THE AUSTRALASIAN WESLEYAN CONFERENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1381, 15 November 1884, Page 2

THE AUSTRALASIAN WESLEYAN CONFERENCE.

At the Wesleyan General Conferenceat Christchurch yesterday the Rev W. Morley moved—“ That this Conference accede to the recommendation of the Conference that a New Zetland Conference be constituted independent and self governing, and that the plans submitted for the constitu'ion of the. same be ap-. proved. ” He said the resolution was n<t

intended as a slight on th) Australasian Conference. Ho sincerely believed that the proposal would tend to develope the Methodist cause in this land It was not a new proposal. It had been received

favorably at the Adelaide Conference in 1881; carried by three-fourths .of a majority in the New Zealand Conference in 1831, and agreed to unanimously in 1884. Ninety-five per cent, of the New Zealand Methodists would be disappointed if it were not carried now, The geographical difficulties in the way of the present arrangement were very great, and the distance between Australia and New Zealand necessitated long voyages. The cost of removals was large and attendance at an A ustralian Conference compelled length} absence on the part of the New Zealand del-gates Other denominations had supreme couns within their own bounds, but the Wesleyan body had to go to other colonies for final authority. In America and South Africa Methodists differed from the Home body, but were fully recognised by it, and if the motion were carried the New Zealand Conference would not sever its connection with the Mother Country. He believed the New Zealand Conference would not be satisfied with all the modifications suggested. The tyesleyan Church had now four-fifths as many ministers, members and adherents, as the Australasian church had when the Australasian Conference was formed in 1855. The' General Conference had power to deal with the proposal without reference to England. Sir Frederick Whitaker had given a legal opinion that separation could be done in the way proposed. Mr R. Hobbs, M. HR , seconded the motion. He thought the New Zealand Conference should be allowed to walk alone, but if the request were refused he hoped they would meekly kiss the rod. The Rev E. I. Watkin said the vote in the Adelaide Conference had been givei under a feeling of sympathy with New Zealand after the Tararua disaster. Hi opposed the motion, as he favored Metho diat union, and the proposed constitutioi sacrificed everything Methodist. The; had no guarantee that the Oonferenc might not ten years hence change its doe trinal belief. Such a guarantee existed ii the Australian and Canadian constitution * There was nothing in th is cons in 8 also providing for the continuanut itinerancy, nor to prevent a layman Hi elected President of the New Ze«u*a' Methodist Church. Again, there was n allusion to terms and conditions of churo membership. The itev J, 0. Symons believed th Australasian Conference could do tnoi than recommend the proposal. Ha ol j acted to the proposition re examination of ministerial candidates and to the proposal that there should be a creed. He could not see what was to be gained by passing the motion, as the New Zealand Conference managed their own affairs already. Dr Waugh read a legal opinion of Messrs Webb and Bryant, of Victoria, to the effect that the general Conference had no power to sanction the separation of an annual Conference or to delegate the powers of the general Conference to an annual Conference. The Rev Watts-Ford thought the document just read rendered further discussion useless. The Rev Mr Knight quoted the opinion of a Justice of New South Wales, which was rather at variance with that of the Messrs Webb. The Rev J. J. Lewis thought the diffi cultiea stated by Mr Watkiu were imaginary. All that was sought was power to deal with exceptional cases in an exceptional manner. There was no intention to have a layman as President. As to legal opinions, the Conference was not bound by any legal terms, nor were iumerabers confinetf to any creed. They were Christiana first and Methodists afterwards. The Rev J, Watts-Ford did not think separation desirable. The difficulty as to distance between New Zealand and Australia vyas not worth mentioning, for soon the voyage to Melbourne would occupy only three nays. Separation was not desirable on the basis set forth, which was for New Zealand only. If it was a-good thing, why should it not be applied fo the other colonies 1 In its proposed dress it seemed to him that the most important principles were given up. Ministerial functions were ignored ; it was proposed to give the exercise of discipline on ministerial matters to a mixed conference, and class meetings were sat aside. The Rev J. B. Waterhouse said that if the proposed constitution had been kept within the bounds of the existing constitu tion, he would have supported it, but as the proposal was he could not. The Rev Rainsford Bavin submitted that the request should be granted, because New Zealand Methodism asked for it. He submitted the basis proposed was not antagonistic to Methodism. There was no wish for a change in the doctrine, nor the abolition of class meetings or itinerancy. There was nothing revolutionary in asking that laymen should be associated with ministers. Whatever ambiguities there were could be made clear. The Rev H. Bath moved as an amend ment—“That this Conference after care fully considering the plan of separatioi submitted by the New Zealand Confer ence, and while sensible of the inconreni ence and expense incident to the admin istration of a Church so large, yet deemt

it inexpedient and unnecessary to sacrifice the great advantages of that connexion, besides incurring the cost and risk of so

great a change for the sake of the oom-pa-aiively small gain sought by dissolution of the existing union, especially on the plan proposed.” New Zealand, he said, should not cut herself off from mission

work among the islands, which was far from complete. The proposal was inconsistent with the Methodirt Union. The oth r churches were moving towards federation, and the Methodist churches should not endeavor to dissolve their union.

The Rev G. Martin seconded the amendment, but said he would not object to separation if the New Zealand Ohuroh would engage to perpetuate the Wesleyan Methodism which tney all loved. He asked what guarantee there was against further disintegration, and whether the property accumulated in the past for Wesleyan Methodism was to be taken for Methodism not recognised by the Conference.

The Rev R. M, Hunter thought the connexion between Australia and New Zealand should be maintained, both as a matter of sentiment and of (iincipie. He had received letters from one of the fathers in England, stating that Methodism on the basis proposed would cease to be Methodism.

After farther discussion the amendment was put and carried. A deputation from the Christchurch Ministers’Association was then introduced, and ou behalfref the other Protestant denominations welcomed the memoers of the Conference. The Revs E. .[ Aitkin, B. M. Hunter and Mr Hobbs aoknow-

lodged the welcome of the Association.

V | BY TBLBQKAPH.] Ctoistchdboh, To-d»y. At the Australasian Wesleyan Conference to-day ,a lon/ discussion took place on in'orcolonial appointments and the interchanges of ministers between New Zealand and other colonies. It was ultimately resolved—“ That it be a farther instruction to the Committee on Exchanges to report as to the definite number of exchanges to be made on the grounds of connexions! policy betwixt » either at once or at intervals distributed over the next three years. ”