CHURCH OF ENGLAND CONFERENCE AT SYDNEY.

Evening Star, Issue 3032, 7 November 1872, Page 3

CHURCH OF ENGLAND CONFERENCE AT SYDNEY.

The Church of England Conference has now got to tho point at which it is really beginning to tackle its difficulties. The first great object of the gathering was to determine the expediency of constituting a general synod. That was settled after a comparatively short debate, and with tolerable unanimity. There was a minority which was vigorous and outspoken, but it was overborne. Those who were on the losing side took the ground that they .were members of the Church of England—that they had never done anything to rupture that membership, and that it was inexpedient to do so, and to establish tribunals and organisations unknown to the mother country. On the other side, it was contended that the connexion with the Church of England was mainly a spiritual tie—that that church was a territorial one—that outside the territory of the United Kingdom it had no defined legal status—that the highest legal authorities in the mother country bad been obliged to rule that the Queen’s letters patent appointing Colonial bishops were ultra vires—that the highest ecclesiastical authorities advised that the Colonial churches should help themselves—that the decisions of the Lambeth Conference were practically in favor of recognising expediency as the true guide for future action—that it was of nq use to hang on to traditions that were not strong gnemgh to bsar the weight—that it was necessary to look facts fairly in the face—that as the Queen would not appoint any more bishops it was necessary to devise some other plan of appointment—that as Colonial clergymen or heretical tendencies could not be tried in the Court of Arches, it was ne essary to appoint some local tribunal, and that as Colonial churches could not be governed from England, it was necessary to establish some method of local self-government. These practical considerations prevailed, and though with regret and a good deal of hesitation, and some looking back and clinging to decayed hopes, the majority decided that it was necessary to do for Australia and Tasmania what New Zealand and Canada had already done for themselves, and what Ireland had been forced to do for herself. A committee was appointed to frame the constitution of the syrtod, and on the 23rd ult. it hrbught lip its report The Bishop of Melbourne, who acted as its spokesman, said that the committee were unanimous in their recommendations, but this unanimity disappeared the moment discussion commenced, and the sitting closed without getting to the end of the very first clause submitted. The discussion began on the use of the word synod, some preferring “convention,” and some “assembly.” It was contended that it would not have synodical powers, and that it would not be a synod in the old ecclesiastical sense, as it included laity, Others maintained that there nothing in a panic, that words were constantly changing t'heit signification, and that if the thing itself were properly defined, and its functions clearly laid down, the word was as unobjectionable as any that could be chosen, and accordingly it was finally adopted. Then came up a still more knotty point. Shall it he called tho “General Synod of Australia and Tasmania,” or the “ General Synod of the Church of England in the province qf Australia,” or the “General Synod of the Dioceses in Australia and Tasmania ?” The first title that was proposed In the draft, the second was proposed by Mr Charles Campbell; the third was the proposal bf the Bishop of Perth expressing also the views of the Bishop of Melbourne. The Bishop of Adelaide expressed himself strongly that Australian episcopalians were not members of the Church of England—the Bishop of Sydney as strongly that they were. The discussion was pot closed when the conference rose.