Alteration op Formularies Bill.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 22, 25 January 1877, Page 1

Alteration op Formularies Bill.

Resolutions in reference to the alteration of Formularies Bill have beeu forwarded to me from the Dioceses of Waiapu, Wellington, Nelson, and Christchurch. They present as might have been expected some poiuts of difference, but they agree in assuming the fact that the Church of this ecclesiastical province has power to make alterations, not affecting doctrine, which from her altered circumstances may be considered necessary, and on the other hand in the necessity of putting some restraint on the exercise of this power. In the Synod of Christchurch, in addition to the required assent of the majority of the Diocesan Synods to auy alteration in the Formularies, it is proposed that when it is brought before the General Synod and put to the vote, that two-thirds of each Order should declare their adoption of it, and that no alteration should be made therein other than that of a verbal kind. It may be a question whether the Bill does not restrain too much the legitimate power of the General Synod iv a matter of this kind. The proposal of the Diocese of Christchurch is certainly a limitation, in this instance, of the general powers given to the Synod by the Church Constitution. But, moreover, if the Bill should pass with or without the proposed amendments, and the second clause become a fundamental part of the Constitution, three years must at least elapse before the Church here can bring into use any alteration of her present services or formularies, or of the version of the Holy Scripture, for, as the Bill prescribes, every such alteration must first be proposed at one General Synod, be accepted by the majority of the Diocesan Synods, and be finally agreed to in the meetiug of the General Synod next ensuing. To this I conceive there could be no objection if the proposed alteration emanated from the members of our Provincial Church, and should be or appear to be of a novel kind unsupported by the authority of the mother Church; but in the event of its being an alteration admitted by that Chm-ch with the consent of the Crown, and with the concurrence of Churchmen generally as expressed through Convocation or otherwise, it seems to me that we might be seriously hindering the welfare of the New Zealand Church if our adoption of it were contingent on the course of proceedure described by the Bill, for it is quite possible that an alteration approving itself to a large majority of the most thoughtful and devout members of our communion might be postponed for a period of six years or be introduced into our services in direct violation of our laws, and in either case the Church here would suffer loss.' I would claim for the Church of New Zealand full independence iv all matters which concern her work aud mission, even to the extent of altering all her services aud formularies and revising the.preseut version of the Bible, for such independence would not exceed that which was claimed and exercised hy separate. Bishops in the early days of the Church, but for obvious reasons it is expedient that the exercise of our independence should be duly regulated, and the too hasty adoption of any alteration prevented, whether such be recommended by some supposed necessity of the Provincial Church or the example of the Mother Church, but we must be careful not to tie our hands to the probable hindrance of our work in these islands. By the second clause of the Constitution we are plainly at liberty to accept any alteration which has been adopted in England with the consent of the Crown and Convocation, and I confess I can see no reason why such alteration, if due notice thereof should have beeu previously given, might not be considered by the General Synod on its own merits, and if, after

full consideration, it be found to be good iv itself, and suited to the circumstances ofthe Church here, he provisionally allowed as has been done iv the case of the new Table of Lessons. ' It was by some such provisional use, rather than by any formal declaration of the mind of the Church that our Creeds were tested, aud at last universally accepted, and the Canonical Book of Holy Scripture recognised throughout the Christian world as the authoritative Word of God. Iv either case usa»e preceded law. ° It may bo a further question whether, as the Bill now stands the power given thereby to two of the Diocesan Synods of negativing some proposed alteration is altogether consistent with the Constitution, which assigns to the General Synod the absolute power of controlling, altering, repealing, or suspending any regulation which .may be made by any Diocesan Synod. The General Synod may, of course, set limits to its own powers, aud it is very expedient that the Diocesan Synods should express their opinion on any question which may come before the General Synod, and their opinion would be entitled to every consideration, but it must be remembered that the Clerical and Lay Representatives in the General Synod are not the delegates of the Diocesan Synods, or even their representatives, but the representatives of the Church of the several Dioceses, and when assembled with the Bishops in General Synod they are the representatives of the Provincial Church, arid are responsible to it for what they adopt or reject. It has been said that under present circumstances they can hardly be considered as representing the Provincial Church, especially as regards the Lay portion of the Synod, inasmuch as it is difficult to secure from the several Diocese, the attendance of Laymen really representing their views and qualified to maintain them. It is obviously °of importance that this should be remedied, and will doubtless be so as the means of communication increase, aud a deeper and more general interest be taken in the government of the Church, but that interest will scarcely be promoted if important questions affecting its government and well-being can be determined outside the central authority. I cannot but think therefore, that all reference to Diocesan Synods, except for information or for the expression' of their views, might be dispensed with. Tn other words, that the General Synod should take upon itself the whole responsibility of rejecting or acceptiug any alteration in the services or formularies of°our Church.