THE “CHURCH NEWS.”

Globe, Volume II, Issue 131, 31 October 1874, Page 4

THE “CHURCH NEWS.”

(From the Press.) We have been requested to publish the following report of the Rev H. C. M. Watson’s speech in (he Diocesan Synod in support of his motion—“ That it is desirable that the Church News should be placed under the control of a Board of Management elected by the Synod.” The President had stated, in reply to a question on (he subject, that he regarded the Church News as the olheial organ of the diocese, though it had not been declared to be so by any resolution of the Synod. The Rev H. C. M. Watson said that his Lordship’s reply was different from that which he (the speaker) had been led to expect. He had understood that the Church News was not the official organ of the diocese—that it was a private paper. Perhaps he, and those to whom he had spoken before tabling the resolution, had attached a somewhat different sense to the word official than his Lordship had done. He would therefore explain the sense in which he use I the term. He used it as equivalent to authoritativehaving authority. If his Lordship’s reply involved this meaning, then he was to understand that whatever appeared in the Church News as leading matter, was to bo regarded as coming with authority, as being, in fact, the recognised opinion of the diocem. An official organ of any government or other body was always regarded as expressing the opinions of the Government or that body which it officially represented. Had he been aware that the Church News was already the official organ of the diocese he would have shaped his resolution somewhat differently, something to this effect, “That the Church News, being the official organ of the diocese, should be representative in its character.” This, of course, meant that in his judgment it was not at present of a representative character —that it was more or less a party paper, the exponent of opinions which were those of a particular party in the Church. If this was true it could not expect that hearty support of all parties, which an official paper should receive from every loyal Churchman. It might be somewhat difficult for an editor to abstain from projecting his own individual opinions into the columns of the paper that he edited ; yet he (the speaker) thought that the observing of several canons would enable him to do this. The following had occurred to him as likely to serve that purpose. The abstaining from the use of expressions which were the badges of a party. There were terms in use, as “ matins.” “ evensong, ” “ celebrant, ” “ celebration, ” which were of this character, while the prayer-book, which all parties accepted, spoke of morning or evening prayer, minister or priest, Lord’s Supper, and Holy Communion, terms surely which were more beautiful as well as more scriptural than those by which it was sought to repla-e them, his second canon would be the abstaining from publishing, as the doctrine of the Church of England, those opinions which are still in controvery, which still divide the bishops and the clergy of the Church of England. In respect to some doctrines, it was well kno vn that the two Archbishops, the late Bishop of St David’s, and others, on the one side, and the late Bishop Wilberforce and other bishops on the other side, were divided in opinion, It would be exceeedingly unwise that the stamp of authority should be placed upon one or other of these opinions by the Church here. That the little Church of New Zealand should assume to have decided that which has not been decided by the Church in England. His third canon would be, that the paper should be conducted in such a spirit as that no needless offence should ever be given even to those who differed from the opinions expressed in it. He fered from the opinions expressed in it. He would now proceed to point out instances in which the Church News had violated these, or some of these, canons. First he would turn to a report of a confirmation in which ho found the following paragraph : —“ Eight parishioners * * * mostly adults, renewed their baptismal vows, and received the seal of the Holy fepirit at the hands of the Bishop.” The latter clause in that report had given great offence, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was one likely to convey a very erroneous impression to nine people out of ten, and ought not to have been used. Again, there was a controversy carried on for some months in the pages of the Church News, in reference to the validity of the orders of the Wesleyan ministers. He took exception, in the articles that were written upon this subject, to (he editor declaring a doctrine upon the subject which the Church had never declared. The opinion expressed in a leading article of the News was, that the orders of Wesleyans were. “ both schismatical and irregular while the Church of England had declared that, “ If is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture * * * that from the apostles’ time there have been thiee orders of ministers in Christchurch Bishops, Priests, Deacons,” and further, tequires

(hut her own ministers shall be episcopally ordained ; yet she nowhere pronounces against the orders of other Protestant nonepiscopal Churches. On the contrary, in the only place in which she has spoken dogmatically of ministering in the congregation, in Article XXIII. she frames a definition of lawful ministers which is wide enough to includethe orders of all non-episcopal Churches, “ ft is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same, and those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” And moreover, in her fifty-fifth canon she requires her ministers to ask the people to “ pray for the Churches of England, Scotland and Ireland.” the Scottish Church being at that time Presbyterian or non-Episcopal. He objected therefore that the Church News should speak with authority upon the invalidity of the orders of other Churches, where the Church itself has pronounced no opinion. There was scarcely any question of greater importance than the reunion of Christendom. The work of the Church of Christ was terribly injured by our disunion. It must therefore be the desire of every earnest Churchman to promote the unity of the Church. In our day all that could be done, perhaps, was to promote a good understanding between one another and that goodwill that springs of it. The opinions objected to, which were not authorised by the Church, tended to perpetuate the evils of separation which were complained of. The last extracts which he would quote were taken from an article on the Bishop of Melbourne. The Bishop had, in reply to a clergyman who had written to him, asking whether ho (the clergyman) should obey the law of the land, advised him and others to obey the law of the land as it was not contrary to the law of God or the law of the Church. Every one who knew the Bishop knew that such an opinion was the result of careful and anxious thought upon the subject. The editor of the Church A T en's, in commenting upon this letter, wrote in a somewhat, flippant manner about the Bishop and his supposed opinion. These were the expressions that he referred to—- “ The Bishop cheerfully sweeps away all the prohibitions [Scriptural and others] with ‘ others of the Mosaic code’ —does he include the Ten Commandments? —with one swe°p of his new broom.” “ But what says our Seventh Article—for we suppose the Bishop does not throw overboard the Thirty-nine \rticles along with the canons, the table of kindred and affinity, and other lumber.” “Whch of the two shall we follow? ‘ Resipiseens ’ has chosen Bishop Perry. We prefer to hold by St. Paul.” Such a style of writing in the pages of the official church paper, was calculated to discredit one of the noblest, and most self-deny-ing of our Bishops. When he (the speaker) first entered this diocese, he had felt that it lacked that breadth which the Church of England in other places possessed. It appeared to him that one party in the Church was recognised as the true Church, while other parties were simply tolerated. Yet. if his lordship would permit him, be would say that he had never heard one word fall from the Bishop’s lips inconsistent with the Church s comprehensive character, and a dignitary of the church had said that a few years ago this narrowness did not exist here. The speaker then alluded to the fact that the bell of St Michael’s Church had been purchased for that church by the various denominations, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, and others, who had joined in raising the money necessary to purchase it. Had not rhe Church News something to do with the narrower tone which now exists, or was said to exist, in this diocese? Mr Disraeli, the Prime Minister of England, had lately said that there had always been three parties in the Church—one addicted to enthusiasm, one to ceremony, one to speculation, and they would exist probably to the end of time. In the speaker's opinion, it was desirable that they should exist, not merely to balance one another, but to supplement the work of each other. While the Low Churchman occupied himself mainly with questions respecting personal and individual religion, he was in danger of overlooking the importance of those of a corporate nature. While the High Churchman busied himself with questions affecting the corporate life and action of the Church, he was in danger of overlooking the personal element in religion. And both were in danger of closing up questions dogmatically which should not yet be closed up. So the BroadChurchman was needed to check this tendency—to keep open questions not yet decided, and to re-open those which had been prematurely closed. By bringing in a higher or wider intellectual life upon the spiritual and corporate life of the Church he tended to keep the Church from dogmatising on questions which were of a speculative nature. The Church of England was a thre fold cord, easily broken, because the strands were untwisted ; but if each party candidly recognised the honesty of each, and that kindliness existed which would follow such a candid recognition, the Church of England would be the proverbial “ Threefold cord not easily broken.”