CASE OF DR. ANGUS

Southland Times, Issue 22157, 27 October 1933, Page 9

CASE OF DR. ANGUS

DECISION OF PRESBYTERY PRIVATE MEETING TO BE HELD. The Presbytery of Sydney has considered the teachings of Dr Angus, professor of New Testament and Historical Theology at St. Andrew’s College, Sydney, and decided to meet in private on October 31, to confer on the whole situation and on the prossible lines of procedure; that Dr Macintyre should be asked to open the conference with a carefully considered statement, and that the procurator and law agent of the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales should be invited to be present.

The meeting followed the decision last month of the General Assembly in Melbourne of the Presbyterian Church of Australia to refer the matter to the Presbytery for “a proper inquiry.” Principal E. E. Anderson, of St. Andrew’s College, moved the motion embodying the terms of the Presbytery’s decision. The Presbyterian General Assembly of New South Wales, by 245 votes to 19, adopted a motion in May last that, while not identifying itself with Dr. Angus’ statement before that tribunal, it received with satisfaction his assurance of adherence, without mental reservation, to his obligation to assert, maintain, and defend the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as stated in its authoritative documents “as an exhibition of the sense in which he understands the Holy Scriptures, and as a confession of his own faith.”

“Case for Proper Inquiry.” It was from this motion that there was an appeal to the General Assembly, which decided:—“(l) That the appeal be sustained in so far as it brings the views of Professor Angus on certain vital doctrines of the Church before the house; (2) the Assembly considers that, in view of the seriousness of the questions at issue and the facts presented to the Assembly, a case for a proper inquiry has been demonstrated, and it remits the matter back to the Presbytery of Sydney with instructions to proceed according to the rules of the Church; (3) that in the event of the decisions of the Presbytery or State Assembly of New South Wales being appealed against, the Moderator he authorized to summon the judical commission to conclude matters before the meeting of

our next General Assembly.” Principal Anderson, in submitting his motion to the Presbytery of Sydney, spoke of the vital importance and great complexity of the case. Those who were present at the proceedings of the General Assembly, he said, must realize how important it was that they should understand thoroughly the laws of the Church and the procedure that was allowable in such a matter. It was impossible for the Presbytery, in the midst of other business, to enter into consideration of the communications from the General Assembly with regard to the matter. “Humiliating Memories.” Those who were at the meetings of that body, and who had painful and humiliating memories of the impression produced on so many within the Church and without the Church, said Principal Anderson, must feel that they must walk carefully and must not allow any possible confusion to disorder their minds. Much of the unpleasant impression left on their minds appeared to be due, not to disordered passions which theological controversy so often evoked, but to the unutterable confusion with regard to procedure. The General Assembly was unable, in fact, said the speaker, to do anything, because it felt that the matter had not been brought before it in such a way as to enable it to arrive at a reasoned decision. An extraordinary thing had happened. The highest court of their Church was not in a position, apparently, to express an opinion on the subject. That ought not to be. (Hear, hear.) The Presbytery of Sydney must feel how great was its responsibility that that state of affairs should not be repeated. They would be acting wisely in proceeding along the lines indicated in his motion.