FOURTH GENERAL SYNOD OF NEW ZEALAND.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3509, 14 October 1868, Page 4

FOURTH GENERAL SYNOD OF NEW ZEALAND.

The: Preßidy^WMjHw^t at 4 p in. ... ->. Bishops: The ILoKI-JB«iV<>p New Zealand and Liohfaed ; the Bisliojjs pf CJi»iatcburcb, Welliugtoa, Waiapu, Nelson, and Bt.sb.op Pattewn. Clergy : Ihe Very Key. tbe Dean of Chaskhurc') ; Yep. Archdeaconsußrown, Bntt, Govett, Hadfield, Harper, Lloyd, Williams ; Revs. J. Atkin,S. Blackburn, JR. Burrows; Cmon Cotterill, A. Giffonl, Y. Lush, Dr. Mauusell, -X P.ilmer, S. Poole. Laity: Messrs. T. Beckham, A. S. BiaifcWaite, C. H. Brown, 'J. Conuell, F. D. Fenton, P. Hwnmer, R. B. Lusk, 11. B. Martin, fl. S. McKell»r, E. Quick, A. Rose, J. R. Selwyn, T. 0. Tilley, H, Williams, S. B. Ludbrook, G. S. Kissling ; Hon. J. B Aclanc?, Hon. W. Swainaor. Hon. Colonel Kennj', an.l Sir W. Martin. The proceer' ngs were opened with prayer.

MIN DIVES. The minutes of the precsding si ting were wA and confirmed.

THE DIiNKDIN BISHOPRIC COMMITTEE. The Bishop of Wellington said, when the committee had been appointed to report; upon the proposed subdivision of the See of Christchurch, it would hardly be credited that; he had forgotten that he himself had once been very much in the same position. , A memorial was actually forwarder! against his own appointment to the Bishopric of Wellington, He had been summoned to the Colonial Office, but had declined to a -knowledge its jurisdkt on, though, had the Archdeacon of Canterbury desired any information on the subject, he would have considered it his duty to afford all iu formation in his power. Subsequently he was informed by the Colonial Office that letters patent would be issued to him, and that he wjuld be consecrated. He had been charged with being a Fuseyite, but no one had asked him his views on these matters, and, whatever his opinions might be, he hrd not concealed them. It might be wrong, therefore, that he should sit on a committee which was to judge of the fitness or otherwise of a certain clergyman to be appointed to a certain Bee, und it might be said, to use a common expression, that here was a member of the committee who had been "tarred with the same brush." He felt sure that the objections he had urged would be sufficient to disqualify a juryman, and therefore he would decline to serve ou the committee. He begged to move that his nrme be removed from the committee. Mr. Kempthorne hoped the Bishop of Wellington would withdraw his morion. He must objtcfc to the motion. The Bishop of Nelson hoped the Bishop of Wellington would withdraw his inoriui. The President .said he hoped tne principle of obedience on which their voluntary compact ia a great measure depended wo 'Id not be /ntiinj, d. Every one of the members of the Synod tnu-t have had some aspe sion throwa upon his charac er at some time or other, and each of them rr-'ght therefore be found objecting to attend. He himself had often been chai g«d with all sorts of things, and therefore he might feel himself disqua'ified from attendiig on auy committee whatever. .(l^'guter.) Mr. Fbnton said the practice of exempting members of the committee from attendance wou'd tend to irregularities, and it might be a question how far a oomnnuLee would be legally onstituted if it sat without the presence of one of its members. He was convinced that nothing that the Bishop of Wellington had said we lid convince the Synod that he was disqualified from Eerviug on the cjnimittee. The Bishop of Waiapct said the charge against the Bishop of Wellington had been pronounced foolish and vexatious, aud therefore was unworthy of recognition. .Ai'chdeacon Hadpield said only two or three people had opposed the appointment of the* Bishop of Wellington, and ib wa3 not known beyond a very narrow citcle that a memorial had been forwarded at all. (J>»'.onel Kesny said the matter had arisen from the system of election by ba'lob, which he hoped would be abolished. The Bishop of Wellington sai I a man ought to be the best judge of his own honour, and he hoped the Syuoi wo ild therefore allow him to retire, and that another B shop should be balloted for iv his place. He would move to that effect. The Rev. A. Girsord seconded. The motion was agreed to, and the Synod proceeded to elect f->other Bishop by ballot to seive on the committee for completing the ecclesiastical arrangements in the liuial Deanery of Otago and Southland Bishop Pat'jeson wa3 elected. UNION OF CHRISTIAN CHUEOH2S. The DEA.N of Christchuroh moved, " Whjroas the "tynod of the diocese of Christchurch has prayed this Synod to memorialise the convocation of Cauter >wy and such other bodies a^ it may think fit, requesting them to take mt > their comiderauion the the l>a-es an i conditions on which proposals for unity may be made to Christian bodies nob now in communion with the Church of England ; Resolved, that this Synod adopts the substance of this prayer, and respeLtfully requests the Primtte, as Bishop of Lichfield, to bring this subject under the con lJeration of the Upper tlouse of the Convocation of Canterbury." He faaid ib wi 3 incumbent on one of the representatives of the dun ;3e of Christchurch to bring this motion forward, and it was incumbent upon him more th-'.n auy other member, inasmuch as he was the mover of the original motion at Christchurch, aud upon which the present motion was baaed. The Diocese of Chi!'. church, in carryiug this resolution, had acted upou one which hid been passed by the General Synod on the 16th May, 1565, and which would be found in the 48ch page ot the last repoit of the General Synod, as follows : — "That this Sy nod requests the co-operation of the various Diocesan Synods iv the above object, and requests that they will take such step* as may seem to them expedient to ascertain how far the various religious bodies may be inclined to respond to the desiie herein expressed ; aud by what means the unity of the Christian Church in New Zealand may possibly be one day restored j and this Synod requests that the Lxocesan Synods will report fully through the Bishops to this Synod at its ne*t meeting " Thus the General Synod not only affirmed that it wa3 deMrab'e to secure the unity of certa'n Christian bodies, nut it suggested to the vailous dioot ies the advisability of taking step* in the matter. He hiniselt had introduced a motion into the Diocesan •Synod of Christchurch, which, however, was lost because it was deemed that the Synod was too small a body to initiate so important a matter. Subsequently, however, another resolution had been carried, as appeared in the preamble of the re3olut : on which he had now the honour of moving. It had been urged that it was nec^sary to observe caution iv the mitter ; but, after two nights of interesting debate on the question, it was thought that the mention of cautiou m tbe matter would bear the appearance of coldufiss. So the Synod of Chrmtchurch ha Ipa acd the resolution which form-d the preamble of the motion That diocese was not the only one that had taken the matter into consideration, foi if they would read the address of tha Bishop of Wellington to the last Synod of that diocese they would hud much that was valuable on this subject. tie could not help thinking that the earnest desire that was every wheie manifested for this gre..t blos-iing atlbidei string ground f >r hoping that the matter would ultimately result in good. Jt had been said that tho->e who aimed ao this had aimed at vi re barren uniformity, but it would be seen from the address to which he had refeired that it was neither a barren unifoimity nor a mete outwor.i thing that they devised, but the unity thit was easeuti.il for the weifaie of the Church, th nigh it was n t necessary for salvatiou. Wlut was it that bad driven religion out of our >-chools, and exclarled it fioin ed icational establishments, but the division amongst various Church bodie? Was it not the rivaliim betwten various 1 ChriUtt -n bodies that wai driving religion out of h spitals and asylums? It was not corporation, hut Co opera 1 ion that wag desired. He would quote from Ihe address of the Lo I Bishop of We ifn^tnn to show the iv ad visibility of compromising, by their individual action, the ultimate success of themo\ement. No merely Diocesan Synod should adoj t any impor ant step in tbe matter until the wishes of thu oth»r bodies had been considered in tbe matter. If the Synod of oue diocd^e were to adopt a particular plan, the people of another might disapprove cf it, and thin the former would either haie to. pursuft an independent c >urse or withdraw its own. 'J his Synad should tike advantage of the remarkable advantage it possessed by requesting its Primat", who was a memter of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, to -bring the whole matter before it. The first question was that of order*, — whether it was possible for the Church of England to accept tbe orders of other bodies. Though they did not exclude the idea of uuiou with the Greek Church, and perh'ps, uUimattly-^jn God's good time with the .Roman Church sBj£fiP> no) — th^ir more immediate object was /thttgwiion with dissenting Protes'aut b >dies He ."jpjUnild quo'e a passage from "Biu^ley's Ant ; quities," volume 4, chap. 7, which were very pertinent to the subject. That passage se.iuid to him to open the way for them, for here was the precedent of the universal Church. This passage laid down that th« Church can, if sbewilV

cure the irregularities of the ministers of other .denominations, lhe Church need uot t-these-otders, but she might cure the. irregularity of : their formal ordination. This^was not a question which, .that bynod could take 7nto~ consideration, but it I was one that might be r<fened to the Convocation of Canterbury. Another question was this : ou what terms the ministers of other denominations might bs admitted to prea:h in Church of England pulpits ; ,aad what terms might be offered to them under which they might unite with the Church of England, and yet keep their own organisation. It might be urged that the Convocation of Canter■bury w&s not a fit body to which the question i might be referr-d, but the question was upon what terms or bases, apart from the mere legal view of the question, could the proposition for unity be submitted. He wai quite sure that the members of the Synod were unanimous in their desire for unity, and 'he quite agreed with the Bishop of Nelson, as he was [reported to have said, in the Daily Southern Cross, jthat they Bhould proceed to do something practical, ur lhe attempt might end in mere sentiment. At the tame time, though they cou d not entertain the quesUion us a body, as individuals they might iv their sepa-.jte diucebes do all in their power to smooth the ditferenc z between the Church of England denomination and the dissenting Churches not now in communion with it. In his own diocese everything possible was done in this direction. (Applause.) The Bishop of Chkistchuroh said the matter wa* ti..e most important that had ever been brought under the notice of the General Synod. In his own | diocese a very stroug desire was manifested in that direction, and there was a desire manifested outsidi ' the Church of England in New Zealand that some practical st.£3 snould be taken to secure uni n. They would remember a correspondence befcv.een Mr. Biddy and the Bishop of Adelaide, lelative to 'allowing Air. Biddy to preach in a certain Episcopal ian church. The Bishop of Adelaide pointed out that ihe church of England was limited to a settled form of worship ; but this was an objection that' might be surmounted, as borne settled form of 1 worship might be agreed upon that would' suit - the view.* of all the Jf roteitant denominations. The other great difficulty wasthat of orders, aud it was perhaps one of the greatest that they would have t ) deal with. If they approved of the pieface to the Ordinat'on Service, they would have to continue their adherence to the maiatenanco of the three orders ot bishops, priests,, and deacons.' They were bound to recogniie as the ministers of Christ de facto', if not de jure, the ministers of the dissenting denominations. It was proposed to him that he should occupy the pulpit at the Wesleyan church, and he did not see any difficulty about an interchange of pulpits with the persons to whom he referred, 'f the Church would consent to i*. It might be sad—a s was said by a layman of his own denomination— that if the congregation badnoo'vjectipn to allow their own minister to go and preach in auother pulpit, thoy might object to the minister of that pulpit preaching iv their churcl. That difficulty, however, might be also got over, for they were no doubfc individually bound to be' preachers of the gospel of Christ. The greatest difficulty chat they would have to surmount would ba the administration of the Sacrament by the ministers of different Protestant denominations 1 Nothing should be done that would cause dissensions in the Church of England, or that would separate the colouial Church from the sympathy of the Church at bom.\ He trusted the Bishop of Licbfield would bring the matter not only before the Upper House of the oon vocation of Canterbury, but before the whole Protestant body of England. He trusted the Synod would affirm the desirability of the change by passing ihe resolution unanimously. , The Bishop of Waiapu sa d : 1 1 i 3 an interesting feature of the present times that the movement iv favour of union among the members of th& Christian Cuurch'is so general. This subject was brought before us at the last meeting of the General Synod f; r*id, when the notice of motion was given, I woudered within myatlf how ib was going to be treated by the mover. It was, however, haudled wioh much fckiil, and a most interesting debateendued. It appears now that the subject has been again revived iv the diocese of Chrutchurch and also at Wellington, when the Bishop in his address put torwaid many sentiments in which I most heartily concur. The speech, too, of the Dean of Christ lchurch, aad that of the Bishop of Christchurcu', in favour of tais motion, contain the declaration of principles which Irejo cc ta hear ; only there is ,a pjrb of the resolution which I cannot assent to. This movement, which is now taken up warmly in Eugland, shows a state of things very different from what it was m the last century iv the days when Whitfield aud Wesley were shut out from our churches, and wheu six undergraduates were expelled from the University of Oxford for pi .aching ancl praying iv private houses. Let us see what it was which brought about the change. The Church at the beginning of this century was in a very torpid state— rightly characterised by the welt-known term of high and d-y. The Church was to be aroused into action, and that which we would not db for ourtelves God permitted to be done with a rjugh hand. There was a vaab shell fired from the enemy's camp, . which exploded right in the midst of our Church. Half of the bishoprics of the Irish Church were cut down at one stroke; by the baud of the Legislature, and it was supposed that this was only a prelude to what might follow in the English branch of the Cuurch. Then it was that a number of earnest men bes>tiired themselves for the purpose of bringing about some salutary ch*uge. The "Tr usfcs for the Times" baga'u to be written in 1833, ami f >r a time they proceeJtd with caution, but at length tlute were principles put forth which showei a sir n^ inclination towards tho Church of ftu ue- From the nr»t I always ft 1b a stroug repugnance to this movemeut, and yet I afn free to state that much good has sprung out of it. There is greater care observe 1, and m >re attention to the decent couduot of divine worship; and, to mention only one particular, that of the weekly offertory —against which there used to be a strong opposition — how much a we indebted to it iv this country. The "Trasts," however, proceeded on a downward cotirse, until they replied the 90th Tract. The desire for a closer union with Rome went on increasing, and a large num'jsr have gmo over to that Chuch. About three years ago ove tures were made by a body of c erg) men, 120 iv number, mauy of them. peiaons of high staudiug in the ChurMi, to Cardinal Pabr zai, a*-kiug fjr intercommunion with th,e Church of Rome. But the answer they received from the Cardinal was just such au one as they dtvrved. He told them that they were under a mistake iv supposing that they are member-, of the true Catholic Church. They could nut bo S", so lon^ ai t Ley were divided and separated from the chair oE St. Pet-r. Upon this subject thd Bi-hop of London remarks in his last charge. The Bishop of Loudun had condemned the ste|>, nr I had animadverted very aevertly upon the proposition for unit.y with ihat Church, which had always beeu remirkable for its tyranny and haughtiness, lie said in his charge to th diocese of London in December, 1866, "Thus we feel aslianvd wheu tol I of meiubfis of our noble Reformed Church going, cap in hand, to seek for some.slight recognition from that old usurping power, so unlike the gentle tiuih-loving Church ut the apostles of which it, vaunts itself the s.o!e ieprcsentat:ve -which stew Latiu'er, aud Ridley, and Cranmer, and Hooper iv the old time, b«c«uss they wculd not surrender God's truth, and wh.ch certainly values the j» c Gospel now at as low a rate as of old. And we feel some s .tisfactiou iv learning how the.c Gdvauces were coldly rejected by the old haughty spirit which they setk iv vaiu to propitiate." Another movement was nude soou after by Dr. Pusey, iv hid c-leb.atcd woik " Toe f<iremcon." Dr. Pusey is a holy man an I an earnebt man, and is so ileep'y learned th»c I believe thero is no person in this c-uutryc -uutry who could staud up bifoie him. But that work to my humble judgment contains the fetrong-s-t argumeuts against those principle!, which he seeks to establish, lie wisbe-. to prove that it is an easy ma ter to reconc le the 39 Articles of our Chinch with the deed of Pope Pius the Fourth. The Bishop of London remarks too upon this subject, lhe B suop ofLjndou in the sama,eh:.rje said : "It paius us also dee.dy to find men labouring, ac I note 1 above, t > show that the Church of the Reformation has, after all, by some felicitous accident, escaped from being reformed ; th.it, if we could only see it, there is nothing reaily Protestant iv the 39 Article*, and nothing really tw-mish in the 1 ecrees of Trent. If this we»e so, language must be a still more uncertain vehicle of man's thoughts than all acknowle<!gs hto be.' 1 This wish for reunion has gone on increasing 'among the extreme party of our Church, and they have carefully watched foi opportunities A t lengtl', at the end of the Lambeth Conference, it was oecide t thut an evangelical letter should be written to all the cletgy aud lay members in communion with the Ang'ican branch of the Church of Christ 'I his epistle was good *nd catholic and nouu<l, only that I could have' wished that some matters had been meutioi ed wh eh are oniilted from it. This seemed to be a fitting opportunity 'for another attempt, and the Archbishop was induced to ueud another letter to the heads of the Greek Church, which is inscybed to the Oithodox (>reilc Church, and by that term it was ' implied that; the Greek Church was the true Church.' ("'No, noj it wm *;iaerelyjtechnical term/) H* might bejmmg,

but that wm the idea he had formed of it. Tuere Wf re tyro newspapers at home which advocated tli« most extreme views in religious milters. One of these, the Church Times, contained an article ascribing to the good Archbishop the full responsibility of the use of the word "orthodox. ' It said: — •'The Anglican Episcopate, by the mouth of its chief, has m«d« another step in the direction o! reunion, iv sending a formal address of greeting to the Holy Eastern Church, wherein the title of orthodox, which that great communion claims as its own, is fully recognised } and wherein, also, a determination is avowed to keep pure and undefined the primitive order and worship, cs we have received it from our Lord Jesus Christ, and from his holy Apostles.' The significance of these expressions cannot be overrated t The Holy Eastern Church consistently hold« the same doctrine of the Blessed Eucharist as the Roman £h inch j it acknowledges seven Sacraments ; it devoutly invokes Our Lady and other saints, and it prays for the dead." What was there in the Greek Church, it might be asked, which prevented the Church of England at once uniting with it ? I would answer by reading an extract from a work by Dr. King, chaplain to the British Enobasny at St. Petersburg, on this subject, which showed that there m ere a great many points in the doctrine of that Church which were such as to prevent union. The Greek Church holds the doctrine of transubatanliation, for in the oath which every Bishop now takes at his consecration he absolutely swears that he believes and understand that the transubstantiation of th« body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper is effected by the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost. They hold also the seven Sacraments. And as to the doctrine of mariolatry, I will read one of the forms of prayer given by Dr. King, on page 111, from the Matins : "Save Thy people, O God. Send down the riches of Thy compassion through the intercession of our Most Holy Lady, the Mother of God, and ever virgin, through the virtues of * * # * of our holy fathers, the wonderworkers in all the Rnssias, Peter, Alexis, Jon a*, and Philip ; of the most illustrous parents of God, Joachim and Anna ; and of all the saints." Again, from the office of the holy oil, page 316 ; "Thee, who art to be praised ; Thee, the purest palace of the King, do I implore; cleanse my defiled soul from all sins, and make it a joyful habitation for the Divine Trinity; that I, thine unworthy ■errant, being saved by Thee, may laud, and magnify Thy power and boundless goodness." It may be asked what has this to do with the resolution before the Synod ? I will endeavour to show this. At a meeting of Convocation in February last, Dr. Wordsworth acknowledges with thankfulness the act of his Grace the President, in wr.tiog to the Patriarch*, Metropolitans, clergy, and laity of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This might not be much in it«elf, but there was a still further movement made in the direction of communion with the Eastern Churches by the Lower House of Convocation, at its sitting in July last, of which a report »nd certain resolutions were brought up by Chancellor Massingberd, requesting the Archbishops aud Binkops to take steps for openiog negotiations with the Eastern Patriarchs and' Metropolitans, with a view to establish relations between the two communions, to enable the clergy and laity of each to join in the sacraments and offices of the other. I have, therefore, no confidence in Convocation ; and, as a member of the Church of England, I disapprove of union with these Churches ; and I dsapprove of the latter part of the resolution, because it refera the question to Convocation, who seem, from their own. act, to bo ready to hand us over, bound hand and foot-, to a system which no good member of the Church of England could tolerate. It might be paid that lam a "low churchman." But what is the meaning of this term 1 I understand it to be descriptive of one who is careless in carrying out those rules to which he had subscribed, and that a *' high churchman " is one who rigidly adheres to the doctrines, ruleh, aud practices of hi* Church. Bang determined to carry out to the utmost the principbs of the Church of England, I therefore claim for myself the right to be called a " high churchman," and in the same sense that Synod might also be termed a "high church body. 0 The-e were really very few differences between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greeoe. Between us and these Churches there is a great gulf fixed, and there are many things in the doctrines of the Church of Greece ti which we could not sub cribe, for those doctrines whhh are peculiar to the Church of Greece are the very principles for the rejection of which our martyrs perished at the stake. In order that Convocation may be suitable to the present times, it is desirable that much alteration should be made in it, that the clergy should be more fairly represented, and that the lay element should be alio introduced into it. The Bishop continued : There had been a great deal of objection raised to the proposition of the Bishop of Lich field to introduce the Synodical system into his diocese, but it was because they dtd not understand tbe nature of that system, and he felt sure that there could be no better means of securing them from error than that system. He believed we were now on the eve of mighty convulsions in our Church, because parties were verging to extreme views, from which there appeared to be no protection. The result would be a gre»t division, or possibly a disruption of tbe Churcb, and out of that disaster he prayed that it might please Almighty God to revive the Church to a state of greater purity and holiness. He would move as an amendment, "That while thii Synrd recognises the duty of promoting union among the various members of the Cnrisfcian Church, it looks with serious apprehension upon the movement * hich has been made under high authority t-> establish an intimate relation with the Greek Churcb, aud it therefore recommends that tbis subject shall not be referred to convocation." The Rev. Dr. Matjnsrm. seconded the amendment. He agreed with the Deaa and the Bishop of Christchurch as to the desirability of union amongst the various Protestant bodies. He did not wonder at the harmony that prevailed at Christchurch, for while such clergymen had influence over the minds of men there would certainly be harmony. He had failed to perceiva from the address of of the Dean of Christchurch the length and breadth of the union to which he alluded. There had, it appeared, been a proposition for the Bishop of Christchurch to exchange pulpits with the Wesleyan body. The Bishop of CHRISTCHrjRCH said he was informed that such a proposition would be made. Dr. Maunseli. said he wished the proposition hid been made, as he felt curious to know how the Bishop would have acted. There was nothing in tbe Articles to forbid it ; and therefore he thought that tbe Bishop, being so strong an advocate for union, would at once accept the invitation. He did not believe that union would be effected by the mere exchange of pulpits. That was not his idea of union. He believe 1 the Dean of Christchurch had given a very meagre idea of union, and he fully concurred in what the Bishop t>f Nelson* as reported to have said— that there should be co-operation. He quite agreed that the ministers of other denominations were quite as much the ministers of Christ as the members of au army who might all hold different views were members of that army. The Dean of Christchurch had taken a very low view of union, for there were many higher grounds of union. Why did he exclude the Irish hurch, or limit the matter to the 0- nvocation of Canterbury? Why the Synod of New Zealand ought rather to have the question referred to it, as it was a true representative of the three orders of the Church. The Convocation of Canterbury bad not, as our own Bishops had done, surrendered their letters patent, so as to keep faith with the other orders of the Church. bat they grasped at power, and refused to admit a great part of the clergy and the whole of the laity a voice in their deliberations. There was a time when the Convocation, trembling for its existence, had appointed a committee to consider the propriety of admitting the laity ; but very cunningly, very meanly The President said the speaker was using language with reference to the Convocation of Canterbury slightly out of order. Dr. Madnsell said he would not refer to that part of the subject : he would merely say that the committee decided that the time had not come for admitting the laity. . The Bishop of Nelson suggested that an adjournment of the question should bo agreed to, in order to allow of the subject being further rentilated. The laity being very .nearly interested in this important movemeut, it was only natural to expect that tbe question would not be limited to the clergy, to which at present it was limited. The Pbxsidknt said the question would have to be proceeded with according to the standing orders. The Bishop of Nilson suggested that the words • M Protestant reformed bodies" should be inserted in the resolution of the Dean of Christchurch, so as to prevent the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches being included within the proposed union. It was scarcely desirable to refer the matter to tbe Churcb of England in such a manner as to tie up the question, and the Convocation was not qualified to understand the matter under the circumstance? in which, the Church of England in New ZtftUtnd wasted. It might not be advitablt to

appoiufc a committee, but it would not be right to adopt anycourso that would fetter us to the dcci ion of the Uod vocation. In point of fact our Church was legally in communion withtUe Cllurcnes of Scotland aud Germany, because there were certain things which had not been revoked which laid it down clearly that the Church of England was in communion with the Church of Scotland and the German Churches. Therefore the Church of England in New Zealand was still in communion with the Presbyterian body in New Zealand. Several Bishops of Oxford, Salisbury, and others had laid it down that the members of the Church of England and of the Church of Scotland were members of the same mystic body in Christ, being member of the same reformed Church. Of course the action should, m all cases, be such as to avoid compromising the position ot tne Church as a body, whatever opinions they might hold as individuals. He himself, as ind^. ld "* 1 ' Without reference to bis position ia the would be quite willing to enter into f with the members of any other Protestant body, and he believed that he would derive the same benefat from the administration of the Blessed Sacrament at the hands of a minister of any other Protestant body as from a minister of the Church of Kngland. He would suggest that a report should be P re P»j c ?, b y A committee appointed for the purpose, and tnat the report thus prepared should be submitted to other reformed Protestant bodies. He disapproved of any course that would tie up the Synod to the decision of the Convocation. Mr. R. B. Ltjsk said it was a mistake to say that the motion of the Dean of Christchurch contemplated tying us to the decision of the Convocation, me object was to request the mother Church to pro* nounce its opinion upon the matter. He was not aware that there had been any proposition to recognise the errors of the Greek Church. The term "Orthodox," in the letter of the Archbishop, was simply 'the title commonly applied to that Church; and, at any rate, whatever the effect ot the term might be, it could not implicate the clergy and laity as a body. He himself had been brought up a Presbyterian, and had associated with Presbyteiiaus, and .he did not know any more excellent body of men. JJut he was expelled from th«t Church because he believed that God loved every m»n, and that Ohnst s blood was shed for every maD, aud that it was the manifestation of the Divine love to every man. it was in that way that he h»d become a member of the Church of England. (Cheers) He felt it to be a great misfortune that theie was not communion between the various Protestant bodies. However, though he did not see any difficulty ia admitting the members of other Churches to our communion, it would he difficult for us to go to them. When men once separated there was a constant tendency to further estrangement, and he regretted it, and it was a great misfortune that these bodies did not walk together in one apostolic faith. Perfect union would not be secured by the mere interchange of pulpits. Perhaps the object might be secured if a committee were appointed to consider the matter, and to draw up a report before tubmittiog the matter to the Convocation of Canterbury. The Bishop of Christohuroh said what he had stated had leference to a resolution passed by the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, which requested the Upper Hpuse to consider the propriety of such union with the Greek Church as would secure union in the matter of the Sacrament and offices. Mr. Kkmpthornb said he would object to reference of any question having regard to union with the Greek Church to the Convocation of Canterbury. Mr. Hanmer supported the original motion. I The Rev. B. Uukrows would vote against both amendments. . The Rev. J. Atkin agreed with Dr. Maunsell that there should be unity of spirit; but while there was spiritual unity should there not ulso be visible unity likewise ? Whatever might be the constitution of the Convocation, it was the highest authority before which this question could come, and therefore the question should not be debated by the Church of England ,in New Zealand without reference to the mother Church. It had been said that the Church of Rome and the (Jhurch of Greece were essentially the same, but there was one very great difference-bunion with the Church of Rome would be submission to the Pope, which would not be the cisc by union with the Church of Greece. There was the doctrine of infallibility in the Church of Rome, which did not exist in the Church of Greece. The first s .yen articles of our faith were framed expressly in disapprobation of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and as he dcired union with the Church of Greece in the first instance and in the end with the Church of Rome, why should not that union he effected if the Church of Rome would withdraw her objection to tho3e seven articles ? Archdeac.n Hadfield objected to the inclination t-> mere di scus3ion 5 cus3ion without reference to the despatch of business. Some of the addresses he had libtened to were very like sermons, and th*t of the Dean of Christuhurch was not »o good as the sermon ha had preached on Sundny evening. Ihe Hon. J, B. AoiiAND expressed his desire for union, and supported the original motion. He hoped that before the world came to an end all religious bodies would be united. Archdeacon Harper supported the original motion, and pointed out that so serious a matter should be referred to the mother Church, which, in its larger wisdom, would be better able to come to a just decision. The Dean of Christchurch went on to reply to the arguments urged against union with the Greek Church, on the ground that the doctrines of that Church were identical with those of Rome. The Greek Church did not acknow'edge the jurisdiction of the Pope, nor did it believe in the doctrine of infallibility. There was some hope of union with tbat Church. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn. The Rev. A. Gifford supported the original motion. The amendment was negatived on a dirision. The President was about to put the original motion, when The Bishop of Nklson moved an amendment. He said if the matter were referred to the Convocation they would hear no irore of it. He would propose that a select committee be appointed to consider the subject of the best mode of intercommunion between the Christian Churches in this country, aud to report on the same to the next Synod. The Bishop of Waiapu seconded the motioD. Dr. Maunsell said he would object to the amendment, because it did not recognise the Royal supremacy. (Laughter and hear, hear.) The amendment was negatived on a division. The Hon. Colonel Kesnt objected to an appeal to the Convocation, and he thought the Synod would do better by attending to the necessity of keeping its own house in order. (Hear, hear.) They ought not to pursue any course that would give a colour to any accusation that might be made by parties outside, that there was dissension amongst them- elves. (Hear, hear.) The Synod then divided on the original motion with the following result :— Ayes — Bishops, 1 ; clergy, 8; laity, 6. .Noes— Bishops, 5; clergy, 9; laity, 13. The original motion was therefore declared to be lost. ALTERATIONS IN ORDINATION OATES. The Dean of Chrktohitrch moved, " Whereas among the fundamental provisions of the constitution it is declared that the branch of the United Church of Erjgland and Ireland in New Zealand holds and maintains the Book of Common Prayer, and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons, as the said United Church of England and Ireland hath received the same ; and whereas the General Synod has by the name constitution power to accept any alterations of the above-named formularies which may have been adopted by the said United Church with the consent of the Crown and Convocation ; and whereas by the Clerical Subscription Act, 1865, certain alterations have been made in the form and manner of ordaining priests and deacons with reference to the subscriptions, declarations, and oaths to be taken and made by candidates for holy orders, as well as in the subscriptions, declarations, and oaths to be taken and made by clergymen when licensed or admitted to cures ia England ; and whereas such alterations have been assented to by Convocation : Resolved, that this Synod hereby accepts on behalf of the branch of the United Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand the alterations hereinbefore referred to in the formularies of the said United Church, and together with them the abovementioned alterations in the subscriptions, declarations, and oaths to be taken and made by clergymen when licensed or admitted to cures, so far as they are applicable to the Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand." He said perhaps he ought to make sjme apology for appearing so often before the Synod, but, as be did no on this eccasion at the request of the diocese of Christchurch, he might plead that as an excuse. Mon over, the matter had been referred to by the Primate in his opening address. The speaker went on to explain the former oath and that at present in

Archdeacon H adfield moved , as an amendment, that all the words after " holy orders," in th« second section of the motioD, and all the words afier <l United Church," in the last clause, be omitted. The Bishop of Wellington seconded the amendment. Ho hoped the Synod, whatever course it might adopt, would maiutain its own independence. If it accepted the alterations it ought at the satae time to assert its right to decline to do so if it thought PF Sir W. Maktin said the Synod could hardly be in » position to judge of the matter in its present stage. He thought a sele-st committee might be appointed to report upon the matter. The Dean o£ Chbistchuroh asked leave to withdraw hU motion, with the view of moving that a ■elect committee be appointed to report upon the question. , . , Leave was granted, and the motion win witndrawn.