BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19807, 26 November 1919, Page 3

BAPTISM BY IMMERSION.

RESOLUTION OF PRESBYTERIAN ASSEMBLY,

[FnoM Hub Cohrespoxwext.] INVERCARGTT/L, November 25

At the Presbyterian Assembly the case of the Rev A. A. Murray and the Auckland Presbytery came up for consideration as first business at the morning sederunt. 'file Rev J>r Gibb, convener of the committee, to which the matter had been referred lor adjudication, said in presenting the report that many meetings of tire commit lee had been held and that, the disposition of the committee was to deal with the case wisely, patiently and kindly. It had been, decided by the committee that baptism by sprinkling was valid; that the infants of such parents as expressed their faith in the herd Jesus Christ were worthy subjects for baptism; that to immerse such as had already been sprinkled in baptism and to refuse to baptise the children of such parents as were worthy were irregular courses and rendered a minister liable to discipline; that these resolutions should be communicated to the Auckland Presbytery. St Andrew’s Church and session. Dr Gibb continued that the impression of the committee was that Mr Murray had not been fully conscious of the serious position for the Church bis action had created, and that he justified his action as a minister of the Church entirely under the. Declaratory Act, which might not bear such interpretation. He was hopeful that, Mr Murray, for the- peace of the Church and to save it from a difficult position, might see his way to resign his position ns a minister of the Presbyterian Church. He pleaded with him to do this.

The Rev W. ,T. Gomrie, the Church Treasurer, seconded the motion. Re agreed with Dr Gibb, save that he hoped that Mr .Murray would not resign his charge. He maintained that the Church’s teaching as to baptism did not constitute one of the vital doctrines of the Church, and that there ought to be room in the Presbyterian Communion for a man of Mr -Murray’s views.

The Rev l>r Dickie, professor in the theological faculty of the Church, gave an interpretation of the De.da.iMlory Act. which taken in connection with the Confession of Faith seemed to preclude tfie liberal interpretation claimed by Mr Comrie. The Clerk of Assembly, the Rev J. M Keime, regretted that he could not support the resolution. It was too indefinite and was not fair to the Auckland Presbytery, which desired a decision on the matter. He quoted authorities to show that to interpret the Declaratory Act as covering the position as created by Mr Murray’s action was to act ultra vires, and he moved to the effect that Mr Murray should be asked by the Assembly to hand in his resignation, to the meeting of the Auckland Presbytery in January, and failing this that, the presbytery should take unto his deposition. The amendment was seconded by the Rev S. F. Findlayson, of Dunedin, who greatly regretted along with the mover the necessity of such drastic action, but ho could see no other course open for the Assembly if Mr Murray persisted in the attitude he had taken up. The Rev Dr Erwin, of Christchurch, while extolling all reasonable, sympathy, warned the Assembly that through shirking of responsibility tho Church might be greatly disturbed.

The Rev Dr .Kennedy Elliott, of ’Wellington, commended the resolution of tho clerk, hut pleaded with Mr Murray that for tho sake of the mutual love subsisting between him and his friends ho should relieve the Church of the anxiety his attitude was causing.

An elder, Mr Rodman, then fu.rt.her moved (hat the case should be .sent down to presbyteries and sessions for consideration and report at next Assembly. This was seconded by the Rev A. (low, who referred to the fact that many of the elders leaned to “immersion” views and were watching the case with peculiar interest. It wn.s suggested that Mr Murray might care to speak, and this privilege being conceded ho said that ho contended for the position which he claimed for freedom as to baptism from the opinions as voiced by such prominent Presbyterians as Dr Lindsay, Dr Candlish and others, and that under the Declaratory Act he was within his rights in exercising the freedom he claimed. Ho claimed also to be a Presbyterian and the son of a Presbyterian, and lie deeply regretted that it had been proposed to exclude him from the Ghurcb of his fathers.

Thereafter- .Dr Gibb replied, and the vote was taken, when it was found that the numbers were:- -For the committee’s resolution, as moved by Dr Gibb, 1,31; for. Mr M’Kenzic’s, 44; for Mr Rodman's, 7. This means that the matter is inferred back to the Auckland Presbytery in terms of the committee's resolution.