THE CROWN AND THE COLONIAL CHURCH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 404, 17 September 1856, Page 5

THE CROWN AND THE COLONIAL CHURCH.

(From the "Guardian.") The correspondence between the Colonialoffice and the provincial "authorities in church and state of the colonies of Canada and Victoria has been printed- by order of the House of Commons, on Mr, Gladstone's motion. It begins with the application made by the Bishop of Toronto, in the month of January, 1855, for power to effect the subdivision of his diocese, and to obtain for the colonists the right of electing then- own bishops. Coinciding in spirit Avith this petition, folkrws the address of the Legislative Council and Commons of Canada to the Queen, asking that the Imperial Parliament may be induced to set the Canadian Church free from, all restraints, "upon her Synodieal action, and to give her the poAver —already prayed for by the Bishop of Toronto —of electing her oavii bishops. This address is further supported by a letter to the Governor-General from the three Canadian prelates, and by an expression of the Governor-General's assent to the principles of its prayer. The correspondence concludes with the replies of Sir William MolesAvorth and Mr. Lahouchere to Sir Edmund Head. Unfortunately, the correspondence appears with the part of Hamlet left out. The address of the Colonial Legislature Avas referred by Lord John Russell to the law-advisers of the CroAvn, and their opinion, Avhich governed the subsequent communications from the Colonial office, Avas sent to the Governor-General. The opinion is not printed, and Aye lose by its omission a key to the Avhole situation of affairs. We only learn incidental!y that certain constitutional objections exist to any endeavour on the part of the Imperial Parliament to secure freedom of action and self-government to the Canadian church. Mr. Lahouchere thinks that the objections may be overcome by legislation on the part of the Canadian Parliament, and that the free election of bishops may be provided for by an understanding that the Queen, preserving her nominal right of appointments, shall appoint the person Avhose" name shall be submitted by the Colonial church. And there, for tho present, tho matter rests. But the questions involved in its settlement receive some elucidation from the Australian correspondence printed in tho same return.

The principal document in thin second collection is the act of the Legislative Council of Victoria, authorising the bishop of any diocese in the colony to convene an assembly of its clergy and laity, and prescribing the mode of its election. It differs fundamentally from the Canadian project, in its express recognition of the royal prerogative of appointing bishops, and in its reference of all future synodical regulations to the Privy Council at home for confirmation, Avith the intermediate review of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The preservation of the royal supremacy, and of the rights of the Metropolitan See, is made a leading point in the summary of the letter furnished, by way of explanation, by the law-officers of the CroAvn in the colony. This act of the Victoria Legislature is strongly supported by the Bishop of Melbourne in a letter to Mr. Labouchere, written during his .visit to England, in which he carps at the Canadian address, and insists Avith great earnestness on the retention of the Queen's prerogatives as heady of the church; namely, the appointment of bishops, and the final adjudication upon appeal, of all ecclesiastical causes. We might l-emind the bishop, by the way, that even Henry VIII. had to receive from his Convocation a qualification of the title, which it is now thought proper to revive, by the addition of the Avords quantum per Christi legem licet; and that a Queen whose notions of prerogative Avere certainly not lower than those of her Majesty, was " not Avilling " —Bishop Jewell is the AAiiter whom Aye quote —" to be styled in speech or in Avriting the head of the English Church; for she says forcibly that that dignity has been given to Christ alone, and is not suitable to &nj mortal." But we will not be too hard upon this slip; perhaps the bishop of a Victorian see may be excused for a little extravagance of loyalty in his communications with her Majesty's Secretary of State. At all events, the act has received the royal assent; and by its provisions the members of our communion in the colony of Victoria are noAv governed. The two lines of policy, then, for the Colonial Church, have been inaugurated under pressure of the respecti\ re communities for whom they are designed. Canada requires absolute freedom. . not saving (so far as appears) any appeal to. English authority, royal or archiepiseopal, nor alloAving any interference in the nomination of her bishops ; Victoria will have her bishops from England, and | will refer the decisions of her synods to that appellate juiisdictlon of the Privy Council, of Avhich (so far as causes of doctrine are concerned) Aye in England are labouring to rid ourselves and our children. In truth, although political influences, on the one hand, may give some colour to the complexion of the Canadian petitions, and the personal prepossessions of the Bishop of Melbourne may have affected the representations of his diocese on the other, the tAvo' lines of policy answer fo lavo conflicting sentiments at home. These sentiments find their expression at. this moment amongst ourselves in the deliberations of our Convocation on the proposed final Court of Appeal in the matters of doctrine. They haA-e their echo in almost every ecclesiastical controversy, whose turmoil aAvakens from time to time the attention of the political Avorld. The Canadian idea would imply tha.t it is impossible to restore the primitive slat >■:.•>• of independent Churches in. communion with one another, but not in dependence on any common superior. The Victorian theory assume* that unity can only be preserved by maintaining a centre of authority, and finds that centre in the British CroAvn. Both alike, it is to be obser-A-ed, repudiate all connection with the civil power in their own territory. Imperial politics, or the ecclesiastical traditions of Anglicanism, may require a connection to be maintained Avith the Privy Council in England; common sense, and the necessary policy of the age, forbid any newconnection of Church and State to be formed. That such a conclusion must re-:iet on the liberties of our own Synods, and on the decision of causes of doctrine at home, it needs no argument to prove. Before we quit the subject of the- Vietorhm Act, we may express our satisfaction at the withdnvwal of the clause, to which we -stated our objection in rcA'iewing the draft of the Bill li> mouths ago. Tho denial of any voice to the Bishop at the institution of a clerk to a benefice in his diocese no longer forms part of the measure. We trust that the Victorian Synod will _:vt no future time reproduce a project so inconsistent with the fundamental id-a of that Ep;svopate which they desire to up hoi.l.