytery. The proceedings should have been upon what came up from the session. There was a case, or there was not. But a new charge had arisen altogether from the answers he had given to the questions that were put to him, or stated in the documents that had been read by the liev. Mr Bannerman. He never knew that a Court could take a man up upon a simple answer to a question put to him, and make a new charge of it. Could a man_ be taken up for assault, and then be tried for larceny, when they got him inside the Court? The way in which they had acted towards him appeared like the revival of something worse than the Inquisition, which, when it could not get evidence, sought by means of questions to get the accused entangled in some way or other until what they wanted was got. This practice was condemned by all Protestant divines, and by some Catholics ; and he did not know any who would advocate it. There were about 20 or 30 upon one side to question, and some most absurd questions were put, he would not say by whom, for they would recol« lect. He was asked if Christ existed before he was born. He supposed they would all say that was an absurd question. If it had been put in any other form — they know he believed Christ existed from all eternity. How could He be born until He existed ? The members should be a little more careful ; but he believed he was put down as unable to answer this question. When it was put to him he fairly thought that it was time to stop ; for he did not want to make any remark, at the time that he thought it was absurd. Suppose that this case went against him, it would be such a case as the Church had nerer taken up before. Perhaps thay will agree with him that Knight's case was the nearest to his— but in the former'scasethecharges were brought because he preached in a Unitarian Chapel, and he was only censured. Since that, however, he had been obliged to leave the Church, as he had been persecuted to the last. He had always advocated that it would be well for the congregation to ask questions after the sermons. He thought it would be a capital plan, and that it would increase the interest taken in the Church ; for it was the earlier practice of the Church, and the missionaries resorted to it now. The congregation 'would be able to get better hold of what had been told them. He recollected when Mr Will once preached in the Knox Church, and was told that the sermon was meant for him. If so, ho was much obliged to Mr Will; but he could have given him half-a-dozen as good reasons for what he was endeavouring to prove as the one he (Mr Will) used, and if ap« pealed to would have helped him out of the difficulty. The point was one which commentators had _ their doubts about, and as to the translations he had six or seven of them. Was private judgment to be allowed or not? Were they going back to the Romish Church, or were they to simply take what they got? One of these questions came before the University of Glasgow 19 or 20 years ago, and in some speeches that were made one man suggested that the Testament should be revised every few years. He would read a few lines on the subject from one of their Church publications called the " Presbyterian," of May, 1873. It said, "Take the language of the Confession either as it stands, or as it may be read in the light of the known opinions of its compilers, and we defy an utterly unprejudiced expositor to say that it does not teach what now-a-days would be unanimously pronounced to be intolerant and persecuting principles."

The Rev. W. BANNERMAN called upon Mr Logan to confine himself to the matter before the House— tho actual appeal. He must confine himself to the case sent by the Kirk Session to the Presbytery, and by the Presbytery to that Court.

Mr Logan said that all ho stated bore on his case, and in defence there was no limit put on the range he might take. He might state that, when before the Presbytery, he had to complain that Dr Stuart introduced matters that did not hear upon the case, and was not called to order. He did not object, because he did not know that he was to be allowed to speak at all. Dr Stuart had referred to the time when Mr James Smith gave his lectures in a manner that was very unfair to him (Mr Logan), and it would have been much better for him to have refrained. One of the faults upon which he was brought before them was that he could not define Divinity properly. This, ho held, was one of those matters that the sooner they come to the conclusion that they knew nothing at all about, tho better. No doubt superficial men thought that they knew a very great deal, but he had studied tho matter since he was a boy, and had walked the streets in company with a companion named Baxter before he had read a book on the subject, and he did not know more now than he knew then, although lie had heard thousands of sermons. He had said that ho did not agree with all that Mr Peebles siid, and he repeated this now. He wished to make the following quotation from a book called " Jesu3 the Messiah" :— "To many learned, pious, and sincere Christians, quite as capable of interpreting tho Scriptures as any of the ecclesiastics assembled at those four or any other Councils, the words used by them, as cited above, are nothing more nor less than blasphemous. Without going so far as the first Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, by whom theNicene Fathers who settled the symbol of faith that still rules Christendom were declared to be a ' set of demoniacs driven by evil furies or malignant passions,' it may be well to show how their successors acted " at the Council of Chalcedon, the fourth of the seven Ceneral Councils, and in numbers and in dignity far the post distinguished of them all, when the Nicene Creed was authoritativoly modified. The following oxtmordinary scene is taken from the report of the Council itself, ns quoted by Doan Stanley in his * Lectures on the Eastern Church.' The moment is that of the Imperial officers ordering that Theodoret, the excellent Bishop of Kara, well known ns the oommentator and ecclosiastical historian, should enter the assombly :— 'And when the most reverend Bishop Theodoret entered, the most reverend the Bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and Palestine, shouted out— "Morcy upon uel tho faith is destroyed,

The canons of the Church excommunicate him. Turn him out! turn out the teacher of Nestorius ! " On the other hand, the most reverend the Bishops of the East, of Titrate, of Pontus, and of Asia, shouted o'At--"We were compelled [at the former Couttcil] to subscribe our names to blank papers^ we were scourged into submission. I[A toitte ' orthodox ' way of settling Articles <$ religion!] Turn out the Manichaeans ; turn out the enemies of Flavian ; turn tmt the adversaries of the faith I" Dioscurius, the most reverend Bishop of Alexandria,, said : " Why is Cyril turned out ? It is he whoVn Theodoret has condemned." The most reverend the Bishops of the East shouted out— " Turn out the murderer, Dioscurius ! Who knows not the deeds of Dioscurius 1" . . > . The most reverend the Bishops of Egypt, Jllyna, and Palestine shouted out— "Long life to the Empress !" The most reverend the Bishops of the East shouted out—" Turn out the murderer !" The most reverend the Bishop of Egypt shouted out—" The Empress turned out Nestorius ; lorn? life to the Catholic Empress ! The orthodox Synod refuses to admit Theodoret." Theodoret being, however, admitted by the Imperial officers, and, taking his place*, the most reverend Bishops shouted out— "jWtoall him Bishop; he is no Bishop. Turn otttthe fightei against God ; turn out the Jew !' ' The most reverend the Bishops of the East shouted out— "The orthodox for the Synod. Turn out the rebels ; turn out the murderers!" The most reverend the Bishops of Egypt—' Turn out the enemy of God. Turn out the defamer of Christ. Long life to the Empress ; long Me to the Emperor; long life to the Catholic Emperor ! Theodoret excommunicated Cyril. _If ws receive Theodoret, we excommunicate Cyril." At this point— and it was high time— the Imperial Commissioners who were present put a stop to the clamour, as being unworthy of a meeting of Christian Bishops."

During the reading of this quotation Mr Logan was called to order, but after a slight discussion he was allowed to proceed. He went on to say that he did not know what Church held to the opinion of the infallibility of the Bible. He did not believe that any Church believed in every word in the Bible. It would be nonsense to suppose this, and he would read a short quotation from the Evangelist, vol. sth:— "All that is required is careful discrimination of what is really intended. It may be also necessary, in order to clear away popular objections, to remark that all that may be found within the compass of the Scriptures is not to be regarded as expressing God's mind. The reason is that there are many sentiments opposed to His will quite as much as those uttered by His enemies." Be thought that this was a very sensible remark Then there was another matter he would like to come to. They knew that there was a translation going on. Bishop Thirl wall, in a publication.called "The Pentateuch," said, "I must own it is my belief that when the authorised version has received all the amendment of which it is capable, and which it absolutely requires, time will be found to effect very great changes in many parts of the Bible. And I think that one effect of this will be, it will deprive many of tbe clergy, and perhaps still more of the dissenting ministers, of some of their most favourite texts. We ought not to conceal from ourselves that it will very materially alter the text of the Scriptures." On the same subject, he would refer them to some remarks of Dr Haweis's in " Thoughts for the Times." He said : " What can they know about the exact sense in which Christ was the Son of God, or the way in which the Holy Spirit passed from the Father to the Son ? Why, of course, they know no more about it than we know. They only had the Old and New Testament and their brains, and we have no more and no less." Then he would give them the words of Dr Crosskey "The various controversies touching the person of Jesus, which have inflamed the passions of school men, as much as they have taxed their ingenuity, and which have been for the hungering spirit as its food, do not at all touch the central fact in the life of Christ, which which corresponds with the wants of all religion, and renders Him the world's hope." Man could not define the exact mode in which Christ and God were united. He was getting on with what he had to say as quickly as he could. Ho had intended to refer to what Dr Duff had said, but it would take him six hours to read it. Some people found fault with what Dr Duff had said, and others had agreed with it. A short time ago a working man came up to him, and said that he knew the sentiments of the working men, and that there was scepticism lunning through 'the whole of them to a greater or less extent. This knowledge misjht be useful to the Church, and bore a little upon the q lesti^n before them. < 'ne man told him he hud just read a certain book, and did not believe that Jesus Christ evor rose from the dead ; while another told him that he had just been at church, and did not believe a word he had heard— a word in it — because he knew it was all rot. These were members of the Church.

Mr Ryley called Mr Logan to order, and said that he did not think he should bring up these conversations with private individuals.

Mr LogsN said he did not mention names, as he did not wish to implicate anyone. All he was saying dealt with the reasons of appeal. Another man had told him that he was brought up iv the Church, *>ut that he soon found out that it was all nonsense ; but at the same time he said he would bring up his children in the faith, and let them find out for themselves. He would refer to another man of great eminence at home. He was an author, and in the Church of Scotland. He was not going to quote from his works. He had charge of a wealthy congregation, and some of the first-class men of the town sat under him. There wore a great many infidels in the Church, and one of them was asked to go to the Sacrament. He replied that he did not see any good in it. The doctor replied, "lt % has been kept up from the beginning, and cannot do any harm." I

Tho Rev. Mr Bannebman said they were entitled to call for the name, or else to refuse to receive tho statement.

Mr Logan said he would not givo tho name, for it would not bo fair ; but he could assure them that it was the case.

The Rev. Mr Stobo also objected to the reception of these statoments. The Rev. Mr Bannerman said that these matters were not mentioned in the documents bearing on the case. Mr Logan said that the subjeofc was referred to, and this was what all the row was about. After some discussion,

M* LttttAN said there were a good many misapprehensions, he thought, regarding Spiritualism abroad in the Church. Some of them had, he thought, been cleared away, but instead of the Church taking an attitude hostile to Spiritualism, he would submit that Spiritualism was the very thing to benefit the Church — the very thing wanted in this age.

The Moderator : Do I understand you, Mr Logan, to say that Spiritualism is the thing wanting in this age?

Mr Logan said it was. It was, in fact, the thing wanted in every age. The modern manifestations threw light on the Bible. He said modern manifestations, for manifestations had, of course, existed through all time. These manifestations threw light on the phenomena mentioned in the Bible, and not much believed in the Churches. Butif they attributed these phenomena to Spiritualism, they had an explanation afforded by which they could believe in them—an explanation, in fact, by which these manifestations were shown to be the same thing over again that they found in Scripture. The misapprehension was once made at the Taieri— he thought it was at the Taieri— by, he thought, Dr Stuart. Dr Stuart on that occasion spoke of Spiritualism as if it was some new thing, whereas it was as old as the hills, and might be older. There was a lecture Dr Stuart might have heard from the Eev. Mr Fitchett. Dr Stuart moved Mr Fitchett a vote of thanks. There was something very wrong done that night, but he (Mr Logan) did nob like to interrupt the meeting, which he would have had to do if he -wanted to make a correction. Mr Fitchett read from the American Religious philosophical Journal an extract showing immorality on the part of Spiritualists. Dr Stuart then deplored the immorality Spiritualism would cause among families. How that extract got into the paper he referred to came about in this way. In America people had been pillorying Spiritualists week after week in every way they could, and this paper, in self defence, took particulars every week regarding the doings of half a dozen clergymen, and showed the immorality the clergymen committed. Mr Fitchett did not read the explanation, so that the other side was not hpard. Of course Dr Stuart was misled in the case. He considered that a great many were doing Christian work outside the pulpit altogether. Notwithstanding what had been said, the newspaper Press was doing a great Christian work. His ideas of Christian work were different from theirs (the Synod's). He thought the Press was to a great extent sup rseding the Pulpit in giving information and instruction to the inhabitants of the city. He saw the Press had been criticised at the missionary meeting the previous night— however, he should not refer to that matter. He had an extract here which he would read. It was not intended for any offence, and was couched in respectful language enough.

The Moderator : Does it bear on the case ?

Mr LO.GAN :It does. It is like a charge from a judge to a jury to free their minds from prejudicas.—(Laughter.; It is from a work by David Page, published in Edinburgh in 1870. The extract was : — " There is nothing more frequent," saya David Page (Man, &c, Edinburgh, 1867), "than 'denunciation from the pulpit and platform against the tendencies of modern science, by men who are not only ignorant of the rudiments of science, but who have bound themselves by creeds and formulas before their minds were matured enough, or their knowledge sufficient, to discriminate between the essentials and non-essentials of these restrictions. And here, it may be remarked once for all, that no man who has subscribed +o creeds and formulas, whether in theology or philosophy, can be an unbiased investigator of the truth or an unprejudiced judge of the opinions of others. His sworn preconceptions warp his discernment ; adherence to his sect or party engenders intolerance to the honest convictions of other enquirers. Beliefs we may and must have, but a belief to be changed with new and advancing knowledge impedes no progress, while a creed subscribed to as ultimate truth and .sworn to be defended, not only puts a bar to further research, but, as a consequence, throws the odium of distrust on all that may seem to oppose it. Even when such odium cannot deter, it annoys and irritates ; hence the frequent unwillingness of men of science to come prominently forward with the avowal of their beliefs. It is time this delicacy were thrown aside, and such theologians plaiuly told that the scepticism and infidelity—if scepticism an din fidelity there be-— lieall on their own side. There is no scepticism so offensive as that which doubts the fact of honest and careful obseivation; no infidelity so gross as that which disbelieves the deductions of competent and unbiassed judgments." He would not keep them any more, though he had a lot that he could say.

The Rev. Dr Stuart said it gave him no pleasure to appear there. He felt as if he weie going to say some hard things against a personal friend. He felt vexed Mr Logan could for a moment suppose he was capable of encouraging heresy-hunting. Mr Logan : I did not allude to you at all.

The Rev. Dr Stuakt remarked he was not here to defend the judgment of the Presbytery — he would leave that to the Clerk of the Presbytery and the Rev. Mr Gow— and would confine himself to the action of the session. He would admit that, in stating the case to the Presbytery, he might have unintentionally created a prejudice against Mr Logan by mentioning the dealings the session had with him prior to this case. On reflection, he thought he should not have done so ; Mr Logan had been dealt with and admonished, and of course the offonce had been removed. How was Mr Logan dealt with ? He tDr Stuart) would tell the Synod. Two men, apostles of Spiritualism, had visited Dunedin. Their advent was regarded with great expectation, and crowds hastened to sit at their feet in the Queen's Theatre. Amongst those who gave them special welcome was Mr Logan. 'Die session found not the least fault with Mr Losjan for being associated with them in so far as Spiritualism was concerned. But reports of their speeches were read in which thoy appeared as tho exponents of the rankest infidelity, and thuy declared their infidelity in language that gave him great pain - there was a grossne.ss about it, and it appeared to him they wont out of their way to attack* the Christianity of Dunedin. There were probably some in Knox Church that were not deemed ultra orthodox. There were also some who had a great regard for tho doctrine of the Church, and they complained that one of the office-bearers of the Church was an advocate of tho apostles of the rankest infidelity. As $uar<

dian of the congregation, and in the interest of Divine truth, h« went with a brother elder to Mr Logan. They informed Mr Logan of their mission, and he received them in a frank, friendly manner. The result of this interview was their report that Mr Logan could not see his way to withdraw his presence from the lectures referred to. Mr Logan was next summoned to answer questions proposed, which he readily did. Mr Logan stated they could rely upon the correctness of the reports of the lectures which appeared in the newspapers, and the accuracy of what had been otherwise testified. These reports contained doctrines anti-Biblical and completely the opposite of what was held by the Presbyterian Church. The lecturers propounded doctrinps which the Presbyterian Church did not hold, and ridiculed doctrines it did hold. It was considered the replies of Mr Logan to the questions put him were on the whole unsatisfactory. Mr Logan had a feeling that in the course of the Court's dealings with him they were changing their ground. He (Dr Stuart) knew that they changed their ground to some extent when, as the enquiry proceeded, it was found that Mr Logan accepted the doctrines of Messrs Peebles and Dunn. His (Dr Stuart's) feeling in the matter was not to speak at all. For old acquaintance sake, for " auld lang syne," for the friendship he had for Mr Logan, he did not like to speak, but he had to defend and promulgate certain truths. As it was possible there might be prejudices against Air Logan, the case was referred to the Presbytery— it was referred to that body entirely in the view that impartial justice would be done. He would leave to the Clerk of the Presbytery to speak as to what that body did. He must say that he thought the Presbytery went a little out of its way in questioning Mr Logan

The Rev. Mr Gillies said that in this deplorable case they had heard from the appellant himself sufficient and more to justify all the Presbytery had done. The Session had proceeded in this painful and delicate case in a spirit of true regard for the interests of truth and religion, and at the same time in a spirit of Christian tenderness to Mr Logan. In reply to some remarks by Mr Logan in regard to not being allowed to be represented by counsel, he quoted from Forbes — " Neither _ law agents nor advisers on any account are admitted to the Session or any oiher Church Court. ' [Page 66.] He also quoted to the same effect from subsequent-" pages, and from Sir Henry Monorieff, page 114, " No law agent or legal adviser will be admitted as such to a meeting of the Kirk Session. In particular cases a person might, for example, be permitted to sit beside the accused party as a friend, but not to take any part in the proceedings, unless authorised by the Session to act for the accused on very special grounds." He (Mr Gillies) was not here to discuss whether that were right or wrong ; perhaps on the present occasion it would have been a great advantage to the Synod ; they would certainly have been spared a great deal that was very painful and trivial. The Presbytery had gone through the case carefully and patiently. When before the Presbytery, as on the present occasion, Mr Logan never once expressed onp single word of regret as _to the position he had taken up in cjuutenancing Messrs Peebles and Dunn. He never uttered one single word of regret, or modified in the slightest the statements he had made before the Session ; but so far from that made a reiteration of the statements in language even more strong and offensive than appeared on the record. From his statement, it was evident to the Presbytery that his sympathies were to a large extent with Messrs Peebles and Dunn ; and not merely in the matter of Spiritualism, into which the Presbytery had made no enquiry, but on the antiChristian doctrines they had promulgated. So far from being at liberty not to answer the questions put to him by the Presbytery, Mr Logan was bound to answer them. Of course if he said he would not answer them, the Presbytery would take that virtually as an acknowledgment that he held the views complained of. But Mr Lo?an answered the questions, though, he (Mr Gillies) was bound to say, not in a very straightforward manner ; it was exceedingly difficult to get anything like straightforward answers from him. Mr Gillies then spoke at length as to Mr Logan's professed inability to distinguish between the divinity of Christ and that of Moses, and said the Presbytery had no other course open than to pronounce the sentence they had, and he did not think that in the Synod there would be a single voice raised questioning the Tightness or righteousness of the decision. The Presbytery, he contended, could arrive at a decision which need not_ be based on the reference, but on what transpired during the hearing of the case ; and in proof of this he quoted from Sir Henry Moncrieff -" If any case of palpable scandal, or heresy, or contumacy be forced by circumstances upon the General Assembly, before it has reached any inferior Court having jurisdiction over the party, the Assembly may either remit such a case to the inferior Court, or deal with it summarily by the direct exercise of their own authority." Though the Synod there represented the General Assembly, what he had quoted might also be applied to the Presbytery. The question was : Was the Presbytery warranted in coming to such a decision as it had ? It could not, he considered, come to any other without making the Church a party to blasphemy and anti-Christian doctrine. It could not bo tolerated that an office-bearer of the Church should persist in supporting doctrines subversive of the Church, whose doctrine it was their du&y to defend. No wonder, when an office-bearer acted so, that there should be, as Mr Logan had said, a great deal of scepticism prevailing among the working classes.

The Rev. Mr Gow considered it must be plain that the Presbytery had acted with the utmost patience and forbearance to Mr Logan, and that the conduct of the Session was all that could be desired. The questions put to Mr Logan at the Presbytery were not put with the viow of inveigling him into committing himself ; the desire was that Mr Logan, after bavins boen so far led away, would have made a statement of his regret for having associated himself with persons who propagated such outrageous infidelity. Mr Logan seemed to feel aggrieved that he was not permitted to hold any species of doctrine and still retain his position as a member and officebearer of the Church. Mr Logan was at perfect liberty to adopt any doctrine ho chose, and eyeu to propagate it ; but surely he could not think that he was entitled to lio'ld doctrines in every way antagonistic to the doctrines of the Church, trad, subversive of Christianity, and at the same

time be a member and an office-hearer of the Church ? That sppeared to be Mr Logan's view, and to that view he (Mr Gow) entirely demurred • Mr Logan appeared to be in entire sympathy with all the scraps he read, and which were hos» tile to the Christian faith. He should be surprised if the Synod did not endorse the action of the Presbytery.

Mr Logan replied. He had not intended to blame Dr Stuart in the least for heresy hunting. Dr Stuart misunderstood him. Dr Stuart had said that he (Mr Logan) sympathised with statements made by Mr Peebles and Dr Dunn to' a very great extent. Now, he had stated, and it I was down on the record, that he did not agree I with all they said ; and also said that he had stated before the Presbytery that they merely came here as Spiritualists, and not to bring forward these particular doctrines objected to. Mr Logan then complained of the procedure; he understood Moncrieff had superseded Forbes, and now he found both quoted. He did not think if Dr Dunn or any other medium did a work greater than Christ had done— and he did not say any one had done so — that it was not in accordance with Scripture. Of course they did not see any great works in the Church just now, but certainly they had been promised gifts to do greater than Christ did — of course he did not say greater than he could do. He need not distinguish the difference between the divinity of Christ and Moses, and further he thought no man could do so. Now, he would ask the Presbytery, was not the sentence written out to the end before the proceedings commenced ? The Rev Mr Gillies : No. Mr Logan hoped that Mr Gow would understand that he (Mr. Logan) did not attach much importance to doctrine ; he did not think it j made a man much better or worse. He could I name a man who was not much as to doctrine ; still he never knew a man who was better in his ! dealings. This man did not believe in the divinity of Christ, in the atonement, in an eternity of punishment, heaven or hell, and yet would never have anything to do with raffles, bazaars, or sweepstakes. Now, it was a notorious thing that sweepstakes had been got up on an election for offico-bearers for the Church, A Member : Nonsense. Mr Logan : I beg your pardon— l can prove it. I know the case and the money that passed. Mr Logan resumed : The extracts he had read were from the Otago Evangeliot and the Presbyterian at Home, which could not be regarded as hostile publications, and from a minister of the Church of England, so that Mr Gow must have misunderstood them. He had also quoted from Dean Stanley, who was a member of the Church of England, and had refrained from quoting on the other side, though he might have done so. The Rev. Mr Bannerman saw no difficulty in deciding on the appeal. He had not the slightest hesitation in moving — " That the Synod dismiss the appeal, sustain the decision of the Presbytery, and decree accordingly." He had no hesitation in saying that the rtanner in which the appellant had conducted his case supplied more than enough evidence that he had persisted in gross conduct inconsistent with the duties devolving on him as member and officebearer of the Church. He regretted to have to say, and he said it without fear of contradiction, that the appellant had not the honesty toavow what he had believed — he had not had the honesty boldly to come forward, and admit that he held the doctines the Kirk Session and Presbytery believed he held. He deeply regretted that they should have anyone in their Church who should have shown himself so far destitute of manliness, and of that common honesty which they would require from a professing Christian. He could not express the feelings with which he had listened to the appellant's arguments— or pretences for arguments — arguments he had none. There was great difference among men as to what was truth, but it would be inconsistent for the Church, which was the grouud and pillar of truth, to have within herself members who held doctrines adverse to hers ; and while people connected themselves with the Church, they should not proclaim doctrines antagonistic to those of the Church. The Rev. Mr Stobo seconded the motion of the Rev. Mr Banuerman, characterising the answers that had been given by Mr Logan as evasive. The Presbytery was justified in dealing with him as it had done. The Rev. Mr Rylet followed to much the same effect as previous speakers (members of the Synod), and contending that Mr Logan's conduct was inconsistent. The Rev. Mr Waters said Mr Logan's statements were calumnies on Christianity. The Rev. Mr Banner man's motion " That the Synod dismiss the appeal, sustain the decision of the Presbytery, and decree accordingly," waa then put, and was carried unanimously on. the voices.