ting
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