CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4952, 5 February 1877, Page 2

CHURCH OF ENGLAND GENERAL SYNOD.

(FROM OCa BFECIAL BBP9BTKR.) "... Nelson, Saturday. At the General Synod last" sight the Bev. Mr. HiEVEY resumed.thedebatie on'the Formularies 'xßill, which he.isupportedii.'f All were agreed as totheidesirabilitypf maintaining .unity'With"the Church of England. But some appeared to-confeundunity-with uni« formity. ! that" sb long as they agreed with; the* Church of England in essentials it not : matter w if" ;tKey"differed in other respects, and he contended, that; the constitu* tion was not the' sole bond"which''held them together;]and eo :long as. the Church of New Zealand 'did not lapse into heresy nothing would justify churchmen in leaving r the "Church, &$ some had thoughtlessly threatened-to do.

Mr. LtsK denied] that the" Billwas a conservative 1 measure, as its supporters, asserted. The disruption -of -the-; Scotch-Presbyterian bb/dy was "caused; by'over legislation, in which the laity'had no-adequate-post. They ought to pause before making the same mistake here; '■'*■ -'■ *J , . ..> - -V. Messrs. Peebson and Tcbneß supported the Bill. "J--:;r:[ ■. •■'-•;■ : ; . ..;.';-

Mr. Hibst warned the Synod to be careful how they tampered with - the constitution. Mr. Rous Martin regretted to hear Mr. -Brown's; remarks ; that the opponents of the Bill were fighting, in defence of -an old rotten gate, for that gate really was" the honor and jjood faith of New Zealand churchmen. The constitution: made the Synod, and not the !Synod the constßtution._jQn behalf jaf the great body iof churchmen, who entertained a deep and-loyal,att"achment,'fpr the 1 Church of Eng» land, which formed the sole claim of;i : theil New Church on allegiance, he opposed the Bill, as tending, to separa* tion from! the; mother Church. The great ma* - jorityi of laymen did not desire alterations, and 1 distrusted the; measure as apparently leading to 'separation, and r .nothing<' would? satisfy them short of a complete and unqualified rejection of .thelBUL- ' - ; •:; -■-.' jSlr. pointed out that if this measure \yere carried the power o£~the laity in this'Syn'od and the Diocesan Synods would en* able them to check any hasty changes. ;' Mr. Bickbrinq opposed the Bill.-' r The Bishop of Donedin thought they ought to have started-from the-point at-which they were left by!the"-last Synod.;"; Some still held that,we were, aivintegral part of the English Church". Thatwas the .position of the Australian _Church, not 'of that of New Zealand. It had been argued that the Church was free as to) general principles, but was restrained by particular enactments ; but-no Synod could bind its successors forever. Lord Cranworth's ruling in' the case of Forbes and Eden was adopted by the American Judges. As to arguments that there were no present danger of changes being demanded, it was' not part of a reasonable thing to wait until actual danger arrived bsfore guarding against it. The Rev. Mr. Watkins opposed the Bill, ' The Kev. Mr. Fell fully recognised the power of the Synod to alter or repeal any former legislation even fundamental; but, then,, this Bill was useless, and no safeguard, for any subsequent Synod could repeal it. The Primate then made a moderate speech' in favor of the BilL He was followed on the same side by. the Bishop of Nelson. The. Rev. Mr. Andrew ' made a powerful speech against the Bill, after, which Archdeacon Habpeb made a long and most able reply- ' , ' The Synod then divided 'on the question, that leave be given to introduce the Bill, the result being :—Ayes : -Bishops, 5"; clergy, 7 J laity, 5 % Noes : Clergy, 12 ; laity, 14. The motion was * therefore lost The announcement was received with loud and, prolonged applause, and the scene was one of great excite* ment " ' The Synod adjourned at midnight.