GENERAL SYNOD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 30, 3 February 1877, Page 2

GENERAL SYNOD.

The Synod met yesterday at 4 p.m. j Some discuss'on arose on Mr Rous Marten's motion that the Synod should sit today with the view of clearing the Order Paper of some of the formal business The motion was negatived on the voices, Mr Rous Marten then moved that the petition froxi the parishioners of St. Peter's Parish, Wellington, be read, and its prayer acceded to. He stated that the parish was wholly free from debt, that its income last year exceeded its.expenditure by £2 1 8; that additional church accommodation was most urgently needed; that the parishioners already had raised .£ISOO towards building a new church, aud now sought permission to raise a further sum of £1000 by mortgage of the parsonage. Archdeacon Stock seconded the motion mentioning that the parish, in addition to its own expenditure during the past year had paid the interest (£6O) on the debt of the adjoining parish (St. Mark's) besides contributing to the Benevolent Institution of the city. This application was quite a novel one, but the Synod would do well to grant it. The Rev Mr Burrows thought it better to raise the money on personal bonds. Mr Hunter Brown opposed the motion, as that Synod was not the place to bring up petty parish affairs. , Archdeacon Maunsell supported the motion, and condemned the tone of Mr Hunter Brown's remarks. It was hard to say, such things of a parish which had done so much. He thought the motion deserved every consideration from the Synod, He did not approve of Mr Burrows' suggestion to raise money on personal bonds. Mr Seymour suggested that the motion ought to be referred to the Committee on Trusts. The Rev Mr Tanner pointed out that if the Synod wished to possess property by gift from the laity they sbould deal liberally with it, as it was only by such arrangements as the one proposed that improvements could be made. After some further debate it was agreed to refer the motion to the Trusts'Comiuittee to ieport on. Leave wa3 granted without discussion to Arc'ideacon Maunsell to bring in Bills to amend Statutes 19 and 21. Archdeacon Maunsell andj the Rev Mr Jackson withdrew motions No. 4 and 6 standing in their name. A long and rather confused discussion took place ou the Bishop of Wellington's motioi to annul Standing Order No. 40, relating to the mode of putting questions to the members of the Synod. Archdeacon Stock moved— ■« That it is inexpedient to proceed further with the attempt to establish a general pension fund for the whole Church of New Zealand." He explained that the attempt so far had proved* a total failure. The Synod rose at this stage, and on resuming at 7*30 the debate on the Formularies Bill was resumed by The Rev Mr Harvey, who supported the Bill. All were agreed as to the desirability of maintaining their unity with the Church of England, but some appeared to confound unity with uniformity. He held that so long as they agreed with the Church of England in essentials, it did not matter if they dif- . fered widely in other respects. Besides, did they mean by the Church of England that church as she was when the New Zealand Church Constitution was framed, or as as she was now, or as she might be*so years hence? Three very different things.' He contended that the Constitution was not the sole bond which held them together, and so long as the Church of New Zealand did not lapse into heresy nothing would justify churchmen in leaving that church as some had thoughtlessly threatened to do. Mr R. Lusk opposed the Bill, which he held to be virtually the same as that of 1874, when he and Mr Quick alone among the lay members actively opposed it. He denied that the Bill was a conservative measure as its supporters asserted, and contended that the great safety of the English nation always had been its aversion to engage in new legislation excepting when absolutely necessary, whereas the French were always trying new experiments with paper constitutions. The laity had taken little part in church legislation here, not one in a thousand had even signed the declaration of membership, The disruption of the Scotch Presbyterian body was caused by over-legislation in which the laity had no adequate part, and they ought to pause before making the same mistake here, and indulging in that over-legislation which was obnoxious to the lai*y and unsefc- | "tied, their minds. i Mr Pierson supported the Bill on the I ground that they ought to provide floodgates now, so as to be able to control the demand for change should it come in time. Mr Turner did not see why Scotch or Irish law should be dragged into that Synod. Tliey did not want it, for they were a law unto themselves. This factious resistance to the Bill was the greatest rubbish he ever heard m his life. It was absurd and very bad taste to say that the minds of men here were not able to grapple with the same matters as those at Home. Mr Hirst, as the oldest lay member of ths Synod who had been present at the birfcb of

tbe Constitution, did not require Archdeacon Harper's aid to .understand its unalterable principles. ; He warned the Synod to be careful how they tampered with it, for the laity L would not be influenced by the -ratification arid special pleading usedoj this occasion, and would not permit any' tin 'tering of the Constitution. His opinion was made up twenty years ago, and had not been altered by anything he had heard since. Mr Rous Marten would not attempt to follow the various arguments used in this debase; The question had been discussed in its ecclesiastical aspect by the clergy; in its ; legal aspect by the lawyers; in its historical aspect by the Bishop of Wellington, Archdeacons Stock and Maunsell, and in its constitutional or political aspect by Mr Carleton and Mr Barnicoat. It was noteworthy that all the lawyers were on one side in this qrest'on, and condemned the Bill, while the clergy were divided, and the majority of the laity were opposed to it , The historical facts had been represented in such diametrically opposite form by the different speakers that the conviction was forced on us that facts, instead of being the "stubborn things" they were proverbially described to be, became in the hands of such able special pleaders, the most plastic and flexible things possible, until one was inclined to doubt whet! er anything ever really had happened at all. He regretted to hear Mr Hunter Brown's remaks that the opponents of the Bill were fighting in defence of «an old rotten gate" iristead o" making a new one, for that gate wheh Mr Brown called old and rotten really was the honor and good faith of New Zealand Churchmen, which alone bound them together in voluntary compact. The Constitution made the Synod, not the Synod the Constituton. On behalf of the great body of churchmen the unlearned laity, if they liked ; —who did not understand these legal and '• clerical subtleties but entertained a deep and loyal attachment for the Church of England, connection with which formed the sole claim of the New Zealand Church on their allegiance, he opposed the Bill as tending to separation from the Mother Church. ' The great majority of laymen did not desire alterations, and distrusted this measure as ' apparently leading to separation, and as being introduced by a side-wind; thus nothing would satisfy them but the complete" and unqualified rejection of the Bill. The Hon Mr Acland pointed out that had , this Bill been on the Statute Book last ses- ' sion, Statutes 19 and 21 could not have been ' passed, but must have been referred to the Diocesan Synods, and brought up again for the consideration of this Synod. " As to adopting only the changes made by the Crown and the Convocation of the United Church of England and Ireland, as mentioned in their Constitution, that church no longer existed, so that if they limited their power to that, they could adopt no changes at all. Yet, supposing the other alternative mentioned— separation of New Zealand from the Mother Country— should occur, which Heaven forbid, and this colony become a republic, they would have to alter the prayer for the Queen, or they would be had up for sedition. If this measure were carried, the power of the laity in this Synod and the Diocesan Synods would enable them to check any hasty changes. Mr Pickering opposed the Bill, which he contended they could not pass without first altering the Constitution. If they once began to make changes they would find suggested alterations gradually increasing in number and importance, and even if ' rejected at first, they would be brought^on year after year, until what at first was only a bridle pa,h became at length a broad carriage road, and the changes originally so strongly opposed would in the end be carried. He instanced the case of the Bill in the Legislature f or'pennitting marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The Bishop of Dunedin thought they ought not to have had this debate at all, but to haye started from the point at which theywere left by the last Synod. Some still held that we were an integral part of the English' Church. That was the position of the Australian Church, but not of New Zealand. It had been argued that this Church was free as to the general principle but restrained by particular enactments, but no Synod could bind its successors for ever. The Bishop of Wellington's arguments remained quite unanswered. Lord Cranworth's ruling in the case of Forbes .. Eden, which had been described by the other side as mere obiter dicta was adopted by the American Judges. As to the argument that there was no present danger of changes being demanded, it was not the part of reasonable beings to wait uncil the actual danger arrived before guarding against it. The Rev Mr Watkins opposed the Bill, as having a tendency to pave the way to changes. Many members only wanted such an opportunity to ventilate many changes they would like to bring in. He was opposed to change, and should vote against the Bill. Mr Fell followed against the Bill, the! Primate and the Bishop of Nelson in favor of it, and the Rev Mr Andrew against it, after which Archdeacon Harper replied. We' are compelled to hold over our report of. . ese speeches until Monday. The Synod then divided on the question that leave be given to introduce the Bill, when the votes were:— Ayes: Bishops, 5Clergy, 7; Laity, 5. '. Noes,: Clergy, 12 j Laity, 14. The motion was therefore lost. The announcement was received with loud' and prolonged applause, and the scene was one of great excitement. ' The Synod then adjourned at 1 1*45 p.m. : '