THE METHODIST CHURCH.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 124, 2 June 1910, Page 5

THE METHODIST CHURCH.

SEPARATION FROM AUSTRALIA

VIEWS OF THE REV. H. BULL.

[from otjb correspondent.] CHRISTCHURCH, June 1. The Rev. H. Bull, one of the oldestMethodist ministers at present in Christchurch, was interviewed this evening regarding the decision come to by the Australasian Methodist Conference in. favor of a separation between the New Zealand and Australian churches, and said that though he was opposed to the movement for many years he was not at all surprised at the decision that had been arrived at. Feeling had been strong against the separation in the New Zealand church until the New Zealand Conference of 1907, when a proposal to separate was carried by one vote—a margin which was considered too small to warrant the matter being prosecuted at the Australasian Conference. Since that time, however, a plebiscite of the quarterly church meetings had been taken, resulting in a two-thirds majority in favor of separation; while at the last annual New Zealand Conference, out of twenty-four representatives elected to attend the Conference at Adelaide only one was opposed to separation. All the representatives were pledged by the Conference to support the motion for separation—an action, on the part of the Conference which he considered was unconstitutional, as representatives were in no sense of the word delegates, and should be given a free hand in voting. One of the reasons which had been given why separation should be effected was that it would facilitate a union between the Primitive Methodist and Wesleyan Methodist churches in New Zealand. In Australia and Canada the Primitive Methodists had joined the Wesleyan Methodist Church, practically on the terms prescribed by the latter; but in New Zealand they made certain extra stipulations which, under present conditions, could hardly be agreed to. It was probable that a union would now be speedily effected. Save in matters of polity the New Zealand church-would not be much affected by the change. Doctrine could not be changed, and in matters of administration it was probable that greater responsibility would_ bring with it a more conservative spirit on the part of the administrators. Ihe New Zealand church would.now have to administer its own share of the supernumerary ministers' and ministers' widows' fund, amounting to about £60,000 or £70,000, and it was probable that a special foreign .mission field would be set apart to be administered solely by New Zealand. Now that the change was definitely made he felt sure that all those who had opposed it would work loyally under the new conditions in the best interest of the, church.