The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, March 22, 1851.

Lyttelton Times, Volume I, Issue 11, 22 March 1851, Page 5

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, March 22, 1851.

In another column our readers will find an account of a meeting which has been held at Adelaide, at which resolutions were passed, condemning the Conference which has recently been held at Sydney, by the Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops of the Province of Australasia. The meeting alluded to, was held during the months of October and November last year, and the minutes of its proceedings were published ; each minute being signed by all the Bishops present; namely, those of . Sydney, New Zealand, Tasmania, Adelaide, Melboui-ne, and Newcastle. The first minute states the objects of the Conference, as follows: —

" We, the undersigned Metropolitan and Bishops of the Province of Australasia, in consequence of doubts existing how far we are inhibited by the Queen's Supremacy from exercising the powers of an Ecclesiastical Synod, resolve not to exercise such powers on the present occasion. But we desire to consult together upon the various difficulties in which we are at present placed by the doubtful application to the Church in this Province of the Ecclesiastical Laws, which are now in force in England ; and to suggest such -measures as may seem to be most suitable for removing our present embarrassments; to consider such questions as affecting the true religion, and the preseivation of Ecclesiastical order in the several Dioceses of this Province —and finally, in reliance on Divine Providence, to adopt plans for the propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen races of Australasia, and the adjacent islands of the Western Pacific. Now we think it right to bring this matter before the public of Canterbury ; first, because it was especially introduced to their notice by the Bishop of New Zealand, when he attended one of the first meetings of the Land-purchasers; and, secondly, because, from the scheme under which this Colony has been founded, the great ChurchGoverninent question is one with which, sooner or later, we shall be compelled to deal. It is impossible but that in a country where one third of the price of the land is devoted to the Endowment of the Church, the system of Church Government to be pursued, should be a matter of deep interest to the majority of the community. Now we confess we do not share the alarm which our friends at Adelaide seem to feel, at the steps which the Bishops of Australasia have taken. We do not discover in any of their minutes, any " assumption of Ecclesiastical Authority, by Sjshops of the other Australian Colonies" over the- Church in any particular Diocese ; nor can we gather that " one of their evident objects was to obtain an extension of power, dangerous to the peace of the community." The Bishops seem to have met at Sydney, solety for the purpose of consulting together, as earnest and sincere men engaged in the same work might well I be expected to do, how they might pursue the task allotted to them with uniformity and consistency : that so they might strengthen each other's hands by united action, instead of exposing their sacred trust to the injury which disunion

inevitably inflicts. If they were engaged in any other profession in the world, than in the teaching of religion, surely this would admired as wisdom and foresight, not suspected as an attempt to aggrandize power.

The Adelaide townsfolk it appears are about to petition the Queen, thather Majesty will not assent to any general system of Church Government for the colonies, until the members of the Church of England in South Australia have had an opportunity of considering the same.

We entirely agree with the doctrine that Church matters ought not to be left to the Clergy. The whole history of the Church proves the incompetence of the Clergy alone to deal with all matters involved in the Church system. The lay members have distinct functions. The very idea of a Church involves two things, spiritualities* and temporalities—doctrine and endowment. The Australian Bishops have stated their opinion as to the separate functions of the Clery and Laity in Church matters. They propose that there shall be Provincial and Diocesan synods, composed of the clergy, and Provincial and Diocesan conventions composed of the laity ; both to be electoral bodies ; that the synod should deal with " rules of practice and ecclesiastical order," and the conventions with all questions relating to temporalities ; upon both the latter bodies must be unanimous in order to action. The last clause in this minute adds " That any change of Constitution affecting the whole body of the Church should be first proposed and approved in the Provincial Synod, but should not be valid without the consent of the Provincial Convention."— The laity of Adelaide therefore need not have exhibited so much alarm lest the Bishops should desire to affect a change in the Government of the Church without consulting them. The concuiTence of the laity is directly provided for. It is absurd to deny that the condition of the Church is most unsatisfactory. In all corporations in the world there is a distinct membership, a distinct, governing body, distinct rules and regulations for government. In all religious corporations, except the Church of England, the same is the case. Presbyterians, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, all have their authorised modes of government, whilst the Church of England has practically none. Let us regard the question as it affects us in Canterbury, forgetting all the incidental difficulties with which it is loaded in England by ancient and complicated relations. In this colony there will be some day a considerable amount of Church property, which the land purchasers will have subscribed to provide themselves with the religious ordinances of the Church to which they belong. Who are to be the trustees of this property ? Who are to appoint the Clergy of the parishes endowed by it? Who is to appoint the Bishop ? All these are questions with which the colonists must deal, sooner or later. At present the Canterbury Association are the trustees; and the Ecclesiastical Committee of that body recommended the Bishop Designate to the Crown, and their recommendation was adopted. The Clergy were appointed in a similar manner. The lay members of the Church had nothing to do with it. As an arrangement to begin with, this was quite right: there could be none other. Until the Colonists are settled into various parishes, they could not exercise any voice in the selection of their pastor. But what is to be the permanent arrangement ? Now we do not intend to throw the slightest imputation or suspicion on the Association. What we want is that (he members of the Church in Canterbury shall think of these things themselves, for it is

ten times more their interest, than that of the Association, that the Church matters should be placed on a satisfactoi'y footing. Stripping the subject of all incidental questions by which it is so often complicated, would not the whole matter be simply and satisfactorily arranged, if the Church of England in this colony could be made to exist as an independent Corporation, holding its property in trust, as any other Corporation does r —A corporation in which membership was denned by certain distinct qualifications, and in which-every member should have a voice, either personally or by his representative, in the disposal of the corporate property. Would there be any more real difficulty in drawing up rules for the government of such a corporation, than for the Society of Land Purchasers or any other Society ? Could not such a body receive a charter of incorporation from the Crown, enabling it to hold property as a corporate body ? And when the Association becomes defunct, would it not most perfectly have performed its task, by handing over all the Church Endowment Funds in its hands to the Corporation of the Church in this colony ? And would not such an arrangement be regarded as fair and rational, even by dissenters of all kinds ?