Connection with the Mother Church.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 257, 30 October 1877, Page 6

Connection with the Mother Church.

One advantage of our Synod meetiugs is their enabling us to realise our connection with the rnaiu body of the Christian Church. In the first place we meet under direction of General Synod, we derive our Laws, our Instructions from it, and that carries us outjofour Diocese into the wider area of the whole colony. We are next reminded of a wider connection by the reference so constantly made in our debates to our formularies, especially the Book of Common Prayer. We can never meet in Synod without realising our true relationship to the Church of England, but iJ. is the relation of a daughter #iat has left her mother's home, and henceforth, is bound to the mother only by the ties of affection and gratitude, and not by the link of a material or organic connection such as exists between one portion of a plant and its parent Btein, a relationship inaccurately set forth by the term 'Branch.'

When representative institutions Avere given to the colony care Avas not taken to continue the Church of England properly so called, iv the colony. As a substitute for this— and a poor substitute too in the opinion of many — protection to property was promised to all who might please to bind themselves together in adherence to the formularies of this or any other Church, and it would seem that some have entertained the idea that after the parent stem had been closely trimmed so as to restrict it from ecclesiastical extension, it was still possible to attach new Churches to it of such similarity that they might be regarded as a kind of graft, and afterwards be inaccurately denominated Branches of the original Church. But this only serves to show the deception engendered by a use of figurative language iv a legal matter in the ambiguous meaning of the word ' Brauch.' The only elements of continuity between us and the Church of England lie in the fact of our having the same doctrines and formularies, aud in the frequent but diminishing introduction into this Church and colony of membera of each order of the Ministry of the Church of England. Recent events have brought out more forcibly than we could have wished the fact of our virtual distinctness from the Church of England. I must ask you to believe that I have very carefully weighed what I am about to say, aud nothing but a sense of the duty which I owe to the Church would have induced me to mention it. It was found necessary in another Diocese, now two years ago, after considerable forbearance and delay, to put in operation the disciplinary provisions of the Church over its Clergy, and the result shows that neither Bishop, Priest, Deacon, nor Layman holding any kind of office under the General Synod, or holding any license for cure of souls can do or say anything contrary to the authorised teaching or practice of the Church of the Province of New Zealand without incurring the penalties of suspension, to be terminated only by retractation of the error in question. The Judgment of the Bench of Bishops is before the Church. I shall not go into it, but it will be evident to all who peruse it that every consideration has been given to the ambiguous nature of the language made the subject of complaint, and wherever possible the defendant has been allowed the full benefit of the doubt. This, I say, may be seen by a careful examination of the Judgment of the Bench of Bishops, with the charges alleged, and presented to the Bishops as matters of fact. But I speak of this Judgment, specially now to call your attention to the finality of the step, and to show that no provision is made for carrying the matter further, and that if it were desirable to carry it further, out of the country, by any device, it would be an entirely new aud voluntary proceeding having no organic connection with the Church of England, but only with individual members of that Church. Undoubtedly this is a very serious position, and one that will call for the greatest conscientiousness, firmness, and complete independence on the part of those who are thus by the Church constituted the guardians of its doctriues. Neither need the mode of procedure proposed for such cases be discussed, the Statute under which the recent case was heard, haying given place, with the very general consent of the General Synod, to one more in accordance with English procedure, aud less ponderous in working. But practically no wronohas been done by the operation of the Act hitherto in force, for the case before the Bench of Bishops had so strong a family likeness to cases brought before other tribunals of the Church in other parts that there was no lack of advocacy for reference on either side, either for or against the doctrines or practices complained of, the evidence of the facts not coming within the consideration of the Bishops, but only the relation of those facts to the authorised formularies and practice of the Church.