1854 - Cholmondeley, T. Ultima Thule - CHAPTER XVIII. THE CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND.

       
E N Z B       
       Home   |  Browse  |  Search  |  Variant Spellings  |  Links  |  EPUB Downloads
Feedback  |  Conditions of Use      
  1854 - Cholmondeley, T. Ultima Thule - CHAPTER XVIII. THE CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND.
 
Previous section | Next section      

CHAPTER XVIII. THE CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND.

[Image of page 249]

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND.

1. General principles for a Church constitution.

THE Bishop of New Zealand, in a pastoral letter, dated April 19, 1852, recommended to the colonists the following as "general principles" for the basis of a constitution of the church in New Zealand:--

"1. That the Bishop, Clergy, and Laity shall be three distinct orders; the consent of all of which shall be necessary to all acts binding upon the Church at large.

"2. Subject to the foregoing principle, that each order be at liberty to conduct its deliberations separately, or to unite with the others, at its own discretion.

"3. That provisionally, till a definition of Church membership shall have been agreed on by a general convention, every person shall be deemed a member of the Church of England who shall make a written declaration to that effect to the Clergyman of his parish, or district.

"4. That every adult Church member who shall have been duly registered, be entitled to vote at the election of lay representatives to the first General Convention.

"5. That it shall rest with the General Convention to decide how, and by whom, all patronage shall be exercised, and in what manner all persons holding Church offices shall be removable from the same; and also to fix the amount of all salaries, fees, and other allowances.

"6. That it is necessary that the Church body, constituted

[Image of page 250]

as above, should be legally incorporated; and that all sites of churches, burial grounds, schools, and lands for the endowment of the church, &c., should be vested in the general incorporation.

"7. That in order to maintain the Queen's supremacy and union with the mother church, a draft of the constitution proposed for the Church in New Zealand, be submitted to her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury through the metropolitan Bishop of Sydney, with a petition that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct the necessary steps to be taken, whether by Act of Parliament or by Royal Charter, to secure to our branch of the English Church, the liberty, within certain limits, of framing laws for its own government.

"8. That neither the doctrines, nor the ritual of the Church of England, nor the authorised version of the Bible, shall, in any way, be subject to the decision of the general Convention.

"9. That the Bishop of New Zealand be requested to embody the above resolutions in the form of a petition, and to take such stops as may be necessary for carrying into effect the wishes of the memorialists."

In the pastoral letter accompanying this the Bishop expresses his conviction, grounded upon accounts from other colonies and from England, that the time for a church constitution has arrived. "The necessity," he goes on to say, "for this measure arises mainly from two causes. First, that the church in this colony is not established by law; and, consequently, that a large portion of the ecclesiastical law of England is inapplicable to us. Secondly, that the church in this colony is dependent mainly upon the voluntary contributions of its members." He con-

[Image of page 251]

cludes by giving his reason for desiring "a charter of incorporation to be granted to our branch of the English church, in order to frame bylaws for ourselves in all such matters as relate to our own peculiar position." The reason is, that such laws could not be obtained in any other manner; convocation in England being a dead letter; and the constitution of the British and colonial Legislatures being such that they are not competent to enact laws for the government of the church.

2. Movement in its favour.

The intelligence from England here , spoken of was, I presume, an account of the strenuous exertions of Mr. Gladstone to procure a free church constitution for Australia. Mr. Gladstone's attempt failed, as far as its direct object was concerned; but it was of great service indirectly, in awakening the attention of churchmen in Australia and New Zealand to the nature of their position. It was an appeal to them to begin to look more earnestly after their own interest as members of the church; that while others were thinking and acting for them in England, they should not for shame be so fainthearted as to neglect their own part in the struggle. This appeal was warmly answered by the Pacific colonies. Particularly in every part of New Zealand, meetings of churchmen took place, and resolutions were passed expressing the unsatisfactory position in which the church stood. Altogether there was a strong feeling everywhere that some change must and ought to take place: such a change as would awaken the

[Image of page 252]

body of the people to a sense of their wants, their duties, and their rights as members of the church.

At Canterbury a committee was formed, and a memorial was forwarded to the Bishop of New Zealand, setting forth the state of public opinion, and praying for his advice and assistance. The Bishop concluded from all this, and I think we may safely conclude with him, that the time for a church constitution had arrived. He felt, no doubt, that it was his business not to suffer the feelings and desires thus awakened to evaporate in inaction, or to be wasted in disputes and delays; but to gather them towards some definite effort; to guide them; give them purpose, force, and meaning. His Lordship was evidently most thoroughly in earnest; and surely his conscientious endeavours in the cause of his church deserve to be crowned with success. Their result remains to be seen.

3. Ecclesiastical law.

When the Bishop says, that "a large portion of the ecclesiastical law of England is inapplicable to us" in New Zealand, he refers, of course, to the internal regulations by which the system of church discipline is by law maintained and enforced in England. There is, indeed, in the Supreme Court, a substitute for so much of the English ecclesiastical law as relates to the laity, and which, after all, is only a remnant of a Romish usurpation, which stole in with the Norman-French conquest of England.

In the Supreme Court ordinance of 1844,

[Image of page 253]

it is provided in paragraph 4, that the court shall

"Have exclusive jurisdiction in all questions relating to testacy and intestacy, and the validity of wills of personal property, as fully as any Ecclesiastical Court has in England. The Court shall also have exclusive power to grant probates of wills and letters of administration of the estates and effects of deceased persons, and to take order for the due passing of the accounts of the executors and administrators of such persons."

The other portion of ecclesiastical (i.e. the purely and strictly ecclesiastical) law, is unknown both in New Zealand and, I believe, in any British colony.

4. Present position of the church.

Since the church has no legal existence in the colony, it has, of course, no special laws or jurisdiction which can be enforced by the State. It exists just as the Roman Catholic or the Wesleyan bodies exist, with the exception that their systems are built expressly to meet such a difficulty; while "ours," if I may so call it, is nicely calculated to work as a dependency of the State. Thus the church gets hit on both sides; and it seems only just to demand either an independent existence, or, at any rate, the benefits of dependency. The church of New Zealand has neither the first nor the second, if we except certain pecuniary aids, which might probably be dispensed with were she in a healthy condition. Now the Bishop says:--give us a constitution, give us independent action; make our church capable of ordering its

[Image of page 254]

own affairs. We demand the power of self-government inherent in an "estate."

5. What is the church constituency.

But there is a difficulty at the very threshold of this church-constitution movement. It is a difficulty which suggested itself immediately, wherever the agitation began, and seemed to swell as it continued. The Bishop, in his third article, alludes to it in the words "definition of church membership." The question unfolds itself as follows. For what body is this constitution demanded? For the church in New Zealand (we will suppose it to be understood that the Church of England is the church). What is its object? To give the church a power of acting for itself. How is it to govern itself? Its constituent members must decide that. Who are its constituent members? Many answers have been given to this question, which, however simple it may appear at first sight, is really one of the most difficult which could possibly solicit a practical answer. All that the Bishop attempts to do is, to give a provisional definition, which may be adopted or rejected, as seems good to the first general convention.

"Those who make a written declaration to the clergyman of their parish, shall be taken for members of the church," and, after being duly registered may vote at the election of lay representatives. In other words, the lay representatives in the first general convention, on whose decision the definition of the franchise is to

[Image of page 255]

depend, are to be chosen by a self-elected constituency. A course like this may be justified, on the ground that it is necessary to make a commencement in some way or other; and that this is the least objectionable initiatory measure which could be proposed; nay, it may be recommended as large and liberal. It is, nevertheless, open to a very strong objection. Will the lay representatives, elected in such a manner, carry any weight with them? Ought not the franchise to be authoritatively fixed anterior to any election, as a matter of necessity, in order to give weight to that election?

6. Who is to fix it?

But who is to fix it? And of what description is it to be?--Since the Church of England is the mother church, we may naturally look in that direction. Must we refer the question to Her Majesty and the heads of the church in England, or to Convocation? Or must we follow the steps of the mother church as far as possible, without questioning any of her authorities? They must be sanguine indeed, who expect to wring from either the Court or Bishops of England, a single word to advance the independent interests of any church whatever. Convocation is entranced; meeting only upon sufferance; and never allowed to enter upon its proper business. And, were it as active as its friends could wish, to ask the representatives of the English clergy to fix a definition for church-membership for the use of the laity of New Zealand, surely grates against common

[Image of page 256]

sense. Nor is there any precedent in English history worth anything for the purpose. Perhaps the English were too wise to allow of any such definitions, or rather, since all were considered Christians, and therefore members in common of the church until they were excommunicated, there was need of none. In old English times, when the nation and the church were coextensive, the various classes and orders of the nation were represented in parliament, and the clergy had representative institutions of their own, in the spiritual provinces of Canterbury and York. Their convocations were first made a means of taxing them by King Edward I. He could better squeeze them when he had them together assembled. But they were too stout to collect at the summons of the King, denying that he had any right to assemble them. So it was managed by an accommodation. The King wrote to the Archbishop, and the Archbishop summoned the clergy: thus their scruples were quieted. In after times, the Convocation became a mere State machine; and so soon as it ceased to be profitable, Royalty dropped it. It is obvious enough that the old English system was based upon circumstances and principles altogether and entirely different from anything we have now-a-days. The essential difference may thus be summed up. Our aim at present is, to obtain a representation of the whole church within itself, apart from any nationality; whereas, according to the old English theory, church and

[Image of page 257]

nation went together; and it was the clergy who had a peculiar representation confined to themselves. Again, it is an important, though merely accidental difference, that, while the English church was and is richly endowed, the church in New Zealand depends mainly upon voluntary contributions.

Lastly, the laity in England is represented in the government of the church, through the direct and indirect channels of royalty and of parliament, and, in particular parishes, by the ratepayers. To deny this, is to confine the application of the word "representation" within very narrow bounds. But this is impossible in New Zealand. Our church there is not one whit more connected with the colony than any other religious body is. Nor is it advisable, in these days, that any difference in this respect should exist. It is therefore, for many reasons, next to impossible to have any definition of church membership for New Zealand, settled either by existing authority in England, or from any analogy in English history. Let us now inquire whether there is any other clue to guide to a decision, either in practical life, or in the ancient constitution of the primitive church.

7. A money payment proposed.

His Excellency Sir George Grey, at the meeting held at Wellington, January 7th, 1852, proposed an annual payment, as a Constituency-basis for a Church Society. But this again was merely provisional; and is only mentioned here to show

[Image of page 258]

the possibility of such an arrangement being suggested. Such a plan would be less distasteful in a thriving colony than anywhere else; because, if the contribution was fixed at a small yearly sum, there would be very few families unable to belong to the church; and it is probable that the poor would be exactly those who would take the greatest pride in the punctuality of their payments. But a proposal to make money the first condition for admission to any privilege in a religious society, is surely, whatever be its apparent expediency, in itself objectionable; for the most religious people are the most opposed to it.

8. Sacramental test.

It was proposed at Canterbury, that the lay constituency should consist of the communicants of the church; that those who were in the habit of receiving the Lord's Supper should be the elective body. This proposal is generally viewed with favour by those who have read and thought most on the subject. Archdeacon Hare, in his "Means of Unity," distinctly recommends it, and in such a manner as plainly shows that he does not believe there ought to be a doubt about its adoption; for whereas he enters into a learned argument, and brings forward authority to prove that the laity ought to be represented in a general convention of the church, according to the custom and constitution of the primitive church; he passes over this question of who shall elect the lay members, with a short and simple notice, that

[Image of page 259]

church communicants are the constituency. Would it be too much to ask Archdeacon Hare to enter at length into this subject? assuring him that it is by no means so obvious to those who have not his capital of knowledge and thought to bring to bear upon it. Or such men as Mr. Charles Harriot or Mr. Maurice may kindly instruct us. It is not easy for us accurately to define our difficulty; if we could do that, perhaps we might hope to solve it for ourselves; but I think the following may be taken as a rough expression of the feelings of those who entertain a distrust of the "Communion" test; who doubt its working powers; and reject the ordinary reasoning, by which it is advocated.

9. Sketch of objections.

Is there not something wrong in making the outward form of a purely spiritual act the qualification for a vote? Will not this directly tend to lower the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the eyes of the people? Will it not increase the common misunderstanding, already so prevalent, respecting the Lord's Supper? Comparatively few church people do, in fact, habitually communicate. There are even good people who, from one reason or another, do not. Now, can these be safely excluded, when a new church constitution is being proposed; or an old one revived, with alterations to suit the circumstances of the times? Again, is the participation in the outward rite any real test of the presence of--I say not strong religious feeling, but--a sound judgment?

[Image of page 260]

Is it the slightest guarantee? What! it will be answered, Do you then suppose such a guarantee is possible? And is it to be looked for in any conceivable property qualification, or registered declaration? No; we are aware that such a guarantee is impossible; but as it is equally so in every case, there is no extraordinary advantage to be obtained from a test, founded on the observance of a rite. But if it has no extraordinary advantage in itself, what is there to recommend it?

10. Usage of the ancient church.

The usage of the ancient church (they reply), coming to us, not with the force of an injunction, but with the winning grace of a persuasion. Now we feel a difficulty in ascertaining what the usage of the ancient church was; and, again, in recognising a distinct analogy between her condition in early times, and ours now. Such an analogy, we mean, as might support an argument of precedent, coming with the force of authority in this matter. Concerning the ancient Christian usage, what does Neander say? We can all of us, at least, read the English translation of his History of the Church, for the first centuries. We can all of us read this great work;--the monument of one of the most learned men that ever lived, a most humble and sincere Christian, who certainly omitted nothing worthy of note, however well known and trite, large or small, it may happen to be. Everything is explained in an audience where the ignorant are in the presence

[Image of page 261]

of a friend;--where the most learned are at the feet of a master. Now, Neander speaks clearly enough as to the fact, that the laity had a voice in the deliberations of the ancient churches, which they appear gradually to have lost, as the power of the Christians extended itself into the State; but we cannot find that this "voice" was ever in its nature defined, nor indeed were the laity ever "represented," in the vulgar sense of the term. If it appears that the multitude of the faithful, the elect, the church, were present at elections, did they ever do more than express their feelings in debate by acclamation? Did it amount to anything more than a vague popular influence? It certainly appears plain and natural, that those only would be admitted on such occasions, who were allowed to partake of the highest mystery of the church--the Lord's Supper--which was the privilege of the fully-approved Christian.

Again, everybody knows that frequent, and even daily communion, was the practice of the earliest Christians.

"In the Roman, Spanish, and Alexandrian churches," says Neander, "daily communion was still practised, at least in the fourth century. In other churches the custom was, to observe the communion less frequently, each individual, in fact, joining in it according as his own inward necessities required. This diversity of practice also grew out of the different views which prevailed respecting the use of this means of grace."

[Image of page 262]

Some who were in favour of the less frequent participation of the sacrament, said certain seasons ought to be chosen, in which Christians might prepare themselves; others, maintained that Christians ought never to keep away from the ordinance, except when they were suspended from participation by the Bishop.

That this influence of the laity in church matters, this constant "communion" of all Christians--that both went on together, we doubt not--our doubt is, how far the two were necessarily connected together. Who can lay his finger on the connecting link? Suppose, fifteen hundred years hence, that a question arises, whether the right to vote at a common election in England, depended upon the payment of taxes; suppose that it can be proved that there were, in 185-, an hundred electors in the town of X, and that all, as a fact, were in the habit of paying their taxes; might it be concluded, that voting in England at that time, depended upon payment of taxes? Obviously, such a conclusion would not be good; but if a speech of Mr. Hume's, shortly subsequent to that date, could be found, complaining that electors should be prevented from voting because they had not paid up, and begging for a change, on the ground that voting and tax-paying had nothing to do with one another, it might then be fairly concluded, that the exercise of the one depended upon the other.

To this the other side would reply, by urging probability. If we had (we may rejoin) no

[Image of page 263]

independent objection to what they urge, the argument of probability might suffice; but since we have, we beg to remind them, that we expect something more of them, before we can be satisfied. As the matter stands, they can only affirm, and we may admit, that the lay-constituency--or rather, what resembles, in some degree, our notion of a constituency--consisted of all Christians not under censure. Were this definition adopted in our times, it would only exclude evil livers, and would include all church people, whether they actually attended the sacrament or not; so that, if there is any precedent, it points in that direction.

11. Dispute concerning the Sacrament.

There is another difficulty which concerns the holy sacrament itself. It must not be forgotten, that it is very differently regarded by the two great parties in the church: one party regard it as a simple memorial of our Lord, the other, as a special and direct means of grace; to one party, it is (a most touching, but only and purely) a natural occurrence; to the other, there is a supernatural and miraculous agency at work; and each party is ready to defend its view, by an appeal to antiquity, and to the Bible: now, where there is such an essential difference, as there is between the high and low church party upon the sacramental theory, is it wise, is it politic, to make a sacrament the basis in fact of a church constitution? and is there not, again, something foreign to the view of either party, in the fact recorded by Neander, that the Lord's Supper was admi-

[Image of page 264]

nistered to infants in the church of North Africa?

"For they did not sufficiently distinguish between the sign and the divine thing which it signified; and understanding all that is said in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, concerning the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ, of the mere outward participation of the Lord's Supper, they concluded that this from the very first was absolutely necessary to the attainment of salvation."

12. Can Scripture be called in?

If we are unable to find anything in early church history, which can be considered at all conclusive, in favour of a sacramental elective qualification for our church in our time; if we believe that the proposal must, like any other, rest solely upon its own merits, and reasons of expediency, and that the attempts to bring it in with a high hand, under cover of church usage, can only be argued by narrowing the question, and distorting analogy; we may still ask ourselves, whether there is anything in the Word of God in favour of the claim alluded to; thus leaving the stream to drink at the source; leaving the primitive ages for the Apostles themselves; if there is anything, it will be found in the Acts, or the apostolic letters that succeed them. From the 15th chapter of the Acts, it is clear that the earliest Christians assembled together to deliberate; and it continually appears, that they were in the daily habit of breaking bread (communicating): chap. ii. 42-46.

It is perfectly plain, then, that the same people

[Image of page 265]

did both, but did they, as a fact, take their share in the public business of the church, because they communicated, one whit more than because they diligently performed all other duties, and enjoyed other privileges? Whatever belonged to their private or public life was sanctified to God; there was no miserable cutting-up of the entire life into parts, but all belonged to the whole. If all went together, why select one? What is there in the Bible to fix one spiritual act more than another?

13. A good life the real communion.

But it is said, the Holy Communion is the very essence of all other spiritual acts; is is not only the greatest, but it may be said to include all others. Not, be it replied, if we read the Bible aright; the grossest darkness of superstition, the narrowest ignorance of what is in "man," has degraded the grand old Christian sacramental theory of life into a few rites. Both our great parties, while they dispute about the nature and definition of this or that sacrament, appear to have let go the divine consciousness of life in every action being a sacrament to the child of God.

This moral blindness makes them forget that God is the God of the East and the West alike; Tabor and Hermon, and not less the smallest hillock, rejoice before Him. Let them continue, however, to quarrel about rags; the treasure is safe enough, though they will never find it.

The ancient Christians were so full of the sweet, blessed, and most comfortable thought, that God alone is, and alone can be, Very Life, that they

[Image of page 266]

were minded of it, and of their divine founder as showing it forth, in the commonest act of living; they thought of it when they ate and drank: but the flower faded, and their successors from generation to generation have gone on misunderstanding and misrepresenting the character of those men, till now their sayings and doings, their thoughts and ways, are as much dead to us, as the language of men before the Dispersion.

"Nature brings not back the Mastodon,
Nor we those times:"

but of all the phantasies which have ever deluded the brains of the blind sons of the blind, that surely is the strangest, which has pointed them to the Bible for proof that the Lord's Supper, as we celebrate it, ought to be an elective test for the laity. The absurdities to which a logical treatment, impartially worked out of the context, in the second chapter of the Acts, would lead upon such a supposition, might fill a book.

14. Liberty inherent in every church.

But, granting that the practice of the apostolic church were clearly made out in favour of a sacramental qualification; granting that an analogy in this matter really exists; granting that passages in the Bible not only apparently, but really, favouring this view can be produced,--what then? We are just as free as ever; for, let it never be forgotten, that, if there are fixed laws in the great scheme of salvation, expressed in the constitution of Christendom, so there are matters left

[Image of page 267]

to the judgment of every age. No church, no body of churches, can trench upon the immunities of another; no age upon its successor, without at once falling into the sin of Rome. These immunities may be thus stated: They are the individuality, the special constitutional right of every church, to adjust its own polity, salva Catholica fide; to create, settle, and arrange and alter its own institutions, so as to suit its own position. No Protestant, no charitable Catholic, ought to deny this; but many cut down this right of choice into a poor, dry, valueless formula. Both Roman Catholics and Presbyterians have done so; both introduce so many preconceived formularies and previsions into their church system, that life and nature dwindle away.

15. Richard Hooker's opinion thereupon.

In our own church, it is strange that Richard Hooker's "Ecclesiastical Polity" is so little read and so much misrepresented as to be generally quoted against liberty. Hallam has done much to show the real scope and tendency of that grand and large-hearted work, in his essay or sketch of it in the "Constitutional History of England." And it is not strange, be it observed, that the man of all others who had the greatest respect for authority and precedent where they really apply, had also the tenderest regard for freedom of action wherever it is possible. Doubtless he saw that the two are coexistent in life, and never to be divorced from one another without injury to each. Penetrated

[Image of page 268]

with the sanctity of law, he must have been keenly alive to the inviolable majesty of its counterpart. His nature would else have been self-discordant even to insanity. Richard Hooker defended the constitution of the Church of England, not as being necessary, but as being good, and agreeable to sound reason. The peace of the church was to be founded upon a demonstration of the reasonableness of our laws. His whole endeavour is to resolve the

"Conscience, not gratify the intellect; to show (as near as he could) what in this controversy the heart is to think, if it follow the light of sound and sincere judgment, without either cloud of prejudice or mist of passionate affection."

He protests against the notion of any fixed unalterable "discipline." A church is bound by its own laws, and "a law is the deed of the whole body politic." Thank God for those words, which are taken from his Preface, concerning which it may be said, that although many good people may well hesitate from the long labour of Richard Hooker's great book, yet this at least might and should be read by all, if only regarded as a work of art, for it is confessedly most admirable, not only for depth and clearness of argument, but for proportion, grace, gentleness, and wit. He alone, of all men, was strong enough for Rome on the one hand, and the wild Fanatics on the other. A Protestant but no Bibliolatrist, his respect for antiquity never diminished his love and reverence for his

[Image of page 269]

own age; a lesson which the men of our own time seem disinclined to learn. With him it was a natural virtue, deeply planted in his simple unambitious nature. His only desire was to live peaceably and finish his great work. "My lord," he says in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (John Whitgift), "I shall never be able to finish what I have begun, unless I be removed into some quiet country parsonage, where I may see God's blessings spring out of my mother earth, and eat mine own bread in peace and privacy." What is stronger than a lion, what is sweeter than honey? The confession of a beautiful soul.

16. Conclusion. Question; one of expediency.

To sum up, then: we cannot, until some new light is thrown upon the subject, believe in any prescriptive definition of church-membership for elective purposes. The various proposals must stand each on its own merits. It is a question of policy. Once to admit the false plea of prescription is to give up what we have no right to part with,--our inalienable freedom to settle these things as we will. Such I conceive to be a correct, but doubtless very imperfect, statement of the feelings of those who wish to keep this great question open. My object in attempting this sketch is frankly to elicit the truth from the very few men now alive who are able to give it. That it should be fairly discussed is surely of vast importance to England, as well as to New Zealand; and, indeed, it may be taken as a sam-

[Image of page 270]

ple of one of the practical difficulties which beset the path of the oldest and youngest State in this empire alike. As such it enters into this treatise.

17. Religious tendency in New Zealand.

Turning from this particular phase of the difficulty, not without a feeling of gladness, let us inquire what are the religious tendencies generally of such a colony as New Zealand. Here I shall give the result of my own observations at Canterbury, and that which I have gleaned of other settlements, as to what the mass of the colonists think, and compare them with the religious condition of the English at home. By this process I expect to find the real drift of the Protestant mind as it developes itself in a new country. For the moving power will be the same in both places, whatever special features of direction or circumstance may exist in the latter.

18. Religious condition of the colonist.

What, then, is the religious condition of the ordinary colonist? He finds himself struggling in a new country, not as he struggled in the old--in the midst of a town or village community trained and minded like himself. No; English, Irish, Welsh, and Scotch are flung together. What is the consequence? They compare thoughts, ways, actions, and words; they discuss systems; exchange customs; sift, weigh, and balance their arguments and positions one with another. From an old church catechism, down to some new method of planting potatoes, nothing escapes. It

[Image of page 271]

is an atmosphere of vigorous speculation and improvement, but also of recklessness and wild audacity. For the common mind, when divorced from its old habits, even in small things, loses reverence, and begins to consider all it has and sees a matter of market test and barter. The advantage and the disadvantage, as usual, go together. The character, which is generally denounced as American, is really the British character as it becomes under certain conditions. We may see it in our own manufacturing towns, but never, perhaps, full blown. It is almost unnecessary to say what an effect the intermingling, interchange, and fusion of religious opinions freely between man and man must have in such a state of society.

It appears to me that the iron old Roman system alone can stand such a trial. Yet it is very possible to overrate the mischief. Let us remember that the majority of the migratory classes are without education, and indifferent to religious forms when they arrive in a new country. They have little to lose, save a certain traditional phraseology. Their great attachment was to the soil of the old land, and their observances and beliefs were generally the outgrowth of that local sympathy, and that being gone, the others fall off by degrees; and no great evil either if there is no better bond than this. "The gods," some one says, "may be looked for when the half gods depart."

The truth at present is, that there is no reli-

[Image of page 272]

gious character in the British colonies: and those are especially indifferent who in the old country belonged to the Church of England. I remember, when the New Zealand census paper was sent round, asking a servant of mine how I was to fill up for him the space left under "religious denomination;" he hesitated and smiled. "Church of England?" said I, suggesting what he had been. "Whatever you like, sir," was the reply; "we always used to go to church in the old country, but here we be kind o' weaned of it." I certainly felt myself reproached for having brought a man and his wife with a large family into a wild and lonely place, where there was neither church nor clergyman, any more than doctor or shopkeeper. I afterwards endeavoured to anoint my conscience by reading a part of the church service on Sunday mornings. The man and his brother, and one or two of his children, came twice: they made no secret, however, of their opinion, that pig-hunting was a better way of spending a New Zealand Sunday. As for praying in a private house, only their respect for me prevented them from openly telling me that it was "no good." I may say that the family were very good church people in England; that they were in the habit of reading the Bible to themselves in the solitude of Banks' Peninsula, I know.

Often when at church in Lyttleton or Christchurch, I have been struck with the English character of the attendance at divine worship; I

[Image of page 273]

mean, the pretence and hypocrisy of the whole thing. They go to church and take their dependants, because it is an "item" in the bill of respectability. There may be other inducements, but this is the main reason. How often has it occurred in England, to one who finds himself in a church crowded full of coats and bonnets, that God is not to be found in that way at all; that we are only cheating ourselves when we try to suppose so. Why, it is worse than ordinary heathen idolatry. I have seen God worshipped in a Buddist temple in China by striking a bell with a hammer, and by offerings of incense, oranges, and scraps of food saved from a scanty beggar's meal. I did not feel inclined to groan or laugh in spirit, but I have done so, to my sorrow, in many a Christian church.

19. Position of the church in England: Pro.

In England itself, the church which bears its name is in a perilous if not a declining condition, and that in spite of the most extraordinary exertions to the contrary. Let us put her case, for and against. We have had hundreds of new churches lately built; we have the best educated, best endowed, most religious clergy in the world; we have the alliance of the State; and the aristocracy is favourable to us, if that counts for much. We have church-wealth greater than all the rest of Europe put together;--we have the education of the body of the people actually in our hands. No body of men, however strong, dares openly

[Image of page 274]

attack us without endangering themselves. Individuals who do so, are disgraced. We have enormous power and prestige. Our doctors and divines are unsurpassed. We have spread our communion into many lands, and at home there is really a general feeling among good people in our favour.

20. Contra.

Contra:--We shall find that our church has no living constitution. She is sunk into a State machine. Her union with the State is a positive injury to her, for her spiritual freedom is so depressed that every sect has her at a disadvantage. Her internal action is suspended. She is tolerated as a convenience, and allows herself so to be treated. The most opposite doctrines are preached within her pale. Often in the same church you may hear Rome in the morning, and Geneva in the evening. She exerts no power of discipline. Doctrine and discipline, confessed in one of her homilies to be two great marks of vitality, are not to be found. She is eaten up with dissent. How can such a church offer to found new Christian communities? Te sum up: behold a church in captivity wearing her chains, like Samson of old, blind among inhuman foes, yet waiting a deliverance. Weak, yet full of strength,---poor, yet very rich,--little, yet very great. After all, the decline of the Church of England is more perceptible by the advance of other powers than by the presence of disorder within her.

[Image of page 275]

21. Dissent an internal disorder.

This disorder we are accustomed to call by the name of Dissent; a word of little or no force to express the thing meant, which is not without its healthy symptom; for it argues strength and a power of life still remaining. Dissent is really nothing else than an effort of nature in the church to bring about a reformation and revival of religion in England; a thing which all good men most earnestly desire to see. That the movement has been carried to extravagant lengths, and has produced evil to its own supporters, is undeniable; but that it has done much to awaken and instruct the church, is also undeniable. Let us carefully distinguish between the passions of men and the position which they really occupy. Many passionate words have passed between Churchmen and Dissenters, but there is nothing in the position of the mass of Dissenters to render a reconciliation with the church impossible, or even unlikely, should a liberal measure of church reformation take place.

22. Rome an external foe.

How differently we stand with regard to Rome! Dissent is a domestic malady, which may be overcome by timely wisdom. Rome is a foreign enemy, to treat with whom is but madness, for her position is irreconcilable with ours. Of the Romish invasion, it is chiefly necessary to keep clearly in sight, that it is an invasion, and, apparently, a successful one. It is good to say more. We all know that Rome possesses peculiar means of

[Image of page 276]

recommending herself both to rich and poor. And while we are well aware that she is as intolerant and unscrupulous as ever, we also know that she preserves Catholic truths and practices which are common to each of us, and some, it may be, which we have dropped rather too hastily.

23. Constructive Free-thinking.

There is another power rapidly rising up among us, which, as it is in a manner now undeveloped, seems to justify a longer notice. It may be termed Constructive Free-thinking. Its position will be found incompatible with ours. But even as the Romish, on the one hand, so this also, on the other, bears witness to truths which we forget, though they are ours to assert if we please. Perhaps, be it said with reverence, it is the will of God that these two rivals should flourish and encroach upon us, till we are willing to listen to reason; for both are useful, although they are antagonistic to us. As the saving remnant of Roman Catholicity is the evidence it bears to the miraculous part of the Christian scheme; to the direct hand of God; to authority:--so the other antagonistic power preserves, in their freshness, but misapplies, the counterpoints of these--nature, humanity, freedom. Unquestionably the church ought to embody all that is genuine of either. Now she does; but yet employs them not. Perhaps, by long confinement, she has partly lost the use of them.

It is to be observed, that the philosophical

[Image of page 277]

free-thinking of the last century was of a purely negative cast. It simply denied the essential postulates of Christianity. Voltaire and his compeers, for instance, were simply anxious to overthrow what they persuaded themselves was a mass of cant without parallel. Lessing found the truth almost equally embodied in all great religions. Fourier, indeed, had a touch of the constructive spirit, but he spent it in discussion on the machinery of society and its outward workings (all, perhaps, that a free-thinking Frenchman is capable of). In England, we have seen a mistaken attempt to construct, end in the miserable failure of Socialism. It was premature; for, as yet, the elements only of the new system are being formed. But a work of positive construction has been going on among the Germans, and their hitherto despised followers in England. The creed is growing up. It will take a century, perhaps, to introduce it into the practice of men. What is it like? and in what does its strength consist?

24. Its spirit.

There was a spirit evoked at the time of the Reformation, which, like a buried Titan, had long been struggling to get up again into the "dear" world. It was not church reformation, but came along with it when Luther opened that door which has never since been shut. We see, on the one hand, more or less genuine church reformation effected in England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Holland, &c. But we see that other spirit, which represents the

[Image of page 278]

wild strength of nature, at work in the wars and confusions of the time, in the Anabaptists, in the Fifth-monarchy-men; afterwards, in revolutions, and other changes of the kind. But these were only by-works. The real work is, to dethrone and destroy the great Christian ideas concerning God and the World, and the Soul of man, and to reconstruct from these ruins a new heaven and earth of its own. God is to be a tendency or affection of the soul. There is to be no such thing as revelation, and no good in prayer. All law is to be either natural or specially enacted by man. Immortality and the future state generally, is to be only a nice question for debate, but not to affect us at all deeply. The inventions of science, the wonders of art, the pomp, glory, and beauty of the world, the refinement of civilisation, ease, comfort, cultivation of body and intellect, enlightenment, the majesty of empire without its clogging chain, the sweets of liberty without its poison, balance of power, division of labour, fraternity, equal rights; all are to be claimed for the new Gospel, which tells us,-- the earth is man's; eat, drink, and enjoy yourself while you can, for to-morrow you die. It is to be a great material faith, with a school of intellectual eclectic philosophers at its head. Then will the dim memories of antiquity revive to us, like some long-forgotten melody of childhood.

"Wo die Alten weilen,
Dass sie nicht erscheinen?

[Image of page 279]

Die Kristallen weinen,
Von demantnen Saulen,
Fliessen Thranenquellen,
Tone klingen drein;
In den klaren hellen,
Schon durchsichtgen Wellen,
Bildet sich der Schein,
Der die Seelen ziehet,
Dem das Herz ergluhet.
Kommt ihr Geister alle
Zu der gold'nen Halle.
Hebt cms tiefen Dunkeln,
Haupter welche funkeln.
Macht der Herzen und der Geister
Die so durstig sind irn Sehnen
Mit den leuchtend schonen Thranen,
Allgewaltig euch zum Meister."

The old enchanted world will return at the call of modern Pagans.

This is now to be seen and felt in Germany, and is beginning in England and America. What is to stop it? What is to prevent Italy and Germany from dividing us and our colonies between them? If the Italians and Spaniards like to groan and tremble under the spiritual sway of Rome, let them; perhaps it is best for them. If the North of Germany is charmed with a new philosophical religion, be it so; let them enjoy themselves. They have a greater capacity for quiet, sensual, intellectual enjoyment, than any other nation. Look at them, sitting by hundreds in their coffee-gardens, listening to magnificent music, over pipes and beer, or playing at cards and chess, or thinking quietly to them-

[Image of page 280]

selves: it is a goodly sight. Let them be whatever they can be; but do not let us have the worst part of them, their philosophy, planted in England. It is only by accident, or abuse, that either Germany or Italy can usurp England. Neither of these two systems can ever fairly represent us.

25. The Church of England our own.

We are, as a nation, religiously represented by the church, which has grown up among us and is called by our name; full of faults, perhaps, but not the less ours; let the church only assert her true position among us. To do this, common sense is alone wanted; no extraordinary management is necessary; but, alas! we look for it in vain. As to the church in the colonies, its position there will depend very much on its conduct here; but we may confidently anticipate, unless grievous mismanagement occurs, that our church system will take at least as firm a hold in our principal colonies, as it has done in the United States of America. Let us take a church-lesson from America.

26. What the churchmen in New Zealand want.

All that the churchmen in New Zealand want is, that their church shall be as free to manage its own affairs as the American is; they seek no privilege, no weight in the State, no superiority over any other religious body; they only claim to exercise that inalienable birthright of every church, self-government, in communion with the Church of England; they trust that their prayer

[Image of page 281]

may not be rejected because of State arguments, which do not in the least apply to New Zealand, whatever may be their force in England. They ask through their Bishop, and shall they be refused? The indifference of the present generation of colonists in New Zealand shall not be handed down to the next; let our church only be herself, and the sons of her people will return to her; let her remain in her present unformed condition, they will become either Roman Catholics, or Atheists and Materialists.

27. Corporate powers, why demanded.

The reason why we wish that the church in New Zealand should be invested with the power of a corporation is very obvious; how can she hold property or found institutions without such powers?

It is surely only right, before we can expect persons belonging to the church to give or bequeath property, for the ordinary purposes of charity, or with the particular design of forming subordinate institutions, to take every possible care that what they give, or bequeath, is applied to the purposes which they intend; or, should this be impossible, to other religious purposes nearly representing their views.

The churches of Christendom, by endeavouring to make church property an inviolable trust, also rendered the acquisition of property by the church, or by bodies connected with it, far more easy. The state of the church of New Zealand need not be an exception to the general rule; unendowed as she is, except in one or two parti-

[Image of page 282]

cular instances, there is no reason why she should continue so; nevertheless, it is not likely that her condition in this respect can become materially changed, until she is placed upon a solid legal foundation, that she may the better receive, guard, and distribute the alms of such of her members as choose to call upon her to exercise that great Christian trust.

28. Christian benefaction.

The munificent spirit of benefaction to the poor, which has displayed itself in so many Christian countries, and in none so much as in our dear native land of England, is not, as many people suppose, either dead or even asleep; it has, indeed, in many instances, been abused, as the suits which we hear of continually connected with great trust estates, and the apathy of our universities in many of their richest colleges, may teach us. But this is not the worst evil; bad as this is, the Christian spirit of giving, has been tampered with in a more dangerous manner; it has been, and it is, debauched by our system of subscriptions, and contributions of that kind. As the noblest natures, after being affronted for years, come to lose all sense of honour, so, too, the most charitable dispositions, under the continual application of the scourge of small subscriptions, become apathetic and indifferent. It is as if the sum of their efforts had been spent in small change. There is no longer that reverence there used to be, for the resignation of means on a great scale, in order to effect some great end; the spring is taken out of the year; we not only

[Image of page 283]

lose, we even begin to despise, the glorious ambition of giving up all, for the honour of God, or the good of our country:--yet the spirit still exists which prompts to noble sacrifice, but it wants evocation, it wants direction--above all, it wants discipline. In a new country, it is never likely to be deficient, for the class of feelings to which it belongs are generally most vigorous after a great change has stirred the heart of man, and when a great necessity prompts him to action.

29. The true source of endowment.

If the church in New Zealand placed in a favourable position for doing its duty in this respect, the means would not long be wanting. If she once opened her doors to the gifts of the people; if she declared herself the guardian of the goods of the poor; if she had the power of establishing within herself divers institutions for purposes of Christian education, or the relief of want, or spiritual consolation and comfort to the sick and afflicted; and if, further, these institutions could be so maintained, as not to lose the individuality of their original design, while, at the same time, each was restrained to its proper place, object, and position, part of that great institution in which it existed;--were this done, offer me, on the one hand, more than eastern treasures in the hands of inactive or unscrupulous bigots; offer me the richest church, with the most magnificent appendages, and the largest securities;--if that church have lost its means of progress and life from those institutions, and the vigorous use

[Image of page 284]

of those riches;--I should not for one moment hesitate to prefer such a church as that of New Zealand might become, girt for the contest; although she starts, as she confessedly does, unendowed, and to a great extent unsupported. "Magnas inter opes inops," is a common complaint, and it might be placed in the mouth of the Church of England at this moment. When the soul recedes from its tabernacle, and leaves only its machinery behind it, we know what the consequence must be.

30. Shall the State manage church trusts?

Now, as regards church property, and endowments for various purposes, a question arises, which is debated with some amount of acrimony, and no little ingenuity on either side. Ought not, it is said on one side, these endowments, and that property to be placed entirely at the disposal of the State? If she consents to act as guardian, what can you desire more? If she engages that the purposes for which certain sums have been given, shall be carried out according to the literal tenor of the instructions which have accompanied them, is it necessary to constitute a special guardian in the person of the church? And should the church take a corporate form, is it not extremely probable, looking to examples before our eyes in England, that bequests made, and institutions founded, will be more likely to be misapplied and perverted, by the operation of party feeling, or by the gradual invasion of apathy, and thus the original intention become more liable to be defeated,

[Image of page 285]

and the guarantee less secure, than would have been the case if the State, which is the common mother of all her children, the common guardian of all interests, the ultimate referee of all disputes, had in the first instance been trusted?

31. Claim of the State criticised.

It is not for me to attempt to decide upon the validity or the insufficiency of these arguments. I shall merely put the case as it seems to those who argue on the other side, and leave it for my readers to work out the problem as best they can in their own minds. Is it found, they ask, that church property placed in the hands of the State, is always administered with such extreme rectitude of intention and integrity of management? Has it not been the object of almost every State gradually to draw to itself, and by fatal degrees to absorb, the property thus credulously entrusted to it? Is not the promise of protection a vain guarantee where the protectors and guardians may belong to a rival religion? And who dares talk of impartiality, or the absence of factious contest of the basest and most violent description, in the very bosom of the greatest States, and connected with what might have seemed to have most demanded fairness, and a scrupulous attention to foregoing obligations? But had the evidence of past ages, and the experience of past countries, been as clear in favour of the other side as it is decidedly against them, can we forget that the body of the people in the countries where we are urged to make

[Image of page 286]

this experiment are either secretly disaffected or openly opposed to the interests of our church, and it may be to those of any religious establishment whatever?

32. Imperium in imperio.

Such are some of the arguments on either side which present themselves almost at the first glance, when we are called upon to say whether the religious establishment which it is proposed to found should be placed altogether in the hands of the people of the country, so as to resemble a mere bureau, with a bishop at its head as working secretary; or whether it ought not far rather to claim a separate and a thoroughly independent existence, to make its own laws, to guard its own property, to administer its own institutions, and to govern its own members. Is not this, however, it may be objected, an imperium in imperio such as could never be safely tolerated in any free State? Is not this, in fact, the Romish system in disguise? Far otherwise, if we apprehend it rightly. By independent institutions we seek not to invade or dispute the high plenary jurisdiction of the State. We have no desire to undermine the power of the State over all and any of her creatures. We only protest for and seek to maintain that amount of independence for the great Institution with which we are concerned as may enable her to live and discharge her functions duly. That is our only care. The front of our offence, magnified to its greatest proportions, is no more than the very same feel-

[Image of page 287]

ing which prompts a citizen to resist any interference of the State with his own domestic affairs.

33. Mediaeval plan misapplied.

For the sake of all those concerned, so many souls now in the wilderness, it is of vast importance that men of power and thought should make up their minds and take their place either on one side or the other of this great question. It is not to be doubted, indeed, of the mediaeval plan, that the church be placed in the hands of the nation, and that the nation undertake to see that justice be done her,--it is not to be doubted that a vast array of precedent can be quoted in favour of that system; but let it be remembered, that the principal feature of that ancient arrangement is very often entirely overlooked by those who would urge it upon our attention as a precedent why the church should belong to the State. Their view is one-sided, and therefore altogether partial to their own preconceived opinion; for if in the middle ages the church belonged to the State, it is no less true, as a general proposition, that the State belonged to the church. The truth is, that that great alliance was contracted upon terms entirely fair and honourable to each. Were such a copy of it to be taken, as some misguided persons suggest, it would imply disadvantage, inferiority, and loss--I need not say on which side. Granted, that if such a union could be truly and justly effected, the most perfect state of things would ensue. Let it be granted, also,

[Image of page 288]

that since it cannot be effected, it remains for the church to fall back upon her old position; to submit herself, as in duty bound, so far as justice demands, to the laws of the State, but (as justice no less demands) to hold her own, to maintain her traditions, and preserve her liberty.

34. The claim of right understated.

Perhaps the only matter of regret, connected with the church principles which the Bishop of New Zealand has published, is that he has somewhat disparaged and underrated the rights and claims of the church which he has the honour to command. How dares he ask the church in New Zealand formally to commit and pledge itself to the doctrines and the ritual of the Church of England, and to the English version of the Bible? How dares he assume that the church can for a moment part with the power of making its own laws? "Infelix, O semper, oves, pecus!" At a time when more than any other we require the spirit of Anselm, are we doomed to catch the soft tones and the complimentary address of a mere courtier! And is the church to be allowed only to frame by-laws for itself? And is it to be docked and shorn of its greatest, its most inestimable and most inalienable privilege of making its own arrangements, provided there be nothing therein contained contrary to the sound health and welfare of the State?

35. Necessity of plain speaking.

If a church constitution be granted to New Zealand by those in England who arrogate to themselves the power

[Image of page 289]

of granting such a dispensation in favour of their fellow-subjects,--if it be granted, I say, in anything like such a spirit as the Bishop is likely to find in a certain quarter, what are the consequences likely to be?

"Hic alienus oves custos bis mulget in hora, Et succus pecori, et lac subducitur agnis."

It will drain instead of feeding life.

Were a constitution to be given of such a kind as may reasonably be expected in answer to prayers of too humble a description preferred to the footstool of royal and prelatic indifference, there is much reason to fear that it will be born dead. Should it ever arrive in New Zealand, it will always be associated, in the mind of the people, with a sacrifice of those immunities and sacred rights which never can be bartered away to advantage, whatever the pretended equivalent may be, but which, in the present instance, have been put aside as if they had no real existence, in order to suggest a favourable whisper, in order to secure an impotent decree. In that case a grand opportunity will have been lost. Indifference will have been increased, dissent extended, and the attachment of honourable and right-minded men cooled down; and all to gain--what? To gain that which, if a spirit of justice and truth exists in the authorities of the Court of England, can never be refused by them; but which, if they are what many persons affirm them to be, no amount of subserviency and dust-kissing can purchase.

[Image of page 290]

The last intelligence is, that the Bishop is about to take the earliest opportunity of repairing to England, for the purpose of pressing forward in person the work which he has in hand. That his way may be prospered, and that he may speedily appear to do his best for the church committed to his care, is my sincere prayer; and may he also, I cannot forbear to add, take counsel, not forgetting to seek the oracle of God in prayer, even as to the inexpediency, in a worldly point of view, of understating just demands, without, perhaps, sufficiently reflecting that the men with whom he will have to do are, many of them, enough disposed already, without any special incitation from the encouragement which would be afforded to them by lowering the banner of the church in their presence, to pare down her rights to the very quick. If so, let him remember that the mantle of Elijah, and the power of a greater than Elijah, descends not in vain on every bishop--let him repair his mistake, if he has made one, by asserting what he has hitherto omitted--let him not sacrifice justice, a thing he never did before, and if justice is refused, let him shake the dust from his feet and depart--secure, at least, of having borne a faithful testimony.

"Alis ton tethnikoton." [Greek] We have had enough to do with the dead. It is time to live, and if the new life (that is all) which we seek for is refused, let us trust to the healing power of nature and her Master. "Arise, and let us go hence."


Previous section | Next section