The Dominion. SATUEDAY, JANUARY 22, 1910. THE PRIMATE'S ADDRESS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 722, 22 January 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATUEDAY, JANUARY 22, 1910. THE PRIMATE'S ADDRESS.

•";In; His address at the- opening 'of thev 'Anglican' General ; Synod"•"'''on. Thursday' .the ; ■ Primate; :of. Newi Zealand: (Dr..,:Nevill) . dealt in■■;'.'■ a;, striking■'■.■' ..and -. luminous manner with' several ;■ matters: 'of., marked. , importance:. to .the Anglican Church in. tnis Dominion,: and'also , ,gave expression ~to some sympathetic and interesting ideas on' certain '.aspects' of. the .much-debated question ■ of the reunion of' Christendom.: He specially referred to the negotiations, for closer Union between his own; Church and the episcopal Church of Sweden in'which ho has ■for ma'nyyears.taken a deep interest, and also-to recent efforts to arrive at. a basis for union , between; the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. NoVone can accuse the Primate 'of ; m : ental ; timidity or; narrowness ■ of spiritual vision. .He is a'clearand decidedly -independent thinker, and ;isnover afraid to thinks,, 'even-'though some of his utterances 'may].- give more .cautious 'spirits: somethingjn the nature of a shock. One 1 cannot help admiring his bold 1 stand for the freedom of the Church of the Province of New Zealand from oxternal control and for the assertion, of its fullest rights of self-gov-ornment. He has every respect for the .great office;.of the 1 Archbishop of Canterbury, and is willing and ready to accord to the occupant of that historic 'and illustrious Seo a primacy of honour, , but, anything in tho: nature of supremacy or overlordship.ho will not for a moment', admit. : He is of opinion,, for instance, that . tho Church in New South -Wales was: put - in ' an improper: position when the nowly-consecratod Archbishop of Sydney had to make a declaration of subordination to. the -Primate of AH England;, and he_ even goes so far as.to say that it is "an ecclesiastical, immorality for the Archbishop of one province to require

the Archbishop' of another to make a; declaration of -submission: which can mean nothing."- In this mattor the Primatc_ occupies a. much more uncompromising position than. did tho great Bishop Selwyn, who :"adhercd to: the,end of hiscareer in Now: Zealand to the idea of the Boyal .Supremacy and that of the Archbishop of Canterbury." While all will respect Dr. Nevill's sturdy independence on this important question there is ; just a possibility that his fear of : an "ovorlordship" may carry .him top far in; the opposite direction.: ' Many thoughtful people are of opinion that the , bonds at: present . connecting tho different branches of the Church are too frail to bo'. , ■ adequately -effective, and that something' further ought to ,bo' done/ to enable . the Anglican; .Communion t0... speak and act'as a.whole in great matters affecting all ite.'-parts;.; This, object , is, however, to a large extent attained' by, the Lambeth Conferences of'.bishops whose resolutions carry great .moral -. weight, : though., they; have no legislative or coercive power. There .is also a, movement to set up a central consultative body in England, but even in this: step some of the ■ American , bishops see possible dangers-. to ." their _ independence, thpugh'these feara will no doubt be removed,.by the assurance whichhas'. been given by the. Archbishop, of. Canterbury; that the body in question will: only, have the authority which.-, is .';."alwayß attached, by : - reasonablo people, to' what is deliberately:" said 'by;: capable: and ;experi-; enoed leaders .of . thought and action." It seems".. certain that any. attempt.to. secure uniformity of action which would involve a serious, sacrifice of the ;indcpendenco- of' the' autonomous provinces 'would ineef. with defermined resistance. .;,; ; : ,: :■',-

:;D]i. Nevill'S pvbrmasteririg" spirit of independence- is pnee again -dis-, played in" dealing with the proposal to, make certain alterations in- the so-called fundamental (clauses of the Constitution.'" In, this matter■ no:one can,'speak:with greater .weight, for, as.-.h'e states in, his 'addrecsj' he. entered upon, his episcopateVwithinsix: years of the.'final acceptance of the Church Constitution, and three years after.the. .resignation ofc.-BisHOP-jSEir Zealand work/l In addition to this.ho was in occasional correspondence ~ with Semvyn ; for seven,years afterwards." Ho gives a yery valuable historical sketch of the movement .which, brought.; about the adoption-;-of the : Constitution - : and provided the. New Zealand Church, with' the , means.:of .Eelf-government; butj while',- expressing.' every; -respect for the f."men, .of glorious memory, who ; wero so fully . to tho;; front .'-in: the.conceptions.. of . theirs' day,"- he recognises that the-world hasmbved. '.pn,i.'sin'ce.'. then,.-.'.'and history'^,"distinctly ,reyeals.stages.of progressive :enlightcnmcnt >upon; the position •of the Church in the colonies." Respect .for: the great, ones'.'of the past'must not ha allpwed to paralyse thoefforts. ,of tho'living Church td.:meet-'the.'.now needs of thepresent andthe.future. \Yjth a. daring: directness., he-, brushes" : aside, the idea, that the .Church of New. Zealand is to' be. fettered for ever . by,': thoso ' fundamental'.V ■ prbyisiona ;of tho ; Constitutions-which' ,'mako' its: action .in certainiimportant; matters;; .depend-, upon:."events which may: or .may not happen' to the Mother' Church of England!: ;:His words on this point arc. well.'<worth! quoting.'- He, says:•"';-.-, '■ y< ■■>/■•:

; I think, that in tho/abstract the Church in.'any country '.in which the' component, oleinents of. a'Church aro-present in suffi-; cient.: mimbers for organic. purposes—viz.,* a: body of lay -mombDrs with- theVclergy.: in; all their .orders—she can' proceed m freedom to ~.■ formulate,' regulations for orderly. self-goVornment .with no ■further reference to outside .'authority, tlian' ap r pertains to her civil "relations, , in which respect''she.-is .amenable to the laws, of; the-country itself. 'V,-,- '..•■-. -In, the ab 1 stract,' the Church' in New -. Zealand .'or : Australia' is free' from all external con-- ■ trol, and being itself;inherently:free, it is ;a; wrong- -to: ; its' own. nature:.to declare that;it; "shall-have no'power" .'to do,this or that! 'In- other.'-'w'oras, : ;the socalled '■.). Fundamental: -Provisions,:- being: formed on.false premises and.'miscdncep-. tions.are themselves invalid, and, may; be regarded-, as' null' and-.void, .and \those who have subscribed to them: in all good faith : are; ipsb'.faoto free from, the obligation: of; a' declaration which' they had. nb;;power to make.: '. ■■ .:.:.■■.;., ;■'„-: -:^

There ■ is:no -uncfirtain' sound, about, this, declaration; and,: though .many niay : think 'the arguments.-', on.- :theother side are too; unceremoniously thrust aside'i'there.is a-growing;feel-ing; 'among.' some:'of; the. ablest ■memb'ers;of;tho;Church that v cortain provisions ■'• of ; the i Constitution are ■ incompatible;; with, complete .self-gov-ernment, and are. a ssriouß'hindrance to: the natural growth and : develop■morit of a progressive religiqus body.' .On the other, hand the more vative. section-fear, that, the proposed; alteration's, might : Open "the door . toihasty and far-reaching changes, the ultimate consequences, of which; it' is impossible to foresee. .. There '. are .others-again .who/'whilo admitting, that the present 'position; may .be' theoretically indefensible, "contend that in .actual practice the existing' Constitution has not proved an: intolerable -burden/nor a bar to rprogress, and that it will be time enough to : . make^. the'; proposed' amendments when, the need; arises.;;'-.;:., , '. : ":>

While fully adniitting the : power orthe Churen k>! alter.'the Constitution; if .it thinks : 'fit/ the Primato is strongly opposed to that.portion of the resolution: on' this subject carried by the Wellington Synod which proposes: to, secure-: '-'by -Act- of Par-, liament the right of , complete self(jovermnent iforf the Church."/ On the, one hand he contends for the independence; of the Now Zealand 1 Church of, the. See of, Canterbury, and oh the-other he. maintains with equal force .the■■ Church's independence of the State,'except l as regards those.-, civil;, relations ■ in :, respect;' to which . all religious bodies: are/of" course, amenable to the.laws ol the country. His words are very, emphatic: ■' '..:,: ;■•;- ; ;.;-. ■.;'',:''■■

I am bold ■ to: declare (he says) that we already possess that right [of complete self-government], and that it' we did not it would bo in. the liighost degree wrong for a spiritual society to npply. to ■ a secular Government to confer such authority; and even'with regard to. the snfo possession of' our propcrtj','l: myself, see no reason for applying to the Legislature for action upon a matter in which there is surely now no' apparent danger.. The title . to property hold by ' the : Church before , we declared' our indepondonco of the Mother Church, by assuming our dis-! tinctivo name, has never been challenged, and tho Government, in the Marriage .Acts, , recognises our existence under our own.name, which carefully preserves our historic continuity, ami tho ■ properties conveyed to us : during tho last thirty years have been conveyed under the title of the Church' of the Province of New Zealand, and should therefore be secure. I am myself averse from any, approach to tlio Legislature on the points brought forward by the resolution referred to;

Here again the Primate states- his opinion with'all the force of strong personal conviction, but it must be admitted that others who have carefully looked into this point have arrived.at a very: different conclusion. In.view.of the now famous decision of tho House of Lords regarding two

Presbyterian Churches in; Scotland, the possibility must be faced of the' property: of thq Church; being jeopardised by an important alteration in the Constitution.'; A / small minority : who dissented from the change might como' forward and claim, to" be the Church: of the: Province 'of New Zealand as originally constituted, and as such the lawful possessors of, all the property oftbat body. This is a risk which cannot be lightly accepted,.and in. opposing the,proposal to avoid, such a possibility by a_ special Act of Parliament the ; P rimate is surely pressing his determination to preserve tho'-in-: dependence of the Church to an unnecessary extreme. It is.not a question of asking Parliament to interfere with the. spiritual-authority or internal affairs of-:a religious body,' but it ismercly a.matter of- eniurv ing. that, in:extending its sphere of self-government the Church shall not run the risk of being-deprived of its; property; : Whatever view the General Synod may take of this diffi-, cult problem all will gladly admit that Dβ. Nevim, has earned the best thanks of .the Church for the raas-' terly' manner : in which, he has rcIviewed the position,'and the, whole, community will read with deep gret his statement: that,"[ because of. his advancing l .years,'it. is not im-. probable,that : this may 'bo his last opportunity', of addressing, the su : preme legislature of \ tho Anglican Church of Now Zealand. ■