THE HERESY HUNT IN THE DUNEDIN PRESBYTERY.

Otago Witness, Issue 1898, 19 June 1890, Page 19

THE HERESY HUNT IN THE DUNEDIN PRESBYTERY.

The Dunedin Presbytery at its meeting on Wednesday considered the complaint recently lodged by Mr A C. Begg against a portion of the teaching of the Rev. J. Gibb, pastor of First Church. Mr Begg was firs'; heard in support of his complaint, after which Mr Gibb gave, a lengthy explanation, in the course of wbi. h h« read the sermon, a part of which Mr Begg had found fault with as Lot beiDg in conformity with the doctrines of tho church. A lung discussion, <xfcendiug over five houre, followed, several eloquent arid forcible jpti-ehra br-ing delivered. Rev. Mr Will's oration was a very able and liberal exposition, so much so that he was challeiigf d ouch or twice by irember.i of the presbytery for holding distinctly Arminian views, and it was stated by more than ono that if Mr Gibb was bad Mr Will was worse ; in fact, many of the ppeeches were directed to refuting not the b» rtsy alleged in Mr Begg's complaint t ufc tbe alleged much worno hereby of the minister of East Taieri. Mr Will held to his opinions, and defied his critics to prove, that his vitws, however they might harnvuise with tbe Confession, were not in perfect consonance with tbe great truths of Scripture. For the other side the Rev. Mr Ryley gave a very powerful addrebs The result of the discussion was that, on the motion of Dr Watt, seconded by Dr Duulop, the com-

plaint was dismissed, regret being expressed that the words had been u->ed. Another motion, moved by the Rev. Mr Fiulaysou, referring the •matter to a committee for a report, was lost. The voting was 17 to 6. Mr Finlayson appealed agaiust the decision of the presbytery, with the object of having it brought before the synod We are reluctantly compelled to hold over Mr Gibb's defence, but subjoin the discussion which followed : —

Rev. Mr Will presumed that the question before them would turn very much on whether Mr Gibb wa3 warranted to i*pcak of the standards of the church in reference to this doctrine or not. It might be said that there were two parties in the church — Mr Gibb being on one side, and Mr Begg on the other. He placed himsalf on Mr Gibb's side. What was wanted by that party was that there should be a revision of the Confesi-ion or a declaratory act defining the sense in which the Confession was accepted ; while the other side wished that the Confession .should be hdd and maintained as it is at present. He would move — " The presbytery, having heard Mr Begg in support of the complaint and Mr Gibb in his defence, finds that tho terms of the complaint do not show that Mr Gibb denied tho doctrine of election, and as the uermori preached on tho occasion clearly proves that he believes in that doctrine and teaches it, an.'! that he found fault not with the doctrine of election but with the manner iv which that doctrine is stated in the subordinate standard 1 ?, the presbytery therefor does not regard Mr Gibb p.s having committed auy fault deserving its censure or requiring its interference, and rebolves to dismiss the complaint." In speaking in support of his motion. Mr Will contended that the Confession of Faith was never intended to act as a test of orthodoxy. The Westminster divines composed it as in their judgment an adequate representation of the truth of Scripture, and offered it to the church as such. One of the most important statements it contained, however, was that the Confession was not to be understood as the test of orthodoxy. It subordinated itself entirely to the Scriptures, and asked that any departure from its statement should be tried solely by the Word of God. Thus ministers were, he held,. at liberty to assail the statement of tho Confession at whichever points they considered it differed from the teaching of the Scriptures. If anyone attempted to use the Confession &i the final test of orthodoxy he was himßelf contradicting tho Confession.

Rev. Mr Rtxry rose to a point of order, and asked if they were determining the doctrine or the complaint.

The Moderator replied that it was only the complaint that was before the presbytery, and he would ask Mr Will to confine his remarks to it. Rev. Mr Will said it was his intention to traverse the doctrine of tho Confession of Faith. If the moderator would Lot allow him to do bo ho would resume his seat mid say nothing. The Modebatok said he certainly would not ask Mr Will to resume his seat. Rev. Dr Stuart remarked that in his humble opinion Mr Will had set himself to discredit the Confession. He thought Mr Will might defend Ms position without bringing the whole Confession before the presbyterj . Rev. Mr Will said he bad no intention to dißcredit the Confession of Faith, but what he wished to discredit was the unwise support the Confession received from very many. He then proceeded to contend that the statement of the Confession with respect to the love of God for, and the offer of salvation to, all men was in glaring contradiction of many passages of the Scriptures, and quoted a considerable number of texts in support of his contention. He next dealt with Mr Begg's complaint against the orthodoxy of Mr Gibb. He pointed out that from the sermon to which they had all listened it was perfectly evident that Mr Gibb did not deny the dootrine of flection, but had assailed only the statement of it in the Confession, which he was perfectly justified in doing. For himself he did not think that as a rule it was a prudent thing of ministers to refer in the pulpit to divergences in their teachings from the Confessional statement, but, as had been said, the question of revision was at present so exercising the attention of the ohuroh that the usual rule might now reasonably enough be departed from. He thought that-, having obtained the explanation which Mr Gibb had given them, they could do no more than accept his motion and dismiss the complaint. The Rev. Mr Waddell seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak. An adjournment was made at 1.30 p.m., and on resuming Rev. R. Waddell said that after the explanation given by Mr Gibb he thought the way was open for them to adopt the motion moved by Mr Will. Taken by itself Mr Gibb's statement seemed to be serious, but when they heard the context and the explanation which Mr Gibb had given he thought it was unnecessary to carry on the discussion, and that they should be prepared to accept Mr Will's motion. As far as he could gather it s. (iined that Mr Gibb had not spoken adversely to the doctrine of eleotion ; on the contrary, the main portion of the sermon went to uphold the establishment of the doctrine As was well known, there were differences of opinion about that doctrine; and that btjiug so, Mr Gibb was quite within his rights in making the statements he did. There might b^ » question as to whether it was judicious* or not to make the statement. Personally ho did m>t think it was; but when they heard the rev»<>n be gave for making tbe statements there w< re at least some grounds for believing he ha<i some sense of reason tor his assertions H<' riid not see that it would be at all judici -tin to pass censure on Mr Gibb for making the statement be did when the very standards by which th*y were to judge him were at present, themselves being judged, so that, they might bfj brought into conformity v. iMi tho truth of God. For himself, thp Omfi'SMon of Fnith seemed to err not «o much in what it-, stated as in what it did not Ht.nte. There were some Scriptural texts which seemed to fuvnur the arbitrariness of God, but it was true ako we should find a number of texts on the othf-r side in favour of the Fatherhood of God. The Confession made very little reference ro the former.butin the Scripture they were certainly not in the background. The speaker wput on to reft-r to the method which Mr Begg sdop'rd in bringing the matter before presbytery, and in connection therewith remarked that Christ hid said, " If thy brother sin against tbre, go to thy brother and confer with him, ami if Ihou canst not come to an agreement, take onn or two others with you, and if not agreed on, then turn to the church." But Mr Bfgg reversed that, and so acted in an unchrihtian like way, and exhibited conduct which the presbytery should be very chary in sanctioning.

Rev. Mr Finlayson r^sn to submit an amend* mmt. First of all, be would say regarding Mr Waddell's remnrkq about the course Mr Begg took, that he th-nijrbt it would have been better had Mr Begg n>st called on Mr Qibb in regard to the matter before going lo the session, but when be was not heard at the session his next best course was to do what he had done, and como to the presbytery as the only body that could deal wjtb the matter; and.

although there might have been a want of frankness on the part of Mr Begg in not going first to Mr Gibb, they could not censure his conduct in coming to the presbytery. He did the thing it w.^s right to do, and which, with his views of his duty in the circumstances it was the only thing he could do and was bound to do. Then as to the complaint, he would indicate by his amendment what he thought the presbytery should do. No doubt the context of the sermon explained away some of the formidable opinions that had been held about it, but it did not remove the objectionable nature of the statement, and that statement had not been withdrawn. There had nob been any emphatic expression of regret at having used it. There bad been an expression to this extent : that probably it was not wise to use it, but the statement itself had not been taken back. It was true that later on in the sermon God was spoken of as the all-wise, almighty, and all-loving Father. With regard to the last part of the motion, he was not prepared to say then that Mr Gibb had committed no fault worth; of censure. They had a business in hand which, as far as he could see, they should not let slip through their hands in the way Mr Will proposed, but one they must get to the heart of before they let it go. But his (the speaker's) greatest objection to Mr Will's motion was Mr Will's speech.— (Hear, hear.) All through that speech anyone could see that the dispute was about the confession itself — the old dispute between Calvinism and Arminianism. He would not go into that matter, bowever. Mr Will's motion he did not see would be satisfactory at all, and therefore he would propose as an amendment — "That the following committee be appointed to confer with Mr Gibb as to his use of the language complained of, and to report to the presbytery on the 2nd July, viz. : — Dr Dunlop (convener), Dr Stuart, Revs. Kirkland, Ryley, and the mover." Any other names might be added.

Bey. Mr Gibb : That's a most extraordinary committee.

Eev. Mr Will : They are all on the one side.

Bey. Ryley seconded the amendment. He had not ever attended a meeting of presbytery where he had felt greater responsibility than he had felt that day, and that not merely from the subject matter brought before them by Mr Begg, but from the speech of Mr Will. He thought that speech showed clearly that there was a conflict before the church, and it was difficult to say what the issue would be. — (Mr Will: "Hear, hear.") He viewed the question like this : Were they to give up their Calvinism, the principles on which their church was founded, and adopt rank Arminianism ? He listened to Mr Will with wonderful surprise. It would be in the recollection of members that about twelve months ago when there was a discussion in progress on the Confession of Faith, Mr Will said that as a minister he had no difficulties with it, he understood it, and it troubled him in no way in preaching a full and free Gospel. Bey. Mr Will remarked that those were not his exact words ; be referred to the confession as the church understood and practised it.

Rev. Mr Bylby understood Mr Will to say that he had no difficulty as a minister in preachiug a full and free gospel, holding at the same time the doctrio.es of the Confession of Faith. — (Mr Will: "No, I never said anything of the kind.") If Mr Will had grown so immensely in 12 months that he could hold up that day a standard of their church, as he maintained he had held it up, to ridicule and contempt, as a document no loDger worthy of a member of the presbytery, who could tell what he would become in another 12 months? — (Mr Will: " Hear, hear.") Then he was sorry to hear Mr Waddell so unchristian in the remarks he made about Mr Begg's action in this matter. Mr Waddell referred to that grand old rule laid down by our blessed Saviour to regulate the church in dealing with offences, bat his interpretation of that rule was false. He was certain that if the presbytery only looked at the affair openly they would say that Mr Begg, instead of acting unehristianiike, only did bis duty. As an elder, had he not subscribed to the same documents as Mr Gibb ? And when he saw them being dragged through the mire, if he was true to his convictions and to his ordination vows, he was bound to bring such an act before the presbytery. Mr Gibb did not show altogether that spirit which his office ought ever to possess and manifest when he drew himself up and stood on his dignity, and refused to allow Mr Begg to bring the matter up at the session.

Mr Will: He stood on the law ef the hatch.

Mr Kyley: Well, if you find a minister standing up for his pound of flesh, you cannot blame an elder for doing the same. — (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr Ryley said that the statement Mr Begg objected to was committed to paper deliberately by Mr Gibb in his private reply, and that being po the Presbytery had to look at the matter in a grave and responsible light. It showed bayond doubt that Mr Gibb's belief was not in harmony in this respect at any rate with the teaching of the " Confession of Faiih." He did not think that the Confession had altered in the slightest degree since Mr Gibb submitted to it when ho was appointed minister to the First Church, and he was sure that if Mr Gibb had come before the Presbytery then and said that his soul revolted at this doctrine as it was taught in the " Confession of Faith " the Presbytery would undoubtedly not have inducted him to the pastorate of the First Church, but would have demanded an an explanation from him to find out his views on the doctrine. He thought Mr Gibb had pufc himself in a very false position in now coming up and challenging that doctrine. If Mr Will's motion was carried it would be a calamity to the Prepbyterian Church of Otago and Southland. The result of the motion would be that every minister of the church, who did nob agree with the standards, would feel he h>ul a license to revile and ridicule from his pulpit and hold up to scorn and contempt all in the Confession of Faith which ho did not agree with. If Mr Will were wise ho would withdraw the motion.

Dr Watt was not satisfied with either motion or amendment, but he thought that Mr Finlayson's motion was making too much of the case. For himself he would rather try and di-pose of it now, and would move :— " That the presbytery having had its attention drawn to certain statements alleged to be made by Mr Gibb reflecting on the subordinate standards, which Mr Gibb confessed to have substantially made, and having heard Mr Gibb iv explanation, dismiHs the case with an expression of regret that Mr Gibb should have allowed himself inadvertently to have put a construction on the language of the Shorter Catechism which it does not warrant." Unlike Mr G'bb, he had uo objection to the words " mere pood pleasure," because fee believed that the doctrine of divine election was a doctrine of Holy Scripture. He had a conversation lately with Mr Gibb, and he had come to the conclusion that Mr Gibb was sound and thoroughly in accord with the church, and also 6ound in the decree of the election of love. He did not think a man should be put out of the Church of Christ and be forbidden to preach the gospel for holding Arminian views, and it was his opinion that there should be greater comprehensiveness in the church of the future than jn the church of the past. Dr Dunlop would second Dr Watt's amend-

ment, and in doing so ho would say that he was sorry the discussion had taken such a wide range- He thought it was a pity that Mr Gibb had been led in a moment of forgetfulne6s to say what he had said from the pulpit, but he recognised that Mr Gibb had not assailed the doctrine, but the manner in which it was set forth. For himself he did not believe that "mere good pleasure" meant that God acts capriciously or arbitrarily in the bad sense of the words. He went on to explain at length the position held by the more modern Calvinists on the point, and then continued that he did not think Mr Gibb had dene anything very much beyond making a mistake and using rather strong language. He would not take up the larger question entered into by Mr Will. He hoped the question would be settled without appealing to a higher court.

Rev. J. M. M'Keehow also spoke on the question, being in favour of Dr Watt's amendment.

Dr Stuart, who was not present when Mr Gibh read bis sermon in the morning, said be had been told the more important points of it by two ministers, whom he would not, however, name. They told him it was an excellent sermon all through, and that the passage in complaint came in like a shot, not at all in harmony with the rest of the sermon, and a part that would have been better left out, as it was well fitted to offend the ears of many churchmen. If Mr Gibb had stopped at that part of his speech that morning when he said he was sorry that he had not been more explicit in his sermon, he would have acted wisely ; but instead of that he went on to make statements which pained his (the speaker's) soul. When a minister spoke, as Mr Gibb had spoken, against the subordinate standards of the church, he did a great harm and injustice to his brother ministers ; and, not only that, but to the younger children who were being instructed in the standards. Speaking for himself, he could say he was content with the confession, but there was a new school getting up, and they had a perfect right to take what steps they wished regarding the confession to have it revised, but he did not think that the proper way to go about that was to say no lack of hard things against it. Mr Will, in his speech that day irritated him considerably. It was not at all a pleasant experience to be told that the confession was worthless, comparatively speaking, and Mr Gibb in his speech said he had come to New Zealand with the credenda of the Church of Victoria, but he would point out that when Mr Gibb came here he accepted the confession which obtained in the Otago church. Of course that would not prevent him from asking that it should be revised, buthe thought that he should go about it in a more Christian way. He thought it would be a wise thing for them if they waited until their mother church and other great churches had spoken on the matter, and probably they oould then follow a little in their wake.

Rev. Mr Gibson-Smith supported Mr Wills' motion. In doing so, he said that year after year the doctrine of the Confession of Faith and the Shorter Catechism was the one thing that kept him back from coming to a knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ, and he believed there was many and many a one in the old country and in this colony in exactly similar positions. He thought too much had been made of the merely theological aspects of this question, and that it had not been looked at sufficiently from its practical bearing.

Rev. R. R. M. Suthebland spoke at length in support of Mr Finlayson's motion. ; Rev. Mr Gibb, in reply, said he did not intend to occupy the time of the presbytery with many remarks, having in the morning taken up bo much of their time explaining his position. He would, however, like to make a few {remarks tvith the view of calling the attention of several who had spoken to what he said in the forenoon, inasmuch as several of the points to which he referred had been ignored in the discussion. He proceeded to remind the presbytery that he had admitted that as a general rule it was not expedient or wise of ministers to deal with negations in their sermons or to contradict the dogma of the " Confession of Faith " in their public teaching. There might be, however, he held, exceptions to this rule, and he considered that inasmuch as the question of revision was so prominently before the church, he might, without any breach of decorum, refer to the matter in the pulpit. He would also remind the presbytery that he had admitted having been to some extent in error concerning the precise significance of the phrase " the mere good pleasure of God." He felt that his ignorance was in no degree culpable, because not only the majority of his brethren in bhe ministry were of his opinion as to the meaning of the expression, but in the standard text book of Theology, in the " Commentaries upon the Confession," which were recognised as authoritative, the expression was explained in the sense of pure arbitrariness He would also call the attention of the presbytery to the fact that while he had admitted error on this point he still considered that the confession so obscured the love of God, not in one part only bub throughout, that it was no wonder that one failed to see in this phrase no other meaning than that of the arbitrary determination of the will of God. He would also remind them that he still considered the language he had used as perfectly justifiable. He might, iv sitting down, say that he would have no fault to Dr Watt's amendment if Mr Will and his seconder could see good to withdraw their motion. The cenpure of Dr Watt's motion was, if it could be called censure, of the very mildest, and he did not see that there was much difference between it and the original motion.

Rev. Mr Will also replied, and in concluding said he was willing to accept Dr Watt's motion.

Rev. Mr Waddrll consented to the motion being withdrawn in favour of Dr Watt's, aud Ihe presbytery consenting to this course, the motions of Mr Finlayson and Dr Watt were left before the meeting.

The Moderator put Dr Watt's motion, with the result that 17 voted for it and six for Mr Fiolayson's.

Dr Watt's motion was declared carried. Rev. Mr Finlayson said he would protest against the judgment of the presbytery, and requested leave to bring the complaint before the next meeting of synod. The presbytery rose at 6.15 p.m.