Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Saturday, June 24, 1843.

CHURCH EXTENSION ACT DISALLOWED.

Luceo non Uro. '« If I have been extinguished, yet ibere rise A thousand In aeons from the spark I bore."

We perceive by a recent Government Gazette, that the Ordinance No. 7, Session 2, of the Legislative Council of this colony, entitled "An Ordinance for promoting the building 1 of Churches, and providing for the maintenance of Ministers of Religion," has been wisely disapproved of by hex- Majesty, or rather by Lord Stanley, the Secretary of State for her Majesty's Colonies. We are persuaded that the less her Gracious Majesty and her wise Ministers interfere with the religion of this, or any other portions of Her widely extended dominions, the better for Her own in- 1 tere^r, and for that of Religion ; and on this account we are exceedingly; well pleased at Lord Stanley's determination not to interfere, as far as wei are concerned, with the nearest and dearest right of man, that of .obeying his own conscience, and exercising his own judgement in all religions matters, and supporting and paying only for that church, or system of faith, to which he belongs and conscientiously adheres. We have evils enough in the government of this colony, without eniailing upon us the heartburnings and miseries which attend a state religion. It may doubtless be true that Lord John Russell authorised the local government to pass an act of this kind, and it may likewise be a little annoying to this government that their should have been thrown back upon their hands so unceremoniously, but in the face of all the opposition to church establishments at home, and with the full knowledge of the revolution which is fast overtaking, and upsetting both the church of England and the kirk of Scotland, how could Lord Stanley have acted differently ? It may likewise be true, that some little inconvenience may be felt at present, through the disallowance of this act. But that is not worthy of one moment's consideration, compared with the mischief that such a measure as the Church Bill was calculated most certainly to engender in, and to entail upon our colony.

Do we not already see the evil effects of supporting certain religious sects, even in our own small community ? Is it uot a fact that religious prejudice has travelled through our otherwise united population, and because she finds the living too enlightened and too sensible to bear her hateful sway, she betakes herself to the lonely habitations of the dead, to form her sects and classes ? Is it not true that the Episcopal dead are not supposed to sleep peacefully if the heretic Presbyterian or Eoman Catholic lie near them ? Do we uot already see an Episcopal burying- ground from which Presbyterian and Roman CathoJic dead are excluded, without certain ceremonies and fees ? The distinction thus made, is certainly worthy of a different age than this, and we are well assured that our respected and enlightened clergyman, Mr., Churton, could never have suggested such an odious and useless distinction as that of having separate burying grounds in such a community as this. Had there been more than one at first, the thing might pass unnoticed, but all having been buried in one place at first, we see no right on the part of Episcopalians to the original burying place any more than the other sects. We are well aware that this was the deed of another. Questions of a religious nature, we are determined at all times not to touch upon, unless they interfere with civil liberty, and it is because we think this bill had a tendency of this kind, that we have offered these remarks. We trust they will be received in the spirit in which they are written. We assure all our readers, if they keep within this limit, that we shall never allow our paper in the slightest degree to interfere with their religious views or prejudices. Believing, as we do, that we are not likely to suffer for the sins of others, we leave others to decide for themselves in all matters of Faith.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18430624.2.5

Bibliographic details

Daily Southern Cross, Volume I, Issue 10, 24 June 1843, Page 2

Word Count
687

Saturday, June 24, 1843. CHURCH EXTENSION ACT DISALLOWED. Daily Southern Cross, Volume I, Issue 10, 24 June 1843, Page 2

Saturday, June 24, 1843. CHURCH EXTENSION ACT DISALLOWED. Daily Southern Cross, Volume I, Issue 10, 24 June 1843, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert