GENERAL SYNOD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 27, 31 January 1877, Page 2

GENERAL SYNOD.

The Synod met yesterday at i p.m., when 44 members were present, several having arrived that day by the Taupo from Southern ports, including the Revs J. C. Andrew B W. Harvey, W. P. Tanner, A. Penny, T Fancourt, and W. Honaldson, and Messrs Barton, Hanmer, and Riemenschneider. Mr Carleton then moved the series of resolutions standing in his name. The motion of which he had given notice was as follows"To call attention to the status of members of the Church of England who have accepted the Church Constitution in New Zealand and to move the following resolutions conducing to a clearer understanding of their relation to Mother-Clprch:— (1.) That the Church of England in New Zealand and the Church of England are not two' Churches but one Church. (2.) That New Zealand considered as an Ecclesiastical province, in the sense m which Canterbury and York are provinces, ought to have power to make provincial laws, but not such laws as might tend to separation from Mother-Qhurch, ( 3 ) lhat section 4 of the New Zealand Church Constitution declaring that, ''in the event of a separation of the colony of New Zealand

from the Mother-Country, or of a separation of the Church from the State in England and Ireland, the General Synod shall have full power to make such alterations in the articles, services, and ceremonies of this branch of the United Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand as its altered circumstances " may require, or to make such alterations as it may think fit in the authorised version of the Bible,* limits the assumptions to the occurrence of one or both of the said contingencies. (4.) That separation of the colony has not taken place; that separation of the Church from the State in England and Ireland has not taken place; and that, therefore, the said power has not accrued. (5.) Thatthe assumption of such power, by the Synod would be repugnant to the Church Constitution. (6.) That violation by the. Synod of any essential article of the Church Constitution abrogates the Compact by which Church members were bound in voluntary association. (7.) That in such event a new Compact would be required to constitute a Church of England in New Zealand." He ; entered at some length into the history of the New Zealand Church, stating that. the original idea of Bishop Selwyn and his followers was to make it a somewhat exclusive church, some even contending that only com- ' municants should be considered members. This, however, was found to be impracticable, and if carried into effect would in fact have reduced the Church of England in New Zealand to a mere sect of " Selwym'tes." But a broader basis was adopted, and every person baptised into the Church of England in New Zealand is a member of that church. It was important that their precise position 'as a church should be clearly understood. They were not a "branch of the Church of England in New Zealand," as stated in one place, but the Church of England in 'New Zealand. Just now the church seemed somewhat to have drifted f rom her moorings and dragged her anchor, leaving some of the old laymen, liko himself, in the same place as before. He thought there had been unseemly haste in the endeavors made to cut loose the moor-, ings which bound them to the Mother-Church at home, whose lead they might be content to follow. He hoped the Synod would pause before committing the church irrevocably to a course certain to lead to what he assured them was a most imminent danger— division in their camp. Already the great body of the laity held aloof, although they were thoroughly loyal both to the church and the Crown, and there was too much tendency to end where Bishop Selwyn began, by making the church an exclusive body instead of endeavoring to bring into its fold not only the Pharisee but also the publican. He now moved his resolutions, and should be quite satisfied whether they were affirmed or negatived, for he would have attained his object in the full discussion of the subject. The Rer. E. Williams seconded the motion. In reply to a question, the Primate said that the resolutions should be taken seriatim Archdeacon Harper moved as an amendment that for the sake of having, a full discussion on the principle involved in the resolution, the debate be adjourned until after that on the Formularies Bill. The question at issue was the same in both cases, and their action on the resolutions to-day must be conclusive on their action as to the Bill to-mor-row. The preamble of the Bill was the pith of the whole, and as it assumed what these resolutions denied, then if it were rejected the Bill must fall to the ground. Mr Hanmer seconded the amendment because, although Mr Carleton's resolution stated the truth, it did not state quite the whole truth, and if they waited for the Formularies Bill, they could go into the whole question. The Dean of Chrisfcchurch thought it better to take the discussion on a series of short resolutions seriatim than on the whole Bill. The amendment was lost on the voices, and the debate then proceeded. The Dean moved as an amendment that as no such body exists as " the Church of England in New Zealand," it is impossible to affirm or deny the first resolution. He agreed with Mr Carleton that they should not flaunt their independence before the world, but a clear understanding of their real position would not diminish their affection for the old historic Church of England, with which they should keep up all the links they could, but they must not be carried away even by their loyalty and love into ignorance of their true position. The Bishop of Dunedin seconded the amendment. The question was— had not the New Zealand Church now arrived at an adult age. She could not be one with the Church of England in regimen as well as doctrine when the rules of the latter could not reach her. The Church of England speaks with the mixed voice of Church and State, not so the Church of New Zealand. The question was whether the latter was or was not a distinct church province having inherent in herself, all rights, privileges, and powers appertaining to a province. He contended that she had. The Rev. Mr Tanner thought Mr Carleton's resolution formed a clear answer to the general assertion that laymen did not understand the precise position of the question by proving that they do understand it. He pointed out that the discussion was becoming rather metaphysical. The statements of the opposite side were true in themselves, but assumed a wholly different aspect when on them were based steps which looked to laymen like separation from the Church of England. Archdeacon Maunsell thought the resolu- ! tions valuable as enabling them to define the principles at issue. Mr Hanraer pointed out that although the doctrines of the Churches of England and New Zealand were identical when the Constitution was passed, the administration since then had been totally different. The Synod ought not to fetter its own action in any way. The Rev. Mr Leighton supported the resolutions, contending that to hold the churches of Engiand and New Zealaud to be two distinct churches would involve much confusion and would affect the status of the New Zealand Clergy at Home. The Bishop of Nelson pointed out that the word "church" was used in two different senses in the resolution. Mr Pitt objected to an important motion being disposed of on a mere verbal technicality. Archdeacon Harper contended that the Church of New Zealand was one with the Church of England in faith and doctrine, but was not under the government of the Church of England as established by law. At this point the Synod rose, resuming at 7-30 p,m., when the orders of theday were proceeded with. The Dean of Christchurch moved the second reading of " The Commun:cants Bill, 1877, which provided that any person who should make and subscribe a declaration that he was a communicant should be held to be so for the purpose of qualification for election to church office. A very long discussion ensued, the chief objections taken to the Bill being— (l) that it required another declaration from church members; (2) that it appeared to define what already was defined by rubric; (3) that it was only permissive, and thus opened a door to favoritism on part of clergymen; (4) that the title of the church as quoted was a point still at issue; (5) that it was ultra vims, as defining by statute a portion of the Constitution Act. The Bishops of Wellington and Nelson, the Dean of Christchurch, Archdeacons Maunsell and Harper, the Revs Messrs Williams, Lingar<L Dudley, Fancous t,

Tanner,.Penny, Ronaldson, and Andrew, ' Messrs Hunter Brown, Lussk, Pickering, Pitt, Acton Adams, Acland, Carleton, and Fellspoke to the motion for the second reading, which ultimately was carried on the Voices. The Synod then went into Cotamittee on . the Bill (Mr Barnicoat in the chair)i J which' was reported with several verbal amend- ' ments, and the third reading fixed for Eriday next. The debate on the Dean's amendment to Mr Carleton's first resolution was then resumed by . Mr Quick, who contended that the New Zealand Church stood in the same relation to the English Church as the colonies to England, and that it was most undesirable to weaken the ties which connected the colonial with the Mother Church. . The Rev Mr Fancourt held that the Churches of England and New Zealand were one in faith and doctrine, but net in practice. Mr Carleton, in reply, after arguing against the various objections which had been taken to the resolutions, said he had brought them forward in the interest of the church. He foresaw great dauger to a young church, as did also Sir W. Martin, in the course of action taken by a section of the Synod. He had offered the Synod an opportunity of settling the raal question at issuey and he hoped they would not neglect to avail themselves of it. The question « That the words proposed to be omitted (all after the first word 'That') stand part of the first resolution" was then put, when the votes were:— Ates: Bishops, 0: Clergy, 6; Laity, 10. , Nobss Bishops, 5; Clergy, 11; Laity, 4. The amendment was therefore carried. ' >: The Dean then asked for leave to withdraw his amendment as his object had been attained. , Mr Carleton objected arid it was ruled that leave could not be granted unless with the unanimous consent of the Synod. The resolution having been reduced to the word "That," it was moved that that word be struck out, but this was ruled out of order as that word already had been agreed to. . Archdeacon Maunsell then moved as another amendment "That the churches of England and New Zealand were two churches, independent and distinct in Government, but one in constitution and common formularies." Mr Carleton accepted this amendment. The Bishop of Wellington thought it undesirable to lay down mere abstract principles having no reference to any practical purpose. The Bishop of Nelson moved, and the Rev Mr Tanner seconded the adjournment of the debate, which on a division was negatived, the votes being:— Axes: Bishops, 3; Clergy, i ; Laity, 8. Noes: Bishops, 2; Clergy, 16; Laity. Archdeacon Maunsell'a amendment wa3 put and lost on the voices. The Synod then adjourned at 11*20 p.m. I

On Sunday two girls, pupils at an Illinois seminary, were about leaving their rooms for church, when a dispute arose as to which had occupied the most time in dresssing. The discussion waxed warm, a bet was made to he decided on the spot, and three other girls were called in as judges. The contestants removed their clothing, and at the call of " time " sprang to the contest. For a few moments th& air seemed filled wioh flying bits of feminine drapery— shoes, stockings, garters, &c,— and the winner was all "hooked up," and her bonnet on in seven minutes and thirteen seconds, the other girl coming out in less than half a minute behind.

(For continuation of Newt gee fourth page)