OPEN LETTERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2251, 22 April 1897, Page 17

OPEN LETTERS.

TO THE PRESBYTERIANS OF OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND.

Attempts have been made to reply to " Open Letters." These have had a common character, a« if emanating from a common source. They have been characterised by much abi.sive language, personal references, mean insinuations, charges of ignorance and dishonesty, and other unworthy lines of argument. Much that requires to be seriously considered iv dealing with the question of union vow before the church has been carefully evaded — such, for instance, as the relation of the proposed basis of union to the constitution of the Church of Otago and Southland. The former differs from the latter in very marked degree, so that if it were adopted tho question arises, Csn the church, reconstructed thereon, be regarded as the church originally instituted in these parts of New Zealand, and be capable of giving effect to the full breadth of the purpose of her institution, for the fulfilment of which phe was gifted by the early purchasers of land in Otago? That; purpose is embodied in her standard", and consists in her maintaining and propagating Christian doctrine and practice as aefc forth in the standards accepted by her, as her authoritative interpretation of Scripture teaching, as instituted for this purpose, and undertaking to fulfil it. This formed tbe very condition* on which she was originally gifted with what; ia known a<* her trust property. If t-he discards in part or in whole her standard* and assumes another nnd a differ* nt constitution, and thereby another and a different pucpose to fulQl, can she be entitled to the retention of property gifted to her for a special purpose, the fulfilment of which if) dependent on her adherence to her original constitution ? Bufc or.c answer, we think, c&n be given to this a;id the above question. With the very important matter involved in these questions the friends of union have failed to grapple. They have coutented themselves with giving it as their opinion that the church runs no risk to hfr property by union 'on the proposal basis and the assurance that if there prove' to be any such risk they will cease their r-fforfcs after union, though they have asserted over and over again that the Head of tbe church requires that they secure this unior, and that it is demanded in the interests of religion and Fresbyterianism. The inconsistency of this position has been already exposed, and needs not again to ba commented upon further than to say that it imparts a hollowness to their ndvocacy of union on the proposed basii. It is of the highest importance to consider the necessary effect of rhe adoption of that basis upon the constitution of the Otago churtfb, which forms the contract in accordance with which she presently owns the property administered by her through the Church Board of Property ; also the effect of that adoption upon the church's right to that properly. The«e involve more tho interests of the congregations than of the miuH ers. The latter derive personally no bent fit from the church property ; the advantages ib givei accrue ooly to the former. These, therefore, have a special concern in any action that may even seem to deprive them of these advantages, and very specially does it. concern them to consider what may be the effecb of constructing the church auew on the proposed basis. Attention has been called in previous Oppn Letters, as again in fhis, to the difference between that basis and the basis on which the Church of Otago was orig : nally founded, and as so founded originally gifted vf itb. certain property to give effect to its constitution. In connection with this, on which the church's title to that property presently rests, attention has been called in a previous Open Letter to the •• Church Lands Acb 1866," as establishing tbe fact that Parliament recognised the church's right to ask and receive at its hands certain administrative powers in connoobion wibh her present property on the ground that she adhered to her original constitution — that is, to the conditions on which she received the property purported to be dealt wi'h. That the church was then rpqnired to establish that adherencs necessarily implies that the connection between her original const^ution and her retaining a right to that property is a binding one. If she departs from that constitution she violates that connection, and destroys her only title to the property. Going to Parliament, as having ao departed, she would go in a different character from what vra* hers in 1866, she could not prove her identity with the original Otago church. The adoption of articles 2 and 3 of the new basis destroys that identity, for they alter her original standard* and her governmental constitution. By the new basis she would come to have as her only subordinate standard the Confeseion of Faith — nor, however, in whole, but in part ; whereas the Otago basis accepts it in whole, and in addition to it the othsr standards framed by the Westminster Assembly of Divines — viz.. the larger and shorter Catechisms, the Directory of Public Worship, and the form of church government. These could not be added to the basis if the union were consummated on the basis presented to the church tor adoption. At yet no pro,posal has been made to include those ia the basis before its adoption, proving that there must be tome special object to be sought by their exclusion. But even were the synod to agree to their being added to the proposed basis, article 2 would still contravene the constitution of the Otaeo church by accepting the Confes-

Bion of Faith in a imitilsted form. To evade the force of this objection the supporters of the proposed basi.-i have paraded and boasted of the now by them admitted, though hitherto denied, fact that a departure has betn made from the original constitution of the Obago church by the permission given to marry & sister-in-law. The less thoy parade this action of the synod in exceeding its powers the better, in view ol the appeal made to the " Handbook of Fresbyterianism " by " Veritas." The harvest of that action may ab any time come upon the church, and the fruit of it be gathered, bitter to the taste of those who are responsible for that action. But this illegal action of the synod has no bearing upon fche consideration of fche proposed basis, for the simple reason that the Confession of Faith has had none of its teaching removed from its pages, and that the latest, minister ordained was made to contract with the church as a whole aud with the particular congregation committed to his oharge. on the condition that he sincere!)/ oivned and acknowledged the whole doctrine contained in the Westminster Confc^^ion of Faith to 6e founded on the Word of God,, and that he acJcno'ivl'dged the same to be tho Confession of his Faith. Was this truly or falsely required of him— i c, with or without mental reservation on his part or on fcbat of the Presbytery ordaining, or on the part; of both. If with reiervation, why was not tbe congregation informed of this that ifc might understand fche terms on which be was bound to its members and they to him ? Mental reservation is allowed 1 and practised in the Romish Church. There is no place for ifc iv the Presbyterian Church, nor in any honest and honourable mind ; it can only have a place where other Romish principles and actions are allowed to sway.

In dealing with the basis of the union on which it is proposed to reconstruct the church, we have but to consider it alongside of the written and accepted constitution of the church, which no decision of the church's supreme court can contravene: according to the handbook above referred to, and quoted as an authority by the supporters of the basis. Any such contravention is unlawful, and has no bindiug obligation upon the church ov its ministers according to that authority. The idea seems to be entertained in some quarters that the supreme court of the church cm make and enforce any change in the doctrine and polity of tbe church as it pleases. In proof of this appeal is made to the Declaratory Acb passed a 'few years ago, as if that acb was intended to allow docbrines to be held and preached other than what are set forth in the Confession of Faith. The Declaratory Aob does no. such thing ; it simply and only explains and declares how the actual teaching of the Confession is to be understood Hence the synod declared its adoption of ib to rest on the ground that its "explanations were consistent with the doctrinal constitution of the church." Bsing consistent therewith, it neither contravenes nor allows any departure from the actual doctrine of the Confession of Faith, which every minister of the church has " contracted to maintain, assert, and defend a« founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God — as the very condition of his admission to the ministry of the church. No one can say that to permit marriage with a sister-in-Jaw does not contravene the confessional doctrine of marriage ; yet ministers have voted for that j-ecmission, assuming a power to alter their engagement; with the church and with their own congregation, and to charge fche terms of that engagement. Where do they obtain this power ? Surely if any men sbould prove true and taitbi ul to their engagements, and the terms thereof, it should be the ministers of Him who is tho Faithful aud the True. The acceptance of the basis alters the terms on which every minister entered the church, and changes the policy of the church they severally undertook to maintain. Were scripture authority claimed for this divergence from constitutional doctrine and practice, there would be sqme excuse tor seeking the changes that must ensue from the adoption of fche proposed basis. Bufc this has not been done. - On fcae contrary, while the confes-ioual 'Jocfcrina of marriage wa! admitted and declared to be in accord with scripture, fche intention was gravely intimated to vote in favour of a departure from it, because such departure was desired. What ia this bub a giving of pre-eminence to the voice of man over the voioe of God, aud setting the wishes of men above the will of God ? Can a chuvch prosper, or the blessing of God be txpeefced where guch procedure is tolerated ? Bub tolerated it will be if, with the adoption of this basis, the docbrino of marriage as set forth in Ilia Confession of Faith be not removed from its pages. That doctrine either accords with scripture or ifc does not. If it does not it ought nob to be suffered to remain there. Jf ib does accord with Creel's word and expresses God's will, then mnsc it be maintained and made obligatory in the church at all hazards. For her resolve can only be, " All that the Lord hath said, we will do."