Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 77

Presbyterian and Methodist Unanimity

Presbyterian and Methodist Unanimity.

Sir,—The Rev. P. B. Fraser has sent me a copy of your issue of the 26th ult. containing a letter from him on the question of the unanimity of the Presbyterian and Methodist Committees in the matter of the Articles of the Faith, to which reference was made by me when addressing the General Assembly on the subject of Church union. I should not have thought it worthwhile replying to this letter, especially so long after the date of its appearance in your columns, but Mr Fraser, as I judge from his private communications, is extremely anxious that I should. Here, then, as briefly as possible, are the facts:—
1.At a meeting of the Union Committee held early in the year I submitted certain Articles of the Faith prepared for the Presbyterian Church of England some time ago, and commended these as a suitable basis for a doctrinal statement that might meet the needs of a united Church. The Committee went over the articles one by one, and though no definite pronouncement was made on any one of them, the majority were regarded with favour, only a few being singled out for criticism as unlikely to be accepted by the Methodists and Congregationalists. Finally, it was resolved that a Committee, consisting of Drs Watt Dunlop, and myself should be appointed to go carefully into the articles and make such alterations as we might deem desirable. It was also resolved that the articles thus revised should be printed and a copy sent to each of the members of the General Committee.
2.The sub-committee met and performed its task with absolute unanimity. The articles were revised, altered, printed, and forwarded to the members of the Committee. At the same time a number of copies were sent to the Methodist and Congregational Committees, with a request that they should take them into careful consideration and come to a definite finding anent them.
3.After due interval the Presbyterian Committee met and adopted about half of the articles as they came up from the sub-committee, with a very few and unimportant alterations. The work of revision was not completed on this occasion, because arrangements had been made for the attendance of the Methodist and Congregational Committees at a certain hour in the afternoon, and when that hour arrived the Presbyterian Committee had to desist.
4.The three Committees (Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational) then proceeded to cover the ground that had been traversed by' the Presbyterian Committee—i.e., they examined about one-half of the articles. The Coneregationalists suggested various amendments which were not carried, but the Methodists and Presbyterians saw eye to eye. The former suggested only two slight verbal alterations in the articles as they had been adopted by the Presbyterians. These alterations were accepted, and, as far as this meeting is concerned, greater unanimity could not have existed.
5.Before the next meeting of the united Committees took place I had left for Wellington. I handed over the business to Dr Dunlop, instructing him to arrange for a meeting as soon as possible, at which the three Committees should deal with the remaining articles as the first half had already been dealt with. In due course I received a report of this meeting, with the articles as they hid been by it adopted. It appeared that this second united meeting had been as unanimous as the first.page 64
6.The Methodist Committee that had thus far co-operated with the Presbyterian and Congregational was a committee local to Dunedin. The Central Methodist Committee was situated at Christchurch, with the Rev. H. Bull as its convenor. I had been in correspondence with him all along the line. Some time before the meeting of the Assembly I ascertained that the Central Methodist Committee approved of every jot and title of the work that had been done by their Dunedin Committee in co-operation with our own and the Congregational.
7.It thus appears that there was, as I said to the Assembly, a wonderful and profound unanimity between the Methodist and Presbyterian Committees. The articles had been adopted by both without the slightest jar or discord or difference of any kind. And this being so, I had them printed in the report which I submitted to the Assembly's Committee during the recent session of that body. When the Committee met however, it was speedily apparent that there was no unanimity on the question of submitting the articles to the Assembly at this juncture. It was accordingly resolved to withhold them and to ask the Assembly merely to send down to Presbyteries and sessions the general question whether they were in favour of negotiating with the Methodists and Congregationalists for a union of the Churches. Personally, I was disappointed with this finding, though I offered no opposition, and fell in with it heartily enough as the line of the least resistance. But the fact stands that there was, and, as far as anything to the contrary yet appears, there still is, unanimity between the Presbyterian and Methodist Committees on the question of these Articles of the Faith. Mr Fraser, indeed, informed the Committee that he could not agree with this article and the next, but the articles were not discussed, or, rather, rediscussed. What conclusions the Committee would have come to if a rediscussion had taken place Mr Fraser knows just as little as I do. What I do know is that the Methodist and Presbyterian Committees at every meeting at which they considered these articles were in profound agreement.

I have written this letter with great reluctance. It is not of general interest, and the columns of the 'Daily Times' are hardly the place for the settlement of differences of opinion between me and Mr Fraser. But perhaps the letter will serve to throw into clearer relief the very remarkable unanimity that exists between these two Churches, once so far apart in the matter of doctrine. Union may come in our time and it may not, but it is coming. The Churches, as the author of that fine 'book "Ourselves and the Universe" says, "will detach themselves more and more from the divisive elements in their separate formularies to unite on the deeper life beneath." Practical identity of belief and life must issue in outward union.

May I, through you, say to Mr Fraser that I shall not reply to any further letter be may send to you on the question he has raised? I have said my say, and life is too short for controversy of this kind. If it were the question of union, that would be another matter.

—I am, etc.,

James Gibb.

Wellington.