itself. General Synod holds a certain amount of Church Trust property under the terms of its Constitution. If those terms are altered, is our title to the property endangered? Could any section of churchpeople take up the ground lately taken by some of the Free Church in Scotland? They claimed all Trust funds when the Free Church united with the older body of Presbyterians. Their plea was that the Free Church has lost its identity by that union, and that they—a very small minority—were the true representatives of the Free Kirk.
This was maintained by the decision of the Law Courts. But almost at once that decision was practically set aside by an Act of Parliament and the appointment of a Commission to apportion the property equitably between the two sections of the Kirk.
It goes without saying that the State can interfere in all matters of trust funds, should it be alleged that any associated body has departed from the articles of association under which it was constituted. The Scotch case, no doubt, has its bearing on ours. There must be no risk run with regard to Trust funds. But it will be seen, on reflection, that the two cases are not the same. The Free Kirk by its union with another body was held to have lost its identity. The Church in New Zealand, by remodelling the terms of its condition, would not enter into union with any other body, nor would it lose its identity. The position is this: Our Constitution, in certain respects, is at variance with the facts of our present condition. It assumes that we are part of the Established Church at home; established in the sense that it is regulated by the law of the State. The Church at Home was not established, in the sense of being created, either
