UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

Mr. J.G.E.

My Dear Brother, — I have just had your letter of 19th. I am in your debt in regard of letter writing. I know of the difficulty that has arisen in Sydney, not so much on account of the problems of the case, but as being probably the outcome of a state making it ^[p. 156] impossible to call a meeting for discipline. It has always been understood that such a meeting be called on the testimony of two or three and those enjoying the confidence of the assembly, otherwise any man might call such a meeting in mere self-will. When it is called together, it is not to discuss matters, but to hear the results of the investigation brought before it in such a way as that there is no difficulty in its arriving at a judgment, which is really its function. I am at a loss to understand brothers arriving at a decision and then announcing it to the assembly. I have never heard of such a course. It is arrogating to themselves an authority which does not belong to them and might result in the meeting being ruled by a committee of brothers, which I am sure would not be right. The course adopted at Sydney seems to me very strange, however well meant it may have been. They announce their decision to the assembly in order to provide against a contingency. Now we have not to guard against contingencies, but only to act on that which is before us. If they felt that charges had been improperly or needlessly raised, they had no need to go on with them, but there was no reason for saying to the assembly anything. And further, their expressing their mind to the assembly as to persons taking part in the meetings was going beyond what they were entitled to do. Everyone admits the necessity of cases that may arise being investigated by the elders, but it will never do for this to become the means of the assembly being ruled by the judgment of the brothers. I do not suppose that this was intended at Ashfield, but I think there is danger in what they have done.

F E. Raven.