GENERAL SYNOD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 25, 29 January 1877, Page 4

GENERAL SYNOD.

[The following report of the debate which look place pQ Friday evening on . Arohdeacbrf Harper's motion, Was onavoidably held over from Saturday.] Archdeacon Harper movadrr; ;? -. r (I) l'£ Xhat^hereas thj? Synod at ijts last ses- , siorfcSt^jtedthat a Bill entitled the '^lteration' ' of Formularies Bilt*' should be made known to the several Diocesan Synods for the purpose of eliciting from them an;express|oti of opinion thereupon, and requested the^riijiate to bring the matter before the next triennial meeting of the General Synod as neiaily,^aa possible gs, jta r first business; and whexeag the Diocesan Synods have (Severally, e%re!s§ied opinions thereupon, and have requested that the same should be submitted to ihe General Synod:: Resolved, that it is expedient thatta r Select Committee be appointed to digest and arrange such opinions and suggestions for the information of "ttte Synod; and td^epo^t as to the best course to be taken as regards legislation tonr the stfcject in the "present o session. (2) That the Committee do consist of the Eight Eev the Bishop of Auckland, the Eight' j.Re^, ;the IBishop: ofi Wellington,, the Very Rev the Dean of Christchurch, Mr/@. Hunter Brown, Mr Acton; Adams, Mr C. Y. Fell, and the morer. ~ '„ „ „ Tbe subject was one of great importances and, was specially alluded to in the Primate's address. It was discussed at length in the last,, session of the General Synod, ; and. Jt i then ordered by the Synod that the Draft Bill in reference to the formularies of ihe Church should be sent down to all the Diocesan Synbda for 'their consideration, with a view: of further' discussion and action ia this present session. It would be necessary to dwell ai little on the provisions and principle of this Bill. First, aa regards its main provisions — omitting -for the time-its preamble, Thtese > prpvisiqnsassume that the Church in New Zealand is in a state of autonomy. It must needs goveru itself, it caY nb longer make i use ot the ecclesiastical laws of the mother church at ' Home .: Without any action on our ; own part here we find ourselves practically independent of the church as by law estabUehed in. Eagland. We cannot a vVirouraelves of English Ecclesiastical Lsw Courts. Discipline and goyi ernment in the Church -in! New Zealand ere now, aithough none of our doing, necessarily a matter of mutual agreement between ourselves. This is no new BubjecVio Synoa.' In 1868 "it w«»s;a matter of .discussion at Auckland. So, also, in" ihe v 'G : eneral of 187 1 aodl^74, slid it had received, full and able treatment 1 at (he bands of the Bishop of Wel.Hogton' in his charge to his°Ssn6tl^n f 18721, |ip 4. by the Bishop of l^e^ou in f , 1874/ : Neyerthelese,. it was one on which criany were in the daeki and some. in, confusion of thought. Assuming then, for; the time. That tbe church' io New Zealand is autonomous, the Draft Bill contemptates the ppasibiiiey of prdpbaals beiog made to the Syjtiad at; a future time for some alteration of formularies and the services of the church; it assumes this, and farther assumes that it is tbe wisdom of Jhe church^ to :'. 'proyj.de itself with a. well-considered plan of restraining and if need be of diverting any such proposals.; ;The church here ie ia a simiiar position to the Irish Church. Liberty ' implies a : risk ,of change. Hencfe the need of control and limitation of possible changes. The purpose of theoßHl.ia: this respect is essentially conservative. Recognising tbe real state of self-government in which the New Zealand ; church is, it would provida itself with due restrain ta in | case^ aa in the Irish Church, there should come any endeavor to alter their present standards of faith. Such being the purpose of the Bill, it is necessary to examine tbe assumptions on which its visions are Based." The preamble, states then:-— l. That the relationship v which was supposed to exist between thechurcu in the colony anil the present Churcbi an]i^^ State at home when the present constitution was drawn up, has been changed. 'The" Queen's prerogative 0 was then'suppOseci to cover 'things ecclesiastical in New Zealand, as well as civilimattere. Ecclesiastical Law was supposed to prevail, in New- Zealand, This is not so now. In proof of this he might' quote the letters patent given to Bhhop Selwyn and Bishop Harper — ■ tbe powers conferred on them— milking them ecclesiastical; persons in the eye of the law ot England. These letters were supported by Acts of Parliament. About the .same time in the Coloniul Dioceaee, as in Capetown^ and Natal*! aimUar powers were actually made use of (to quote the cases of Long v. Capetown^ and Capetown v. Natal) in which Colonial Church affairs came under the notice of English Ecclesiastical Courts. It soon, however, became clear. that— the 'Colonial Cburch in the Colonies, that possessed a constitutional government was practically outside tbe scope and jurisdiction of English Church Courts. Ia support of this he quoted judgment oJF _Lord C. J Campbell — Kegina v. Chrke, 1857, and Forbes v. Eden, 1863, Scotch Kpiscopal Church. He quoted also the discontinuance of Letters Patent. To show that the Legislature in England recognized the tact that Colonial Clergy ordaiued by English Bishops in Colonieß were not recoguizsd oy law as Clergy if; they returned home, it has lately 'passed an Act enabling such clergy to obtain tuis recognition if they ' wish, it on their return. This Act, however, in removing their disabilities allows distinctly that in the Colonies tbe English Church is no longer legally identified with the State Church at Home, although she is in close spiritual communion with it. This being tbe case, it, is our wisdom to recognise our trujg : position, Spiritual Communion with our, Mother Cburch does not imply legal identity. For all matters of Goverqmeafc and discipline we are

independent of the restraints of English law. Our Church Constitution foresaw the possibility of thin, and contemplated a time when the Church in New Zealand must, for good or evil form itself. It is a great responsibility, but as euch it ie not our own doing. Io {he course of events it has come about. Thera ia no need for fear. The Church in New Zealand as a Provincial Church Anxious to maintain the faith handed (jlowa us from its parent Church in England, may trust that in God's Providence it will find itself equal to the taak. But is it not wise to prepare as carefully as possible for times when controversy and the desire of change : may arise ? The times are quiet now. $^o very great questions are stirring. It is well this is so. We are as yet too young as a Provincial Church to grapple with the burning questions of the day which are distracting men's minds it, Home. But assuredly we shall have to do ao sooner or later. Let us therefore, while the sky ia clear, lay down for our own self restraint and control such rules as may be found to make innovation and changes no easy matter, s|uch as will ensure in future wise and deliberate action. Nothing could be worse than legislation in future to meet (jasea as they occur, The proposed draft Bill was in fact a schema for this purpose-^qf selfrrestraint and control^ ; and as such it was commended to the earnest consideration of the Synod. I The B^v. Mr Jtckson seconded pro forma. : Archdeacon Maunaell regretted that the mover bad entered so largely into this important question at such an early period of thp Synodf* session. '■"'"J'or'his 6wd part he; should ilefer his answer i<* Archdeacon Harper's argument until the Committee (if ,it ; jj?ere appointed) should report. One caution, however, he wished to give membsrs; that they should be on their guard against being c>rr\e'd [qsay j>y Aretid&cosi 1 fiarpef 'a free use of the word " autonomy." That was not the true issue, but a mere sjophiam. The New Zealand Church bad complete autonomy, and was perfectly independent, but not as the mover implied, like the Irish Church which when it separated from the English Church was wholly free and unfettered, for the New Zealand Church had lied its own hands from the first separation, by its Constitution, just aa firmly as a man tied himself to a wife. (Laughter.) ; Mr Carleton agreed with the last . speaker that the most important question of the whole session was being raised on a side-wind. The mover ' wanted to get in the thin edge of the wedge, well knowing that, once in, there would be plenty of willing hands to j. use the mall and drive it home. (App lause) There was no objection to appointing a salect committee to make the digest referred to. That was tbe proper function of such a committee— to digest information and save the Elouse time and labor. Buc select cora"f •* t JSSj»i g°* too much into a habit of going further and expressing opinions, Tyhicb; in many. cases were too readily : adopted. The mover for a select com- . mittee, always; (or he would be very 8 J?) took ;care, in proposing the r;rfaau»« tor have at least a majority; of one op hia side, thus the committee's opinion was simply that of the majority tff one. He moved \i£ an amendment to omit tbe words "and to report as to the beat . course to be taken as regards legislation o|n the subject in the present Session," I Archdeacon Harper declined to accjapt the amendment. ' n | Mr Seyinour^ thought the amendment wjaa only one io nanae. He hoped to see something more. useful come of the. committees deliberations than a mere digest; .; ■?. ■■:■.- ••?..'. .- •; ;: : The Rev. Mr Dudley hoped Archdeacon Harper would accept the amendmen', which would not preclude his taking; further actioa in the matter. i The Bishop of Duhedin thought they wjere wasting time by discussing the subject at great length under a misapprehension. "' Such a digest 'as proposed; Would be only a repetition of the resolutions and opinions forwarded by ttie" Diocesan. Synods, and~the comnojt tree's, w.qrk would be merely to make a {copy of them. ; jMr R. Lusk thought the committee "fsAf 8K VB ' B °' me "useiui advice! to the ISyood. '•"' . - . '.'■' ' " j The Dean of Christchurch opposed : tbie atneodaienf, add contended that the original motjon would have, the effect of advancing the. matter. a stage by placing before tbe Synod some definite proposal which however need not necessarily be acjopted, ! ■ ' • : The Rev. ( Mr Lingard urged that the motion should be withdrawn. Tbe, opinions' of the Diocesan Synods should bq printed and circulated among the in em be fa, and then Archdeacon Harper might frame a resolution on the subjab t. ■ .'.■■■ Mr Pitt opposed both motion and j amendment aa he objected to entering sq largely into the question at such an eejrly ' 'stage, which was causing the very waste of time which -had been so uiuth deprecated. Mr Q ack supported tbe amendment, agreeing with the view that ihe question ought not to have been raised so early, when, several members were absent, [fc \ was the part of. the Synod and not of a select committee to make the recommendations proposed in tbe resolution. I The B'fahop of Wellington opposed tbe amendment, although agreeing that tbe question ought not to have beau raised so soon. He suggested that Archdeacon .Harper should withdraw his motion. and bring in a bill on the. subject. He concurred in Mr Carletoa's remarks as to select committees

which he always protested against, rcgardibg them as being useful only to jshelve questions except when employed obtain certain information which particular members were known to possess. It was not fair to take half the jdebate now and the fag end when the committee's report was brought up. I Mr Pickering supported the amendbent.. . '' '"''.' I Archdeacon Harper in reply expressed iiia surprise that such a body jaa/the Synod on stich a question ahdulj turn, aside from the j main issue and raise a side issue on a point of order. He thought this course unworthy of the House. He contended that he was pound to bring the matter forward at pn eariy stage, else it would have been complained that it was brought up. so late that there was no time to debate it. He could not understand the dread displayed by the Synod in respect to select committees. Because sis members brought up a report, it did not follow^ that the Synod was bound to adopt it. As to the main question, if members did not. think his arguments worth anything, let them try to answer them. 'Ihe Synod then divided on the amendment, which was lost, the numbers being:— Ayes: Bishops 0, clergy " Laity 10; Noes: Bishops 5, Clergy 7, L»ity 5. : The original motion waa then put and also lost, the votes being:— Ayes: Bishops 5, Clergy 6, Laity 3; Noes: Bishops 0, clergy 6, Laity 12. The Synod meets again at 4 this afternoon.