ORGANISATION AND PROGRESS.
(1850-1859).
The inward life must not be separated in practice from the external
unity of the body of Christ. The law of unity is the essence of its
strength, its purity, and its holiness.
--_Bishop Selwyn._
"The urgent necessity of mutual communion for preservation of our unity
... maketh it requisite that the Church of God here on earth have her
_laws_." So wrote the judicious Hooker in that immortal work which came
to Bishop Selwyn as a legacy from his great predecessor, Samuel Marsden.
The bishop himself was well aware of this necessity. We have seen how he
tried to bind the missionaries to himself by calling them together in
synods in 1844 and in 1847. The canons which were passed by these
gatherings were doubtless of some importance, but their chief value lay
in the spirit of _unity_ which they were calculated to evoke.
Legitimate and natural, however, as such gatherings must seem to us,
they threw the Committee of the Church Missionary Society into
"transports of alarm." In England the synodical action of the Church had
been so long silenced, that any attempt to revive it was regarded as an
act of priestly assumption, and an affront to the supremacy of the royal
power. But Selwyn's action was only a little in advance of the time. In
all the colonies, men were feeling after some form of church government
by which laws could be made and unity preserved. The bishops were sent
out from the mother Church with Royal Letters Patent, which seemed to
confer upon their holders almost absolute power, but the colonies
possessed no machinery by which this power could be enforced; and it was
evident that some method must be devised by which the different members
of the Church could be brought together, and enabled to make laws for
its governance and well-being.
The method followed by Bishop Selwyn was that which he derived from the
primitive Church. The bishop and his clergy formed a "synod" which could
enact "canons" for the regulation of the faithful. But something more
was evidently needed; and this, too, seemed to spring into existence in
the memorable year 1850, which marked in so many ways the turn of the
tide in the New Zealand Church.
The self-same month which witnessed the departure of Henry Williams from
Paihia, beheld his great antagonist, Sir George Grey, laid upon a bed of
sickness at New Plymouth. There is no absolute proof that the
archdeacon's case was consciously before the governor's mind, though it
is hard to think that it was not. But it is certain that his thoughts
were drawn at this juncture to the question of the government and unity
of the Church. As Bishop Selwyn put it long afterwards: "There was
something more touching in the origin of that constitution than persons
are generally aware of. The first draft of the present constitution was
drawn by Sir George Grey on a sick bed at Taranaki; and it was the fruit
of those feelings which come upon the mind in sickness, when a man sets
aside thoughts of government and the cares of this world, and knows, as
a Christian man, that he has something better to think of than the
perishable things of this life. His Excellency has produced what has
been of great spiritual benefit to the Church in this country."
The chief point about the governor's scheme was the inclusion of the
laity in the government of the Church. Of course this was not an
altogether original feature. It had already been adopted by the
American branch of the Anglican communion. During the years that
followed the promulgation of Grey's scheme, American theological halls
were echoing to such sentiments as this: "The power of self-government
is advocated over all the Colonial Churches of the British Empire. Why
is it that the Churches in New Zealand and New South Wales are demanding
synodical action and lay representation? It is _our_ influence and _our_
example." The American origin of the Grey document is clearly shown by
the term "Convention," which was used to describe the proposed
legislative body. The bishops were to sit apart in one house; clerical
and lay representatives were to sit together, but to vote separately, in
another. The provisions of the document were simply but clearly drawn,
and they foreshadow in most points the completed constitution of 1857.
One matter of detail was allowed to creep into the fundamental
provisions: church pews might be appropriated, but not charged for!
When Selwyn received this draft, he at once expressed his willingness to
adopt it if it should be supported by a considerable number of
churchpeople. The governor therefore set himself to secure signatures to
a letter urging its acceptance upon the bishop. In this he succeeded
beyond his expectations. In Auckland the letter was signed by "the
General, the Chief Justice, the principal military officers, by all the
clergy in the neighbourhood, by all the principal merchants who are
members of our Church, and by a large number of other persons." The
total, in fact, reached 94; and the column is headed by the simple
signatures, "G. Grey," and "Wm. Martin." A good body of signatures was
appended from Taranaki, Wanganui, and Nelson; none from Wellington or
the eastern district. The names of the brothers Williams, of course, do
not appear, but some of the other missionaries were found willing to
sign--Kissling, Maunsell, Morgan, Ashwell, and Taylor.
With this document the bishop sailed for Sydney, to attend the meeting
of bishops already referred to. The Australian prelates were entirely in
favour of synodical action, but they were not prepared to follow the
Grey scheme in its entirety. Their plan was for bishop and clergy to
constitute a "synod" (as in ancient times), but that lay representatives
should at the same time hold a "convention," which should have the right
of veto on certain of the decisions of the "synod." As the name "G. A.
New Zealand" appears among the list of signatories, it may be presumed
that he concurred in this rather clumsy scheme; but in the following
year he acted in the opposite direction by inviting Mr. Godley and
another layman to sit in conference with the clergy of the diocese of
Christchurch.
The points of difference between the rival schemes do not appear in the
next act. In 1852 the bishop put forth a pastoral letter, in which he
called the attention of the churchmen of New Zealand to the absolute
necessity for providing some church authority. The colony had just
received its civil constitution: the Church must have one too. As to
whether laymen should sit with the clergy or not, the bishop leaves the
matter open. But he adopts a proviso upon which both Sir George Grey and
the Australian bishops had insisted, viz., that whatever convention or
synod might be set up, it should have no power to alter the doctrine and
ritual of the Church of England, or the Authorised Version of the Bible.
No point in the final constitution of the New Zealand Church has been
more criticised than this. What was the precise object of its insertion?
Of course, the natural conservatism of the churchly mind would account
for much, but not for all. What national church ever before tied its own
hands in this deliberate way? But was the Church of New Zealand to be a
national church? That was exactly the point which had chief influence
with the statesmen and lawyers to whom the constitution is mainly due.
To them the Royal Supremacy stood first. Nothing must be done which
could in any way infringe upon the prerogatives of the Crown. Only in
the possible case of a separation of Church and State in England, or in
the case of a political separation of New Zealand from the Mother
Country, could there be any liberty in these all-important points.
_Then_ the liberty might be absolute and complete.
But there was one man in New Zealand who saw farther than the rest.
Godley would have none of the Grey scheme, and he persuaded his fellow
churchmen of Canterbury to put forth a protest against it. Any plan for
the government of the Church should emanate (they argued) from the
episcopate, and should be dutifully accepted by the faithful. They
themselves would therefore refrain from any detailed suggestions, but
they strongly maintained the right of even the infant Church of New
Zealand to deal, if necessary, with questions of doctrine and ritual,
and even of the translation of the Scriptures. Cordially as they were
attached to their Prayer Book and to their Bible, they yet could foresee
a time when occasion might arise for change.
What Selwyn's own feeling on this matter might be, it is not easy to
discover. But as, in their conversations at Lyttelton, he and Mr. Godley
always found themselves in agreement, it seems not unlikely that on this
point also the minds of the two men were in accord. But the bishop could
not do as he would in this as in many other matters. The Committee of
the C.M.S. had already taken alarm at a step which seemed likely to
separate the colonial Church from that of the Mother Country, and they
sent out instructions to their missionaries forbidding them to take part
in the proposed convention.[10] This was one of the reasons which
prompted the visit of the bishop to England in 1854. Before he set sail,
however, he had called meetings in all the different centres of
population; at these meetings he had laid his scheme before the Church,
and he had carefully codified the criticisms which were offered. In most
localities the draft was accepted as it stood. Auckland seems to have
devised the idea of uniting bishop, clergy, and laity in one chamber.
Christchurch had lost its man of insight through Godley's departure, and
it now swung round into a merely conservative position. It joined with
the rest of the settlements in insisting upon the principle of the Grey
scheme, by which the Prayer Book and Authorised Version of the Bible
were declared to be outside the powers of any New Zealand synod.
[10] Even as late as the year 1866 the Secretary of the C.M.S. (the
Rev. Henry Venn) could write out to New Zealand: "If all the colonial
churches are to be made free, the Church of England would be ruined as
a missionary church. The people of England would never send out
missionaries to be under Free Bishops."
The disappearance of Godley, with his visions of independence, made the
task of the bishop more easy when he confronted the Committee of the
Church Missionary Society. He was able to assure these cautious men as
to the inoffensive character of his proposals. "The Committee now
understood," writes their historian, Dr. Eugene Stock, "that no
separation from the Church of England was intended; that the Queen's
supremacy was recognised; that questions of doctrine and ritual would be
excluded from the purview of the synods; and that the interests of the
Maori Christians would be cared for." They accordingly withdrew their
former instructions, and now signified their approval of the
missionaries joining with the bishop in the proposed organisation of the
Church.
This concession formed the answer of the Committee to Selwyn's proposal
to found the missionary bishoprics mentioned in the last chapter, and it
removed one of the most formidable obstacles in the way of a
constitution. Another obstacle, hardly less formidable, disappeared of
itself during the year after the bishop's return. This was the
difficulty of obtaining State sanction for the proposed authority. Many
attempts had been made by Mr. Gladstone and others to procure such
sanction from the Imperial Parliament; but in 1856 the English legal
authorities discovered, what seems so obvious now, that no State
authorisation would be needed if the system could be based simply on
voluntary compact. If any colonial Church wished to make rules for its
own government, it was quite at liberty to do so, provided that these
rules were held to apply only to such persons as were willing to be
bound by them. Thus then it happened that, as the moral and personal
obstacles were removed by patience and Christian wisdom, the legal ones
fell of themselves, and now there remained no hindrance to the calling
of a conference for the final settlement of the matter.
[Illustration: SOME CANTERBURY CHURCHES.
St. Lukes, Christchurch.
Holy Trinity, Lyttelton.
St. Mary's, Timaru.
St. Peter's, Riccarton.
St. John's, Hororata.
St. Stephens, Ashburton.
Christchurch Cathedral.
St. Paul's, Glenmark.
Holy Trinity, Avonside.]
The conference met on May 14, 1857, in the little stone chapel of St.
Stephen, near the residence of Sir William Martin, at Auckland. The
occasion was felt to be one of extreme importance. Never before had the
different elements of which the Church was composed been brought face to
face together. Christchurch sent its new bishop and the Rev. J. Wilson.
Archdeacon Abraham stood for the Selwyn type of clergy. Sir William
Martin's thoughtful face was absent, but his views would be voiced by
his friend Mr. Swainson, the former Attorney-General. Now that the
Church was to be separated from the State, and organised on a voluntary
basis, it is somewhat surprising to find the government of the day so
strongly represented. The Premier (Stafford), the Attorney-General
(Whitaker), and Mr. H. J. Tancred, the Postmaster-General, are all
there. To balance these new men, we see the missionaries Maunsell,
Brown, and Kissling. But still something is needed. Where are the
leaders of former days? A sense of satisfaction is experienced when at
last the brothers Williams enter together and take their seats. "All
were very kind," wrote Archdeacon Henry, "and we were much pleased with
the benevolent countenance of the Bishop of Christchurch."
The sittings of the conference lasted for five weeks. The long
preliminary discussions had cleared up most of the points in advance:
there was no question as to the desirableness of laymen taking an equal
part with bishops and clergy in the proposed synods, nor was there any
hesitation in pronouncing unalterable the provision which exempted the
formularies of the Church and the Authorised Version of the Bible from
synodical handling. But there were two points on which opinions differed
widely. Canterbury insisted on diocesan independence, and the power of
managing its own property. This claim was not thoroughly dealt with by
the conference, and was destined to give trouble in the future. The real
struggle lay between the group of Auckland laymen and the president, on
the qualification to be required of those who should represent the laity
in synods, and of those who should select them by their votes.
Two views were held, then as now, on this important matter. One side
would limit the Church to such as are in full communion with her, and
are actively interested in her welfare. The other would embrace within
her fold as many as possible, even if their churchmanship and their
Christianity should be but nominal. Bishop Selwyn took the former view,
and in this attitude he would doubtless be supported by the missionary
representatives, who were accustomed to a strict discipline in the Maori
Church. Canterbury also stood on the same side. Godley himself had been
its ardent advocate, and on this point at least his principles were not
abandoned after his departure. They had even been accentuated by the
Canterbury declaration of 1853, in which it was urged that the
ecclesiastical franchise should be confined to persons who should not
only declare themselves communicants of the Church, but should also
disavow membership in any other religious denomination. This stringent
requirement probably arose from an experience which Archdeacon Mathias
mentions in a letter to Lord Lyttelton. Many had come out at the
Association's expense as "Church of England" members, who yet turned out
to be "professed dissenters," and some of them "dissenting preachers."
The religious unity of the settlement was thus rendered impossible, and
one of the aims of its founders defeated at the outset.
On this point therefore--a point of far more importance to the Church
than the property question, which attracted the greater attention at the
time--the bishop would be supported by the missionary clergy and by the
Canterbury representatives. But he met with firm resistance from the
Auckland laymen. These were men of "a fine conservative temperament,"
and they would agree to no proposal which should make the Church in New
Zealand less comprehensive than the State-governed Church of the Mother
Country. Their view is thus expressed by Carleton: The bishop "would
have made the Church of England a close borough, to which formal
admittance under rules prescribed would be required; the laymen, on the
other hand, held that every baptised Englishman enjoyed church
membership as a matter of course and right, until he should think fit to
declare dissent."
Both of these opposing views have much to say for themselves; for both
of them great names may be quoted in support. At the Auckland
Conference, as throughout the whole after-history of our Church, it was
the lay (or Arnoldian) view that triumphed: "The bishop, seeing no
eagerness on the part of the laity, but, on the contrary, much quiet and
thoughtful criticism, gave way upon every main point of difference,
gracefully enough. Failure of cherished schemes had changed him much.
But he was bent upon carrying something, and by gentle management he
did. A scheme of fair working promise, with little to take exception to,
was the result."
The document which was solemnly put forth on June 13th, 1857, as the
"CONSTITUTION for associating together, as a Branch of the United Church
of England and Ireland, the members of the said Church in the Colony of
New Zealand," carried at its foot seventeen signatures, which are not
the least interesting part of the whole. To those who follow the history
of the Church, both before and after this promulgation of her
authoritative act of government, what thoughts are suggested by the
first four names of the list: "G. A. New Zealand," "H. J. C.
Christchurch," "Henry Williams," "William Williams"! What controversies
past and future, what agonies of mind, what silent heroism, what
spiritual conquests, what believing prayer!
A word must be said, however, on the legal aspect of this constitution.
As the early Christian congregations in the Roman Empire sometimes found
it advisable to register themselves as burial clubs, since only thus
could they obtain any legal status, so, in order to obtain a recognised
position in the eyes of the law, the Church in New Zealand found it
necessary to appear simply as a holder of trust property. Bishop Selwyn
had prepared for this move by procuring the passing of an Act by the
Legislative Assembly in 1856, which enabled any body of trustees to be
incorporated in proper form. In 1858 the Church of New Zealand was
formally brought under this enactment. This fact accounts for the rather
conspicuous place which the property element holds in the constitution
document. It was the one legal basis which was possible in the
circumstances of the case. The endowments of the Church are held on
condition of the observance of the provisions of the constitution by
those who enjoy any of the proceeds of that property. In the eye of the
law, the Church of this Dominion stands on precisely the same footing as
any other body for which any property is held in trust.
Now that the Church had been set upon her feet (to use Mr. Gladstone's
words to Godley), after the stilts of government support had been
knocked away, it remained to be seen how she would walk. The first duty
was to carry out the concordat which Selwyn had made with the C.M.S.,
and to found the missionary bishoprics. The scheme had been disallowed
in 1854 by the Colonial Office, but now the way was open. The proposed
diocese of Tauranga, indeed, was never pushed forward, but the others
were soon set on foot. The new diocese of Wellington was offered to
Archdeacon Hadfield, but his continued ill-health prevented his
acceptance. The bishop therefore proposed the name of his talented and
cultured friend, Archdeacon Abraham. The proposal was at once accepted
by the Wellington churchmen, and the archdeacon proceeded to England for
his consecration. Nelson also claimed a bishop of its own, and for this
difficult post Selwyn recommended his friend Edmund Hobhouse, then Vicar
of St. Peter-in-the-East at Oxford. This devoted man was also a fellow
of Merton College in the University, and he had narrowly missed being
appointed to the see of Christchurch two years before. With great
physical strength, which enabled him to walk 30 or 40 miles a day,
Hobhouse was yet a constant sufferer from headache, but his deep piety
and his solid learning well qualified him for the episcopal office. The
two bishops-elect were consecrated together (still under Letters Patent)
on Michaelmas Day, 1858, and arrived in New Zealand during the first
General Synod, which met under the new constitution in the city of
Wellington in the month of March, 1859.
The most interesting feature of this gathering was the inauguration of a
fifth bishopric--that of Waiapu. In this case the bishop's original
plan was carried out in its exactitude, for no one but the
"episcopally-minded" William Williams could well be thought of for such
a post. The Letters Patent were brought out from England by Bishop
Abraham, and the consecration was held, during the course of the
session, in the little St. Paul's Church, on Sunday, April 3.[11] A
unique feature of the service arose from the fact that the four
consecrating bishops were all younger than the veteran upon whom they
laid their hands. The new bishop was "one whose age and experience,"
said Selwyn in his opening address, "has often made me feel ashamed that
I should have been preferred before him, and to whom I have long wished
to be allowed to make this reparation, by dividing with him the duties
and responsibilities of my office." "It was a most delightful day," he
afterwards wrote, "and one that I little expected to see when I first
came to New Zealand. All seemed to be so thoroughly happy and satisfied
with the appointment of the new bishops, as much as if each settlement
had chosen its own bishop from personal knowledge.... I shall now go
back to Auckland light in heart ... and I hope to be enabled by God's
blessing to prosecute the mission work with more vigour in consequence
of the cutting off of the southern portions of New Zealand."
[11] It is a matter for regret that the scene of this first episcopal
consecration in New Zealand can no longer be pointed out. The church
stood, opposite the Museum, on government land which now forms part of
the grounds surrounding the Parliament buildings. But portions of the
structure were removed to the Bolton-street cemetery, and still form
part of the mortuary chapel there.
This day of happiness marks the end of a distinct epoch in our history.
The decade which began in 1850 amidst confusion and disunion, had
brought year by year some healing strengthening power, until it closed
with a united Church, an increased clergy, and a multiplied episcopate.
Not a day too soon was the constitutional fabric finished. Already the
clouds were gathering which heralded the coming storm.