The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Through all the processes of the Church the Church Union question had passed. Sent down to Presby-' teriee under the Barrier Act in 1915, " Presbyteries had voted in favor ot Union and 13 against. There was a cry for another vote, and the ques- tion asked: "Why not trust the people?" The people had been trusted, and they had voted at the only time they could vote. Every time they had the matter before them the people had voted by more than three to one in favor of Union. AccOrding to the constitution of the Church they could not reopen the "dtreirtiort without referring it to the Presbyteries under the Border Act. and " Presbyteries out of " had recently passed resolutions um!!! the General Assemhlv to Jro that! C In all their negotiations they had gone about the matter in a thor- oughly Presbyterian manner. They had proceeded cautiously and slowly. For the benefit of the members who might not be Presbyterians. Dr. Gan- dier explained the constitution and government of the Presbyterian Church by Sessions. Prettttyusriesr, Synods and General Assembly. The General Assembly represented the whole Church, and its decisions were final. The provisions of the Barrier Act were next explained, by which hasty action on the part of the Assembly was prevented, and by whichlall matters affecting the doc- trine, discipline, worship or govern- ment pf the Church had to be sub- mitted to the Presbyteries before be- coming a permanent enactment. People Had Voted. 'Representing the Presbyterian Church, Rev. Dr. Gandier stated that they were not asking the Legislature to decide the creed or the doctrine of the Church, nor to pronounce on the merits of Church Union. All they sought was the recognition in civil law of what had been recog- nized by the Churches themselves. In all essentials of Church govern- ment these Churches were one. To the local unions that had already been consummated the speaker pointed, and stated that in Northern Ontario, between Orillia and Port Arthur, there were only twelve places where there were still separate churches. The thing was already done, he stated. The Moderator Speaks. Coming together to discuss union, they had discovered that in polity and doctrine there was no substantial difference between them, and after 20 years of negotiations they had de- cided to unite. Provision had been made for the administration of trusts and funds as nearly as possible for the purpose for which they had been intended. To minorities they had sought to give the most just and honorable treatment, and in this respect they had gone far beyond what any previous hill had ever done. All that they had in view, was the" furtherance of the work of Jesus} Christ and the extension of His King- dom in the world. l and no one 00qu resist the om- nipotence of it. It was in the fore- ordinuion of God. Dr. Chown stated, in chains. and carried the Church away beyond any narrow Chumh- ianity or Christianity. Speaks tor "Woodhull. Presenting the Congregational side of the question, Rev. Dr. Gunn stated thast, to far as the denomination he represented was concerned. they had acted all the way in the moat con- stitutional manner. For 20 years Church Union hate been before them. By the aid of a series of charts the speaker showed what union: had taken place already within the three negotiating denominations. Since 1887, he said. there had been on an average a union within some of the three' every' five and a half years. ' marsdak , aand consummate Union. "It any) question that had been once settled by constitutional mean: was to be ' again opened up, anarchy, not gov- erpment, was the result. Without Cocmion. f Dealing with the provisions of the bill for minorities. Dr. Candler said that the one thing that was not in the bill was coercion. They had even taken care in the wording of it to avoid wounding the sensibilities of those opposed. and had changed the words "dissenting congregations" to "non-concurring congregations." What they sought to do by Church Union was to unite the rich diver- sity of each denomination in an or- ganic unity. and all animated by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Some of them had a vision of what the Church of Jesus Christ might he. All that the three negotiating bodies were asked to give up was their denominational differences and prejudices, and to unite in a Church into which would. flow in a united stream all that was greatest and beat in each. Had Drafted the Bill. As the one who had drafted the hill. and who was connected with none of the negotiating denomina- tions, McGregor Young, K.C., tttriefly expllained sortie of its provisions. In its provisions for minorities the bill, he thought. had been generous. There never had been in Canada any bill before. he said, which had made such ample and generous provisions for minorities. pIWCCULugs-J, an" _..V q."..."' _...'.----'. was lnopportune to bring it before the Provincial Legislature. It was also pointed out that. it had not been before the DomintOn Parlia- ment yet. and they were seeking in Ontario to .decide on a mu that {might be thrown out at Ottawa. Until the Dominion Parliament had spoken upon it, he thought, the Pro- vinclal Legislature should refuse to deal with it. In a brief address counsel tor the anti-Unionists. D. L. McCarthy. K.C., reminded the committee that litigation was pending at the pres- ent time as to the legality of the proceedings. and the time. t,letert, Thomas McMillan, President of the Presbyterian Church Association, and the only speaker against Union yesterday. dealt briefly with the votes that had been taken, some of the provisions of the bill, ttth rights of the minorities. and the properties and trusts of the Church. Votes Criticized. On two occasions. he said. the members, who were the Church, had been asked to vote on the question but on neither of these occasions had they before them the proposed bills, as were now 'being submitted tor the approval of the Dominion Parliament and the 'Provincial Legislature. The results of these votes had shown that only about one-third of the members of the Presbyterian Church had as yet ex- pressed any desire for Union, and, while on the second vote the ballot recorded in favor of Union was in- creased by only about BOO, the vote against Union was increased by over 23,000. In 1916 the results of the vote in Ontario showed m out ot 188,873 communicants, 57,641 voted for Union, 46,436 voted against Union, and 84,796 did not Vote at all. while of the total possible vote throughout the Dominion of 338.222 communicants. 113,612 expressed themselves in favor of Union. 73.713 against. and 150,997 did not vote. Mtrrsittcanee of Votes. "What is the tritrnifteanee of these votes as compared with the ttrat vote?" the speaker asked. "Surely a growing opposition to Union. to say nothing of the increasing oppo- eition at the present time, which is becoming more intense since the submission of the proposed bills; and from caoivasses taken and votes recorded in many of our churches it is quite evident that the members of the Presbyterian Church are not back ot this movement." It was in face of this increased opposition to Union that the Union Committee!' was trying to carry it out with thet tupport of only about two-thirds of thegpeopie. h - - - -A..-_-.1 o- o A LIIU ycvyav. . Many who were opposed to the principle of organic union strongly believed in the greatest amount of? unity, and that in'the Presbyterian Church as at present constituted there 'WM--I.!L_ _or;o,_n_igvetiorr 2ur.ortPyr,. a g tk " favorable environment for' the rt.. "glow Life of its people, "and a. use- tut agency that cannot well be scrapped and put out of existence by such a bill atr.tttat nay before you." The General Assembly was not the Church, it was contended, but mere- ly a court of the Church, a dellbera- tive and administrative body elected to carry out the will ot the people, who were the Church. The final court of appeal was the people, who called the Assembly into being. "The so-called courts of the Church are for its maintenance and continu- ance only, and have no constitu- tional right or power to disband the organization and transfer it to an- other control." As put forward by the Unionists, their arguments overlooked the fundamental fact that the Church had not laid down in its constitution the procedure necessary to be fol- lowed for putting itself out of exist- ence. The steps to be taken in such an emergency would have to be de- termined when that emergency arose, and then decisions would have to be given by the men and women who composed the. membership ot, the Church. So far, only one-third', of the membership of the Church had expressed a desire for union, and that had been eight years ago. taince when some hundred thousand 'members had been added to the iChurch. lClnims Situation Intolerant. 1 is that we be allowed to worship God 'in the Presbyterian Church as at present constituted,.and with its his- 1terie identity and continuity. But if the proposed bills become law we are, by virtue of the act, made mem- bers of the United Church against _our will, while we may within six .monthy vote ourselves. out." To compel them to become members of a Church they did not wish to join, ', the speaker held. was an interference iwith their religious liberty. Not only did the supporters of the ,bill seek to deprive them of their name, and put them all into the United Church, but they also sought to confiscate their property and trusts and to hand them over to thei United Church, despite the fact that' these trusts were specifically for the' Presbyterian Church while adhering. to the Westminster standards. "This, would be to deprive us ot our rights! and properties, and is a distinct in-l terference with our civil and re- ligious rights, and we do not believe that any British Legislature will tol- erate such interference," he went on. Referring to the Free Church of Scotland case of 1904, when it was {decided by the House of Lords that 'those who maintained the Presby- terian principles and standards con- stituted the Presbyterian Church, the speaker said that it was to avoid the implications of this decision, and to get round the law. that the present" legislation was sought. It there was to be legislation at all, it should be directed to the recognition of the true legal position of those mam- taining the Presbyterian Church, and the revision of the bill upon this basis, he said. Trusts of Church. M _ "The intolerance of the whole situation is the attempt to compel men and women by act of Parlia- ment out of one Church and into another against their will; and what we as Presbyterians are aart.rur,toT the trusts upon Wm". ...- . - vested in or acquired by it, or by "trustees for it, is held, or to alter l the purposes for which it was found- 'ed or established. We are prepared to stand for our liberties, fought for and won many years, ago. and at tre- mendous cost, and have a firm be- -lief that no British Legislature or !coart of law will sanction such un- just. coercive legislation." The committee then adjourned funtil 10 o'clock this morning, when I the other speakers against Union will he heard, and the reply of the Unionists. To grant the present peuuuu. in. McMillan said, would wreck the trust laws of the land, and on a vote of only one-third of the Church. "We hold that it is not within the power of the courts of the Presby- terian Church. or any majority of its officers or members. to alter or vary the trusts upon which the property vested in or acquired by it, or by trustees for it, is held, or to alter the purposes for which it was found- _ed or established. We are prepared 1to stand for our liberties, fought for and won many years, ago. and at tre- mendous cost, and have a ttrm be- -lief that no British Legislature or icourt of law will sanction such un- ljust. coercive legislation." A ___-tion then adjourned