THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH in NEWZEALAND. Letter III.

New Zealander, Volume 4, Issue 278, 27 January 1849, Page 6

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH in NEWZEALAND. Letter 111.

To the Editor of the New Zealander. Sir— Your correspondent of November 4, Is so apprehensive of the laity abusing their piivileges, as part of the governing body ot the church, that he appears to deprecate ihe urging them to exert those 1 r vileg'S. If an argument from the abuse againit the use be Vrilid, what institution now in existence may not be overthrown? 'Ihe very objection he advances from the evils that hare sprung trora the interference of the laity in church questions, would tell with ten fold force against church councils ; indeed, against every form of po;>ulir government. Not more weighty were those suggestioni by which he succeeded in evoking those feelings through which these meetings were crushed. Bishop Selwyn, he tells us, has n "strong Hildebrsndine element in his constitution." Where is the similarity ? Hildebrand, taking advantage of concurrent circumstances, constructed a system of spiritual autociacy, from which the laity were excluded : Bishop bel-vyn, instead of Ulunj advantage of the present unsettled state of our affairs, seeks to induce the people to take a part in the government. But hi* strongest objection seems to be, that Bishop Selwyn has alieady laid down in his own mind a scheme of government to which he desiret to obtain the sauctiou pf the laity ; that fearing lest, if propounded in the mass, it would be rejected, he by slow and gradual processes leads the meeting on through '•blind resolutions" aud • isohted proposals," till at last, before they are aware, he has placed thum on the horns of this di.emma; either to itultify themselves by rescinding their previous resolutions, or to sanction his scheme, A cha'ge so heavy ought to have strong proofs be ore it i> advanced. I search your correspondent*! letter in vain for them. All I can hud is, cm tain vague surmises drawn from tlr» B shop's aliened character, and from his reluctance U propound at once a schemr to the meeting. Against piecemeal legislation, whether it be by iio'ated propositions, or by vague generalities, that cm assume hereafter any form that the propounder pleases, every committee man should, in common with your correspondent, guard. We are also justified in demanding (u 1 pievious mtoiuiation of the p-ints

to be discussed, in order tbat each may have time to view them in their several relations before lie is forced to a decision. Still I cannot but think that your correspondent has forgotten the purposes for which the raeetiug was convened, and the nature of the process by which such purpose) were fo be attained. It was not a meeting for legislation, but for inquiry and p> eparation ; and, so far was (he "bill" from having been proposed for even the first reding, that the fiamers of it were engaged in those questions of detail which an always preliminary to the announcement of nny measure. In that view of ihe case I would ask your correspondent candidly to consider— ls', whether the meeting would have been unalterably pledged to its resolutions^ 2udly, whether provisional resolutions might not have been passed, 10 be hereafter revised in a fuller meet. ing 1 ; 3rdly, whether, also, under these ciicumstancts, it would have been wise for the Bishop to propound at once a scheme to the meeting. Suppose, for example, that something more full than the broad skeieh given by the Chief Justice at the first meeting had been announced ; and that, among other details, it had been proposed tint the test for membership should be the reception of the Lord's Supper, would not an uncontrolable feeling of hostility have sprung up on all sides ? and would not the proposer of the measure havp been thus either pledged to defend his scheme, or forced to the humiliating step of publicly admitting hit utifituess to constiuct one ? It should be remembered that no charge has been made of unfairness in the conduct of these meetings. Discussion was free ; a record kept of the proceedings, and regularly read to the meeting; so that if members had anythirg to complain of, it was only of their own incompetency to discu s s such question** Surmises should never be allowed to go farther than create cnution and luquiry. Even though it were true that Mr. Glddsro ie is the last person from whom we can expect any thing liberal, or worthy of a thorough going Protestant ; even though it be undeniable that there is a party at home with whom Bishop Selwyu sympathises, whose idea of a perfect Church h that in which the Bishop is every thing, snd every one else nothing ; even though Bishop Selwyn himself be a " very Ahbot Sampson of Edmonsbury ;" still respect for his office, and for, at least, the prima facie tendency of his measures, should have constrained us to await the more full developement of his views; to reserve our fire for an opportunity in which we bhould be better able to examine the bugbear. Facts, they say, are stubborn things ; and this may be known -nd reai of all men ; that Bishop Selwyn having iirv.ly declared his determination never to recognne my otner test of membership than that which lie bad proposed, not only allowed such a question to be discussed by the meeting, but recorded their opinion, even though opposed altogether to his own. The firmness, also, with which the meeting persisted in their view on the same question, shows that they had an opinion of their own, and that they knew how to maintain it. Was there then sufficient reason for discontinuing such meetings ? " Oh," His said, " the ill will excited by them was so great, fiat we were only doing harm instead of good !" Against s>uch an argument I would record my strongest protest. What, are we to cease all efforts for good when opposition meets us? Certainly the man that would be influenced by such a reason shows his unfitness to befiin or finish any good work. If Luthei had druwn b.ick in disgust at the coldness \ad opposition of his brethren, we should perhaps now have been mtekly adoring a piece of bre-id, or begging the inteicp*sion of we know not whom. Opposition fioin even our best friends Providence stems to have inseparably linked on to eveiy great undertaking. It should also be remembered tint the effeivescences and indiscretions that invariably attend all free dbcussiom where men are interes'ed in the question, are far different from that settled rancour and malice which split men into factious, and disturb the peace of the community. Neither, indeed, is it quite clear that sufficient steps were taken to al ay the suspicions winch were to be eypected to ati*e from «hem meetings. Reports in Ihe papers were wretchedly scanty, a«d of the decisions none knew anything except the few who heard them read at the meeting. One cannot also but regiet that, in the first instance, n circuUr, unhampered by private correspondence, was not i^ued, stating what are the points on which the laity might claim a voice; what the pierogatives which are considered to be unalii'iiably episcopal, (at least tie precedents or authorities from which such p er nafves can be ascertained,) and how far the meeting would be bound by the Bishop's previous anaiv,e reuts. A clear statement on these points would have served as a landmark to the speakers; would have nveited much future unpleasant discussion, and w <uhl have enabled each person to judge (or hi»)*elf bow far it might be desirable for him to attend such meetings. At present, how stands the case before the public ? A letter appears in your p >per cautioning the friends of the Church against some dark plans already concocted, to which their lonstnt was sought. Shortly after, we hear that the whole has been given up in comequence of the opposition experienced. To what conclusion are we driven ? Either that such a conspiracy has been detected, which I do not for one moment believe ; or that the object proposed was not worth striving lor ; or that the men were unprepared to stand the brunt of opposition. Ceitain it is that the Biohop has no reason to be thankful for the way in which he has been treated. No vote of thanks has, I believe, been recorded for his self sacrifice and zsal ; and the member* seem quietly to h-ive sculked away from their abortive attempt, with all the shamefacedness of a beaien paity. I remain, sir, your obedient servant, A Clergyman.