THE GENERAL SYNOD.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 821, 8 February 1877, Page 3

THE GENERAL SYNOD.

[By Telegraph. ] {Per Press Agency.') N elson, February 7. In the General Synod last evening, Archdeacon Harper moved—“ That the Synod do not deem it expedient to give formal authority to any hymnal.” He thought one common hymnal a good thing if nracticable, but a large portion of the hiew Zealand Church had taken and would take its own way in the matter, andwhere this was done there had been peace. Still there remained the imputation against the South Island of disloyalty in having taken this course, and he wished to remove this implied stigma, Mr Rous Marten seconded the motion, on the ground that, as it was evident a large proportion of the Church would not accept any hymnal, to attempt to force it on the whole Church would simply court dissension and division.

The Dean of Christchurch said the Synod had already withdrawn authority from the “ New Zealand Hymnal.” The Rev Harvey did not see how the resolution would withdraw any stigma on those who had disregarded the express recommendation of the Synod in this matter. It amounted only to this, that the power of the Synod was not sufficient to compel obedience, and therefore disobedience was to be hushed up, Ha did not approve of this course.

Mr Oarleton denied that there was any cowardice in abstaining from too much legislation, The people in different parts of the colony held different views on the hymnal question, but it was wrong to alienate any Churchmen on such a matter as this. There was very little difference between one hymn and another.

Mr Lusk thought the hymns had more effect in the long run than sermons. It was as desirable to have a common Book of Praise as a common Book of Prayer. The Bishop of Auckland still hoped the New Zealand Church would adopt one large and comprehensive hymnal. The Rev Mr Dudley thought it a serious matter for the Synod to throw the responsibility on each clergyman. Archdeacon Maunsell complained that Archdeacon Harper persisted in flaunting the red rag before them. The Bishop of Dunedin moved that the Synod proceed to the next order of the day, which was carried on the voices. The Rev Mr Tanner’s motion—-'* That the chancellors of the diocese have cx officio seats in Synod ” was negatived. The Bishop of Dunedin moved—“ That this Synod of bishops, clergy, and laity, communicants of the Church of New Zealand, having heard with deep interest the progress of the old Catholic movement, records its appreciation of the devoted efforts of the leaders of that movement to bring about a return to primitive doctrine, discipline, and unity, and

respectfully requests the Primate to forward this resolution to the bishops of the old Catholic communion and to Dr Von Dellinger as an expression of Christian regard,” The debate was postponed. The following Bills were introduced and read a first time :—B;)l to Amend Statute No 1; Bill to Repeal Statute No 4, and Bn act other Provisions in lieu thereof ; Bill to Interpret and Explain Certain Words and Expressions in the Constitution Act, Statutes, and other Documents of the Church, as to which doubts have arisen ; Bill for Making Certain Necessary Regulations with Regard to Statutes of Deacons in New Zealand ; Bill to Interpret and Shorten the Language of the Statutes in certain Cases. The Synod went into committee on the Nominators Bill introduced by the Dean of Christchurch, and each clause was discussed at great length, the chief debate being on clause 13, Archdeacon Harper moved the following amendment;— 11 It shall be competent for the Bishop to attend the Board of Nominators for the purpose of proposing to the Board the name of a clergyman for any vacant parish, and of stating his objections to any clergyman who may be by the Board, previous to the final nomination being made by the Board.” The amendment was lost, and the discussion was continued until II p.m., when progress was reported, and the Synod adjourned, This afternoon the sitting was occupied by a debate on Mr Pitt’s motion that the names of those who voted in the division on the Formularies Bill be printed in the minutes, The motion was lost by the Bishop’s vote, Ayes—Clergy, II; laity, 14. Noes—Bishops, 5 ; clergy, 3 ; laity, 1.