GENERAL SYNOD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 31, 5 February 1877, Page 2

GENERAL SYNOD.

AYe resume our report of Friday evening's debate in the Synod on the Formularies .Bill. . Mr Fell thought it>was agreed on all hands 1 , that the New Zealand Church was autonomous. Hecouteuded it was proved that no legislation was ultra vires of . the Syuod, which had the power to reverse the action of

it3rpredecessors,/that %re wag nothing in the Qonsti^utiori unalterable by the Synodf that the: "fundamental" provisions were as: Alterable as kny other, tend- that no Synod x could pass la# which could hot be repealed by; its: auccesfois.,,' Then what waa .the'uie of this.Bill? Sfoely whe v n this imaginary revolutionist, who had been made so' much of, wanted to bring in a change, such a statute as this would not bind him. No, he would simply introduce another Bill to the effect that it was not expedient that this statute should remain in force any longer. Then to pas 3 such a Bill as this would be simply trying to hold themselves up by the hair of their own heads. The Primate said that at the Conference great and unusual care was exercised in drawing up the fundamental provisions of the Constitution, for there was a strong feeling of loyalty to the moiher church, and a desire to show that there was no wish to separate from her. He did not believe that at that ..time even the most far-seeing churchmen ever imagined the probability of two such occurrences as the resignation of the patents, •'and the disestablishment of the Irish Church. There iftras an extreme desire to avoid doing anything at alUike separation. He should , ; ydte r fois this Bill, although, he did not approve of the preamble, for he horied the members would allow the Bill to~p"ass its .second readiug, if only to enable it to be amended in Committee by .altering the preamble, and by making such other changes as : would enable them to accept such alterations in the formularies- as jmight seem desirable. A.t present they: were precluded by their provisions from accepting useful alterations,, therefore they should look Vqn.those provisions as obsolete, and not enHeavotsto escape their due responsibility. * ~ -The Bishop of '■ Nelson noticed with pleasure the gradual progress of the conviction of our entire but; responsible freedom. Formerly changes were declared impossible, pow they were only inexpedient. Much' of the present difficulty would never have occurred if ..they had not,; so : far back as 1852-3, repudiated the Royal Supremacy, and it was curious to find some of the'younger members of Synod asking for its restoration. In reply to Mr Fell, he stated that those who voted 4qi this Bill would do so because they wished to allay that feeling which was supposed to exist outside, but after all the real safeguard lay:, in the kind of men . they sent in the future- to the General Synod; if they sent men who knew the value of the fundamental principles they would not be tampered with, and only such alterations would be proposed or admitted as were in accordance with their spirit. Henceforth they could not rely upon the binding of unalterable provisions, but on the loyalty of the majority of each order to the essentials.of the church. The Rev Mr Andrew held that they must be bound by the spirit and not by the mere letter of the Constitution. They might alter its fundamental . provisions, but .in a legal manner,- and not by a side wind— like the Bill before the House— by a Parliamentary manoeuvre such as he never expected to see .introduced into that Synod, an attempt to "get round" these fundamental articles. They were free to break their compact, but if ! they did so they separated from the church.! He. called on the Synod to reject the Bin because it. attempted to meet a problematical danger by introducing a real one, and tended to ; lead men outside the Synod, who -had not the. members' advantage of; hearing the palliatives and excuses by which it was sought :to soften this measure, to ; suppose that such solemn compacts as that under which'the New Zealand Church, had existed, <ini?ht be broken at will. He opposed the Bill.

I (.Continued on Fourth Page.)

n {Continued fiiojn Second.Page.)

"Archdeacon Harper then replied. After expressing his thanks to the Synod for its earnest and cautious treatment of the Bill proposed, the Arohdeacon went on to say:— During the debate there has been some warmth of> coloring, some unintentional misrepresentation of the views of thoae who would promote the BUI, and some caricature of my own intentions. Lot that pass. The manner in which Synod has dealt with this subject, is a proof that whatever its disadvantages as compared with other such assemblages, it may be safely trusted to handle even the greatest questions that may affect the welfare of the Church. It is now my duty; in reply, to gather up the various lines of thought, and bring them, so far as I can, to one common focus, in which I think we all | agree. We are fairly agreed that the future, practically before us is one of expediency It is expedient to pass such a Bill as this, which contains a plan, for limiting the power of the General Synod in regard to alterations of our formularies. Is it expedient ? We are all agreed that we have the power, and if we have the power, if the Synod is autonomous, and responsible only to itself for self-government, remember the full scope , of the word power. It implies moral as well as legal power. We may, if we will, pass this Bill without acting illegally or dishonorably, or in any way breaking faith with ourselves and our Church. But the. lines of thought which have led to this focus or point of its being a matter of expediency in some cases seemed to hesitate a little, as if they were passing through some medium which caused them to diverge for a time. Some seemed to doubt the reality of our power of self-govern meat. For instance, it was suggested by Mr Barnicoat that although there was no doubt about the inherent right of self-govern-ment in the Synod, it might be a question whether . there was not some power outside the Synod which brought it into existence and claims our allegiance. The reply to this is found in : the words of our Constitution. The Bishops, clergy, and laity, ia Synod assembled, bound themselves by mutual compact. Now, no body outside, the Synod could possibly bindjs to act as it did in making its mutual compact. It was a voluntary mutual act of churchmen one with another, so that this difficulty with regard to the self-governing powers of the Synod disappears. „ In, , reference to these powers Mr Adams had endeavored to show that the famous case of Forbes p. Eden, so often referred to in the debate, was not quite so strongly in favor of the inherent rights of the Synod as had been stated. He argued that the case showed that the Scotch Church Synod in Us repeal or alteration of one of its canons did so on the strength of a clause in its own Constitution, which expressly allowed the right of altering its so-called fundamental rules, and that . therefore the case was given in favor of the. Synod not on the ground of its own right of autonomy, but because of this clause. But this was not the ground on which judgment was given. The Synod was held to possess, self-govern-ing powers. True that it had amongst its laws this clause permitting change of fundamental rules, and the New Zealand Church has in its laws a clause forbidding such a change. But in either case the Synod made and enacted the clause. Tte body which can make can also unmake. Thus it seems that the self-government of a Synod is established as independent of any external body, except, of course, the general power which a Court of Arbitration might have over it in; law. Further, Mr Pitt, admitting this, spoke very ably of a different kind of impediment to the Bill, which made him hesitate as to our full power to accept it. He found in our Constitution that we have bound ourselves not to exercise selfgovernment unless certain contingencies have occurred. Let ua examine this. We are bound to the United Church of England and Ireland to accept only what it decrees with leave of the Crown and Convocation. Disestablishment of Church and State in England and Ireland, and an alteration in the existing state of the relations between the Church and State at Home with the Church here, is declared in the Constitution to be the condition of our independence. Now, there ia no United Church of England and Ireland existing. The Crown has long ceased to have anything to do with the church in the colony. Our relation to the Mother Church in the eye of the law is quite changed. Practically we are left to ourselves. The only shadow of technical doubt would be in that the words of the Constitution speak of disestablishment of Church and State in England and Ireland. But suppose Che case were to come balore a Court, would not judgment at once be given on the ground of the practical fulfilment of the conditions of independence set forth in our own Constitution. A Court would say — Gentlemen, your own documents shew that you are free to act for yourselves— no one else can act - for you ; you must settle your own affairs in foro domestico. |I will tow notice the argument of Mr Foil, who with great force demonstrated thia practice of our self-government, But having done this, his conclusion with regard to the Bill ia truly marvellous. The Biil recognises our real position — we cannot help ourselveB — we must govern ourselves, and because we are no longer tied to the Church and State at homeland cannot avail ourselves of {be restraints of English law, it is plain

we ought to provide ourselves with our own means of restraining any possible innovation. There is nothing now to prevent members of Synod rising to propose, say, some serious revision or change of our formularies. Mr Fell admits this fully. The Bill provides legislation that would make it- very difficult to carry any such proposal, and would ensure long and careful deliberation. Mr Fell saya he cannot vote for it. Why ? Because the next Synod might repeal it! 0, lame and impotent couclusion! Would he say that Parliament ought not to pass a law to hinder bousebreakers and punish thieves, because another session may repeal it ? A marvellous argument, especially as it has been urged frequently against this Bill that there is extreme difficulty in repealing anything in Synod, as is the case. It ia very hard to get a majority in all three orders. Air Fell's arguments are such that I do not hesitate to claim bis vote in favor of the Bill. Again, it was urged by Mr Andrew that the Bill is inexpedient because it does not first of all provide for some alteration iv our fundamental clauses, and, by altering, make them consistent .with the fact of our independence. And he talks of a " side-wind " as if it were only the way in which the Bill were introduced that is in fault. JNow, no doubt \wa must, sooner or later, alter the wording of our Constitution. It reads now as if we were tied to Church and State in Eogland. But recollect what was done last session ! of; Synod. The. Synod then, after much opposition, with a large majority deliberately passed two statutes which declared the inconsistency of the Constitution with the facts of our real state. This is precisely the process which Mr Audrew recommends now. .It wus done with all deliberation then, . and then a draft of a Bill such as is ; proposed now was ordered to be sent to the varions dioceses for consideration. Ihey have considered it. Only two of the five dioceses have objected to it; one in strong but the other in modiiied terms. And now the Bill is before us haviug in its preamble the very statutes cited to which I refer. How, then, can it be said that the Bill is in need of some preliminary statute or process : which shall prepare for it, by declaring the true state of that independence which we find ourselves in? I come now to the Bill itself. Is it i expedient? It provides a stringent method of restraining any attempt that may be made to alter our formularies. ; Surely we need it, otherwise a proposal of change may be passed by means of a simple statute alone. Mr Lingard, Mr Pdony, and others, have spoken strongly againßt it. They say, Trust to the good faith of Churchmen. Well land good. But is not this really an ; appeal to sentiment ? We are here to legislate. Can we do so without restraints. CouU the Irish Church ? There may 'be no immediate rick of any such attempts to innovate. But Who can tell? Several members have expressed their dread of ritualistic innovation, several of lutitudiniarian views,— and yet they intend to vote against the Bill ! They eny — The Bill will frighten people out-; side the Synod— that there is a panic. They plead the unintelligence of the laity as to the real intention of this Bill, and actually argue that this House ought to limit its action accordingly. They will not consider the real necessities of our position, because, as they say — but I do not reatiy think it can be true people outside Synod regard this Bill as itself an uttempt to innovate. Certainly, in listening to what has been said inside this House about myself and this Biil — I have sometimes hardly known whether I stood on my head or my heels. Buf let Synod reflect. It is not my doing, or the doing of this or that man that by degrees we have come to see the real independence of our position. It is not last session's legislation thai, has made us free of the restraints of. English Church law. In God's Providence this has come about i: and being so, shall we be so inconsiderate as to shut our eyes to the; fact, and say, tbere is no risk of innovation, we need no system of self-restraint, this Bill is. inexpedient 1 Its particular provisions may be inadvisable, but I contend for its general principle, and I ask Synod to accpt it. If it shall seem fit to the wisdom of tbis Synod to refuse if, I shall not greatly care. It will be accepted in principle in good time, and some years hence we may live to see our. unwisdom in not adopting it now. I commend it to the earnest consideration of Synod in the hope that 'whatever, we do, our action may be for the ~ maintenance of the faith and doctrine which we have receiyed from our Mother Church, and which we all desire to keep io its integrity and to hand down to our children in this our Church of New Zaaland. The Synod then divided, with the result already Mated, that the Bill was thrown out.