COLONIAL CHURCH LEGISLATION. [From the Morning Chronicle.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 741, 8 September 1852, Page 4

COLONIAL CHURCH LEGISLATION. [From the Morning Chronicle.]

Tbe bill lately introduced' by Mr. Gladstone; "To relieve Bishops in the colonies in communion with the Church of' England, and the Clergy, and- Laity in communion with them^ in respect, to legal doubts or disabilities, af&ctiug the management of their Church affairs," cannot be considered, even by its opponents, an extravagant, measure. At first sight, indeed, it looks disproportionately brief and inexpressive. It simply relieves members of tbe Church of England from certain doubts and disabilities which are supposed to preclude them from managing their own spiritual affairs. And yet, in this very baldness — this chariness of prescribing points of detail — this province to do more than set the Church free and see true wisdom. If the Legislature has, either purposely or unconsciously, tied up the distant branches of the Church — a point which, though generally assumed, is perhaps open to question — all that the Church asks is to be let loose. The colonial Church seeks no privileges, no immunities, no monopolies — but simply to do as she' thinks fit with her own, and to mend or mar her own concerns as she will or can. This is a claim' for the most meagre and elemental justice. And, being such, it will, sooner or later, be practically recognized. What the sects possess — the simple right, as citizens, to manage their own affairs — cannot, in the long run, be withheld from the Church. The cause of synodical actio,n is so naturally, so easily, so constitutionally, winning its way, that it is our province rather to note and record the stages of its advance than to give it stimulants. A natural growth requires but little extraneous aid ; and the progress of this question so happily illustrates the way in which reforms are usually carried under a Constitution like our own, that it may well serve as a specimen of the progressive, yet conservative, spirit of our institutions. First there is a lack, a grievance,' a hitch, a wrong. It galli and frets, and, ts it pinches more severely, it begins to be talked about — though, it may be, vaguely, coarsely, and with an irresolute and merely tentative purpose. Then it attracts the attention of a body of persons specially interested in it. It gradually assumes shape and consistence. It becomes a question of the day. It developes itself into committees, public meetings, leading articles, it is taken up Parliamentary notables. In time it advances from talking to acting; a practical course is suggested ; and tne thing wanted is perhaps tried here and there, in an approximating way. From a theory it has now advanced to a iougb and extemporaneous experiment. The canse lives — there it is. The- thing desired has had the test of experiment — an experiment, it may be, of an informs], incomplete, and mutilated character, but still euough by way of a test. It has done no barm — it has effected some good — : so much that we may fairly reckon upon more under better circumstances. Nothing remains but that, injh£~endj it wins its way-7-it- receives legislative sanction — it becomes part of tbe Constitution. Such is the political law of nature wjth respect to English reforms. They grow — they develop themselves naturally a felt practical ;qeed supplies itself. This has been more or less ■the case with synodical action, and with the claim made by the Church for corporate freedom. The cause has thus ' far successfully won its way, not only by its own innate justice, but also by the prudence and moderation which its advocates have invariably displayed in its discussion and 1 agitation. _. , The introduction of Mr. Gladstone's measure is a stage in the history of the question. The, ! Bill is simplicity itself. Its single permissive I enactment is abundantly fenced with prohibitions and safeguards. It anticipates the jealous spirit which it may possibly arouse, in a temper of generous and irank conciliation,. The bishop, and clergy, and laity of a colonial diocese are permitted to meet, and to " make all such regulations as may be held necessary for the better conduct of their ecclesiastical affairs, and for. the holding of meetings for tbe said purpose thereafter.". This is the solitary concession ; and even this is qualified by the salutary conditions that such meetings " may not impose temporal penalties ; nor shall the regulations be binding, except on those who declare themselves to be in communion with the Church of^ England ; nor snail they be more effective than other regulations in force in the colonies among o^er religious,; bodies ; nor shall any regulation as to electing

bishops be valid- without the Royal' consent.", Moreover, all tuch regulations shall be subject to disallowance by the Archbfohop of Canterbury ; whilst due care is taken for continuing the oaths* of allegiance, and the use of the Articles and 800k 1 of Common Prayer. It cannot' be said in the face of all these limitations, that the colonial Church is very exorbitant in her demands. , As regards the general interests of the State and viewing (he question as one of mere politics, it may be well to remember that to withhold Tights, temporal or spiritual, from colonial dependencies which have made some advances towards political maturity, is the surest way to cause them to waver in their loyalty. An unwise and selfish delay in removing grievances, or in conferring privileges, is as fertile^ source of disaffec-, tion in the colonies as actual tyranny and raisgovernment on, the part of the mother country. History shows this. From the experience gained in the conflict with our American dependencies, it is unquestionable that justice to the Church is the most effectual mode ot creating or consolidating a party of order in the colonies. But those very persons — the earnest colonial laity — who, in the hour of difficulty, would be the trustiest defenders of Imperial connection, may possibly be the first to demand a separation from the mother country, if they are, long left in their present precarious and anomalous ecclesiastical relations. We can readily understand that a Churchman of Australia or Canada may realize to himself very keenly the fact that every lost which he suffers as a Churchman is due to connection with the mother country. When, as in the United States, that tie is once severed, he sees that the Church expands— that she has her bishops, her synods, her freedom to suit, her organization to local or occasional necessities ; to say the least of it, it will be a great political blunder to permit Churchmen in the colonies to grow up into a hankering after separation upon ecclesiastical and religious groupds. If our dependencies are worth retaining, few things are more likely to cement their union with England, than giving them a free ecclesiastical constitution. The difficulties attendant upon appeals, the impossibility of devising remedies at Lambeth /or sociil evils which exist at Fort Phillip, might, we. think justify even less cautjon than was shown in Mr. Gladstone's Bill by the reservation of an unlimited power to the see of Canterbury. It is. plain that, as things are, the colonies are sub-, stantially without ecclesiastical government ; and; the necessity of a reference to Lambeth on all, points seems to us but a cumbrous application of; the principle in which originated the appellate! jurisdiction of Rome. One of the most direct benefits. arising to the. Colonial Charch from such a measure as that now before Parliament, is that.it would release her from her precarious and dependent position, in temporal matters. Ii is a law of the Church, that it should be self-supporting ; and the colonists will never duly value their privileges as Church-men-—will never realize their true position, their duties, and their responsibilities, so long as they are pensioners on the Society in Pall-mall. England will always have duties to perform towards her- dependencies, in religious matters— -a rich .Church must always' be prepared to, help a poor one — the. mother may not abandon her children in their infancy, or distress. But when Churches are ripe for self-government, they are ready for self support. As no secular organization can ever really flourish while it relies on artificial bounties and protections, so no Church, wbile it remains a pensioner upon others, can acquire its true position as an integral ecclesiastical policy. One, at least, of the causes which have retarded the growth of the colonial Church, and which accounts for its lax hold on its nominal members, is that the colonists have been so rarely i called upon to maintain their own bishops and pastors, and have had such few occasions for occasions for evincing an active personal concern in the Church system. The Church comes to them as an importation — its clergy are the nominees of strangers — in its institutions, its organization, its extension, they have little personal interest, because they have no personal responsibility. If we desire the increase of the colonial episcopate and pastorate— if we wish to see the colonial ' clergy honoured and respected — if we have at > heart the efficiency of the Church institutions and doctrine, and if we would give them an increased bold on the, affections and duties of the people — we must turn the colonial Church over to her own care, and, by some such scheme as Mr. Gladstone's, teach her to walk alone.