CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4951, 3 February 1877, Page 2

CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD.

- —... . (FROM ODR’ SPECIAL EEFOEI'EB.)' " Nelson, Friday. In the General Synod last evening-the-de-bate on the Formularies. Bill was resumed by Archdeacon Stock, ; who spoke"in support of the Bill. The - original - conference by which the compact had been drawn nip had no right to say a certain principle-should be fundamental and unalterable.'. The’resolution, however, did not rest'on that compact, but on the regular meeting of the Synod, with the Primate at its head. ’ They ought to prepare for possible unquiet' times’in the future, so .that that they might not then have to legislate. - - Mr. Acton-Adams the_preamble and recitals of the BUI, and argued that, it was going the wrong way .to work. The constitution might be altered if they went the . right way to ; work, but not .in the way proposed. It might be done by a General Council of the Church; but.that - was not desirable, for it would seriously affect the tenure of Church-prqperty, which. they.CQuldnot.ietain if they diverged from the conditions under which it. was granted. : The Churches of England and New Zealand : were one. Were it hot, how; could our; Bishops sit ’in ’Lambeth Conference?" ; . ~ ; -• • Archdeacon Williams’ supported the Bill. " Miv Baenicoat thought they ought to lay down some rule'astothe alteratiou "of~formularies, or'they might some day find them altered by a simple resolution.' , * . ’,■ : : : The Rev.. Mr. Dudley held that; the Bill was both ultra vires aad inexpedient. 1 It would cause alarm and open the door to grave alterations. | ' ! ; The Rev. E. Williams supported the BilL Mr. Hunter Brown thought the opponents 'of the Bill (were defending a rotten gate instead 6f!-making-> ne\y bnei. > !The Rev. 'Mr.-FANCOUKT supported the Bill,, arguing "that they "were bound to accept a constitution, and. not. merely what each might interpret} as its meaning. ‘ , , Mr. Lusk opposed the Bill as unnecessary ~ ;Mr. ! Qutxb supported it. ’"He' contended that they ought to provide beforehand, when all was. at peace, for. possibly necessary alterations. ' 1 ■' - . The/Bey. ,Mr. ;Lingabd thought that the peace of the Church wasalready.affected by -this. proposed_legialation.'.' It .Iwasjhore. at peace in 1874,that,in 1877, and more,a month ‘ ago ' ( than , now. '.' They , had 'a' right to alter,' but it did not follow that they should exercise that right. Under the constitution aa at, present any member. proposing'; such an alt eration as the abolition "of the Athanksian -Creed, .must be-ruled! out of,, order. They should let the. communication rest, and wait till the!mother Church -moved, then they might follow if they choose, although they were not bound to do so. ( , ‘..The. Rev.’Mr! ( Penny opposed the Bill. ■ Mr. Quick,'from Dunedin, also opposed the Bill,' and expressed regret that Mr! Oliver, who "was one'of 'their nominated should go in’directly opposite to the views of his . constituents. If they could" alter, one . clause !of ; the , constitution, why not another t 'Why not ‘change, clause. 5 'and'do away with Bishops 7 ’ Why .not say there’ should beonly two'orders or onelnsteadofthree, oralter the mode of. voting by ordera,; Or indeed abolish the* Synod'altogether ?' If they could make one alteration they could make another. ' ” IThe Rev. Mr. .Harvey moved the adjournment, of the, .debate, .and the Synod then adjourned; ’;, '■ .■> '

This'’ afternoon’s ’ sitting, "was, occupied mainly- -frith 'fSimal ’business, Excepting the debate on Mr.' : Bods ' Marten’s Emotion; that the prayer of the petition from .thejparisLionel's of St. Peter’s,Wellington,'be acceded to. After some diecussionilhis.".petition"was referred, to the' Committee .on Trusts_.to report on.