FETTERS OF THE CHURCH.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 554, 8 July 1909, Page 4

FETTERS OF THE CHURCH.

A' motion by the : Rev. T. H. Spkott that the Anglican. Church of the Province of New Zealand should, have power to aitor the -fundamental ■provisions oiits Constitution qatqe up for consideration at the , . Sjjnod yesterday. According to .fchqse provisions the Church of New Zealand cannot. :nake any alterations in the Authorised Version of the Bible or in the;fortnularics of the Book of Common Prayer unless such alterations should have been adopted by the Church at Home with the consent of the Grown and Convocation. Many of the more progressive minds in_ the Church of New Zealand are.of opinion that provisions of such a rigid character unduly fetter the Church in its efforts to enrich its services arid adapt them to meet tho needs of our own age and circumstances. The fine spiritual insight of the compilers of the Prayer Book is of course generallyadmitted,' but it must be borne in mind that sqmo .three .centuries havo elapsed since it. was first published, and that during that time great changes have come over the world, with the result that the Church has to , face'spiritual, problemß and religious needs never content plated by the Elizabethan Reformers. The very existence of Zealand, for instance, was undroanit of in those days, and the Highor Criticism wjtn m ecien^

tific historical methods was unknown. It is not, therefore, surprising that it_ is felt by many Churchmen that something should he done to adapt the Prayer Book to the life and thougnfe'of the twentieth century and to the circumstances of the people of New Zealand. But the .fundamental provisions of the Constitution bar the way, and the clergy cannot oven raakp uso "of tho. Revised Version in tho services of the Church. It is argued that no living Church ought to be fettered in this way.' Tho question, however, arises as to whothor, in viow of the fact that the Constitution, dpolares that tho fundamental provisions shall hot be altered, revoked, added to, or diminished, tho General Synod has power to amend them. If they are unalterable,' then it I seems that tho" Church of New Zealand at any rate, to use the words of the Dean I.of Westminster, "r'omaln for ovo; , in tho corner in which Queen Elisabeth has placed it" The celebrated judgment of the House of Lorcta regarding the property of the F roe Church of Scotland makes it a vory serious matter to ; tampor with tho Constitution, as a small minority of dissentients might causo very serious trouble. Me. Sprott, therefore, proposes that Parliamentary', Eariction should; bo obtained before tho'proposed changes aro.made, and if it is the general wish of .the. Anglican Church, expressed through its highest tiyq body, that it should have the right to amend its constitution, it is not likely that Parliament would raipc . nny serious objeotion, Tho proposal was fully ;explained by Mr. Sprott in a most .able and interesting Bpeoch, which wo publish in anothor part' of this issue. , - It must be; admitted that Mr. _ Sprott has niade, out' a very strong' case in favour of securing more complete self-governing powers ■ for the Church pf / the Province of New Zealand. .;. •'; ' ■ '.'[ ' ■•■'• .