DIOCESAN SYNOD.

Southland Times, Issue 693, 8 July 1867, Page 3

DIOCESAN SYNOD.

■ ■-■ — *— — ~ - I (From the " Lyttelton Times," June 19.) , | *»——■. The opening of the Synod took place yesterday. Divine Service was solemnized at St. Michael's Church, at 10.30 a.m. The following clergymen were present: The Very Rev, the Dean of Christchurch, the Revds Canon Dudley, E. A. lingard, R. S. Jackson, J. OB Hoare, H. Torlesse, W. W. Willock, G. Carpenter, and E. Turrell. Prayers were offered by the Very Rev. the: Dean of Christchurch. The first lesson was read by the Rev. Canon Dudley, arid the second by the Very Rev. the Dean of Christchurch. The most Holy Eucharist was administered, proceeds of the offertory -were devoted towards defraying the expenses of the Synod, .7.The members of the Synod then adjourned to the Freemasons' ' Hall, which had been courteously lent for the purpose. A The roll of the synodsmen, both , clerical, and lay, having been called over, the Right Rev. Chairman offered prayers, after which J the Synod was declared duly constituted. His Lordship the Bishop proceeded to deliver the following charge :— ; " My Reverend Beethben and Beethben op TTCB TiATTr : — " The assembling of our Synod at this time, after BO oJlort a notion, will, I foaa', llarro oooctoivjUOtl you some inconvenience ; but having decided that it -was my duty, in compliance with tha invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to attend the Conference of the "Anglican Commission, which is about to be held at Lambeth, I was desirous not only of taking council with you on those Diocesan matters which may require a speedy settlement, but especially of ascertaining the sentiments of our Diocesan Church, in reference to some important questions which "are likely to engage the attention of the Conference j and in no other way could I more satisfactorily accomplish this than through the Synod, which virtually represents the Church in this diocese. " The qnestion in which perhaps we are most deeply interested, is that bearing upon the relations of the Coloni-al Church to the Crown and the Mother Courch. . "We cannot, I think, have considered with attention the recent important judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council without coming to the conclusion that, as a religou3 body, the Church of England in the colonies has no connexion with the Crown, excepting such connexion as may have been incidentally created by the issuing an acceptance of the Letters Patent, under which" the Colonial Bishop 3 have been hitherto appointed. The plain import of these judgments appeears to be that the Church of England in the Colonies, which has, as we have here, an independent legislature, stands in the eye of the law en the same " footing as any other religious community. It is quite true that since ■ the judgments of the Privy Council were delivered anotherjudgment has been given by the Master of the Rolls, which seems to imply that the Church of England in the Colonies is, in some sense, still a part of the Established Church of England, and subject therefore, to the ecclesiastical laws of England, with the Sovereign in England as its supreme head, and the Privy Council as its. final Court of Appeal ; but not to mention that this is the judgment of an. inferior court, and cannot therefore overide the judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Imperial Government in two recent instances ■with which we are acquainted, under the advice of the le<-al officers of the Crown has acted on the decisions°of the Privy Council, viz., in refusing to issue Letters Patent in the case of Bishops who •were consecrated in England for this Colony, and in declining to interfere, by Royal Mandate or License, in the consecration of a coadjutor Bishop elected by the Synod ef the Diocese of Toronto. EOYAIi STJPBE3IACY. "We must conclude, therefore, that the Crown does not consider itself legally empowered to exercise authority over the Colonial Church as its personal head; in other words, that the Royal Supremacy as regards the Church does not extend to those Colonies to which an independent, legislature has been granted. "IMPBOBABIIJTY OF SUCH SOTBEMAOY BEING ESTABUSHED. " Nor is there any probability, so far as I am able to judge, that such supremacy, in any form or degree, fn ecclesiastical matters, will be established by the Imperial Legislature. We cannot have watched the course of pubhc opinion in England without observing that, even before the judgments of the Privy Council, the Imperial Parliament was opposed to all legislation on behalf of the Colonial Church ; because partly, as it would seem, the several bills (four, I believe, in number) which were brought forward at different times for this purpose gave, or appeared to give, to the Church a legal status which was not to be given to other religious bodies ; and partly from an unwillingness to supersede or interfere with the authority of the Colonial Legislatures ; and it can hardly be doubted but that the objection to all such legislation wiil be stronger at this present time, and that the opinion of the late Colonial Secretary will meet with general acceptance, viz. : —That the only safe course for the Imperial Legislature to adopt in respect of ecclesiastical matters, is just that which has been adopted in respect of civil matters, namely, to allow the colonies perfect freedom in self-govern-ment. To attempt to take any course— to attempt to build upon a shadowy foundation the prerogative of a quasi-established o> privileged church, would be to confer upon those colonies a useless and even a mischievous hoon. v " INEXPEDIENCY , OP ST7CH StTPBEMACY. "In a letter from the Bishop of London, •which I published for general information in the newspapers a few months since, an inquiry was made how far the Royal supremacy, as acknowledged by the United Church of England and Ireland can be maintained in the Colonial Churches. If the authorities in England decline to exercise any control in ecclesiastical matters in the colonies, either as heretofore by the appointment of Bishops or by sanctioning their appointment, or by obtaining from the Imperial Legislature powers which the Crown does not at present possess, the. only way by which the Royal supremacy can be acknowledged in the colonies, must be by an act of our own, by a voluntary engagement on our part to recognise the Queen's authority as the head of the Church ; but it must be clearly understood that the Royal supremacy, by this recognition of it, would hot carry with it the same power as it does in the Church at home, where it forms a part of the law of the land. There would be no legal obligation binding on the Colonial Ohuroh (excepting so for as we might choose of ourselves) to accept ecclesiastical rules or .canons : which might

i no appeal from* the Church here, or from any!! I tribunals or courts which we might^agree to estab-, | I lish, to any of the courts in_ England, except I through the Supreme Court ; and no appeal even from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Com-| mitte of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical cases, in which the Archbishops, and Bishop of London may sit as assessors. The appeal would be to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, .such as that by which" the recent judgments have been given," which is equally .open to any religious denomination. In other words, we "should gain nothing more by our recognition of the Royal: supremacy in any ecclesiastical suits than that; which' we already possess as citizehß of the* empire.' • * y_' • .."OHTTBCH CONSTITUTION. A * . "We have, it may be said, already placed oiir; ; selves, so far as we are able, under the'authority of the Crown, by the fundamental provisions of our Constitution Deed, in -which' -we have declared that *we shall have no . power , tp make any alteration in the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures, or. in the . formularies of the Church, excepting such as, shall be adopted by the United Church of England and Ireland, with tho consent of the Crown 'and Convocation,', and by making it necessary that *we should have a license from the Crown both to frame new and modify existing rules, not affecting doctrine, with the view of meeting the peculiar circumstances of the colony and people.' "We have thus limited, to a certam extent, our freedom °* octum by .provisions which we call fundamental,, and which it is not within the power of the General, Synod, or of any Dioueaan Synod to alter*. revoke, add to, or diminish. " It may be a question, however (and this is a matter for which we must be prepared), whether if your Church here be that which I have assumed it to be, a voluntary society over which the Crown has no authority in ecclesiastical cases, and over which no such authority shall be given, the separation of the Chrch from the State, which is referred to in the fourth of these fundamental provisions, has not already in effect taken place ,* and if so, whether the General Synod has not full power under tliis provision to make all alterations in the articles, services, and ceremonies in our branch of the Church as its altered circumstances may require, or to make such alterations as it may think fit in the authorised version of the Bible. , . „.,>, " This provision was inserted among tne lundamental provisions in compliance with an opinion expressed by eminent legal authorities in England, that the property of the Church in New Zealand, vested in trustees under the. General Synod, might be placed in jeopardy, unless provision were made for the contingency of a separation of New Zealand from the mother country, and for. that of an alteration in the existing relations between Church and State. I need hardly say that at the time when this provision was inserted in the Deed of Constitution we regarded the colonial Church here, as we had been led to do by the authorities in England, from whom the | Bishops derived their letters patent, as identified with the United Church of England and Ireland, subject, through the Queen's supremacy, to the same' ecclesiastical laws. 'It would seem now that this was an unwarranted assumption on our part; that, at all events, since it has been judicially tested in the highest courts of law, it has been found destitute of any legal foundation, and can have none, except by the aid of the Imperial ! Parliament or the Colonial Legislature. " The result would seem to be, that we are at ! liberty not only to frame rules for our internal organisation and government, but if the General Sy^iod should think fit to do so, may, without infringement of any existing law, make alterations in the authorised version of the Holy Scriptures, and the formularies of the Church. I state m plain terms that appears to me to be the position of our New Zealand Church at this time ; I have gathered my opinions from the writings of those who may be supposed to be fully conversant with the subject, and who are far better able than I' am to arrive at a sound and unbiassed judgment on the present relations between our Church and the State. One thing is evident, that we have done nothing on our part to sever these relations. Our Church Constitution was prepared in the full persuasion that the Royal supremacy had a place in the Oolonial Church ; and we were content that it should be so, or rather, I should say, that it never entered into our minds that it should be otherwise, .at least m our days. It can never bo said, with any degree of -truth, that the separation between our Church and State has been brought about by any act .. of our own, or by any expression of dissatisfaction with the supposed connexion of the Colonial Church and the State. I can say with confidence of myself, and I have no doubt my episcopal brethren can say the same, that we accepted in simple faith the Royal Letters Patent which im-plied-that connexion. It .would seem, however, that we had misunderstood them ; that they were void in law for all purposes of establishing and maintaining a connexion between the Church in this colony and the Crown. That our Church here, notwithstanding the Royal mandate under which our consecration to our office took place, was in the same relation with any other rehgiousbody—in no better, but in no worse. We accordingly respectfully tendered the resignation ot our letters Patent, and accepted our position, as having only the spiritual authority incidental to our office, which was ah that the decision of^the Privy Council permitted us to claim, and which was not affected by the surrender of the Letters Patent. .. Whether, therefore, if left to ourselves, we should have desired or not the severance of the supposed connection between our Church and the State, we cannot, I think, do otherwise now than accept mat severance ao a rauu, «* *~«».o..-, j- •"■**"" say as a dispensation of the Providence of Almighty God, which, whether for good or evil, has been permitted to come upon us. It is nothing more, perhaps, than what we might have anticipated, judging from the freedom of action in civil matters which is accorded to the colonies ; and the question which most concerns us, is how we may use for good the like freedom of action, which seems to be accorded to us in ecclesiastical matters. "CONNEXION WITH THE MOTHEB OHTTBCH. " There is one thing, I am persuaded, which we shall all desire to maintain, so far as may be possible— our connexion with the Mother Church, even though we might seem to impose thereby some restraint upon our liberty. We must desire to continue one with her in doctrine and government, because such doctrine and government are the inheritance of the Catholic Church of Christ, hi* 0 which God has called us in order to our salvation ; and it seems to me that though we may require a large amount of liberty for the ordering of our own affairs, for the promotion of discipline among ourselves, and for the adaptation of the ministrations of the Church to the j peculiar circumstances in which we are placed, it ia needful for the maintenance of union among

Anghcan Church,* that we should not altogether stand alone. "We heed some aid; I" would almost say some control from without ; such a control which, though it may not have the direct force of law, in the ordinary sense of the4^p--f or be enforced by the Court established inT England under the Queen's authority, may be yet binding upon us hy some act or declaration »f our own. We cannot expect that the Impsrial Parliament, will aid us in this through the Ecclesiastical! Courts in England. And no civil courts in England, however high in authority, would meet our; requirements. They would not enter upon those; points . which we might desire to bring before ; them— points, perhaps, bearing" directly upon some vital tenet of ourreligipn j besides this, the expenses attending an appeal from hence, either! to the ecclesiastical, or civil cpurfp in E_ngland, as; at present constituted, would amount in many i instances almost to* a denial of justice. | ■ - .-.■.-.'*. .(To be continued.) .