RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1533, 31 August 1912, Page 9

RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

— ■? — ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTIONS ADDIiKSS BY TJIK AHCHBISHOI' 01' SYDNEY. In his address (it (lie opening of the Provincial of the Anglican Church of .New South Wales, Ilio Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of Australia (Dr. Wright) s.iid: — "L should like In refer to (lie Nexus: Hie liaiurc of relationship between ourselves us provinces and dioceses in Australia ami Hie .Mother Church in England. It: is probably a correct .summary to say that we have accepted as -our own the faith, doctrine, and discipline of the Church ot England, and are bound by it, at any rate, as it stood at the date of our acceptance. Uuv methods of acceptance varied in different States, hut in all alike mur action was taken voluntarily, and not obligatorily. The Constitution, doctrine, and discipline of the Church of England was not forced upon us from out-ide, but was chosen by us as that which best embodied the eomlitians under which we desire to live as a Church. Men knew what they were doing in accepting it, «ml would probably have been averse tn the formulation of a Constitution on other terms. AVe are deeply indebted to the able lawyers both in England and Australia who- have recently given us lucid opinions upon our position. .But ill accepting this constitution it is to be romeinly.'reil that with this self-imposed limitation we posses perfect liberty to manage our own atl'oirs. We elect our own officers. No one call be imposed upon us from outside. We arw not in fetters like the dioceses of the Uoman obedience in Australia. No outside ecclesiastical authority can impose any legislation upon ns in New South AYales. It is interesting to compare our position with that of the other self-governing churches in the British Empire outside Great Britain. The Church of Canada stands in the same position that we do, and is apparently satisfied with it. A recent attempt in "one of their syncds to effect a change was overwhelmingly defeated. Though the General Synod in the Dominion ot Canada was formulated as .recently as ISM it described itself ns the General Synod of the Church of England' in Canada, and it accepts the Prayer Book and Articles as part of its fundamental constitutions. In New Zealand the General Synod of 1871 changed the title of the Churchy to The Church of the Province' of New Zealand, commonly called tho Church of England.' Its statement of fundamental belief "is substantially the same as our own. The only body that has adopted a different policy is the Church of .South Africa. The" Constitution of 1870 'contained'a momentous proviso which practically separated it from, the Church of England, inasmuch ns it said that 'the Church was not bound by -decisions- in faith And doctrine other than those of its own ecclesiastical tribunals, or of such other tribunals' as it may accept. We speak with all respect of n Sister Church that has a psrfcct right to settle its own affairs. But to many of us who lock .at it from the outside the Church of South Africa then took a hasiy step, which lias limited its comprehensiveness, and usefulness to tho whole _comnninity. Is there any Teuton at* 'ihis juiichirN why we in Australia should take any steps, to "alter file Constitution under winch wo liavo placed ourselves? Some would liavo ii that onr position is a reflection upon our nationhood. Nationhood is to me a. vcrv sacred thing. None will ever find me behindhand in assisting the development of all that belongs to true nationhood. But in dealing with'nationhood inside our Empire,- we are concerned with a set of problems almost without parallel in the world's history. are-working out something that is new to mankind- It surely Miovcs us to move with caution. Is there anvthing that urgently necessitates now a fundamental upheaval of our ecclesiastical life? Tii what does ouf Constitution fail lis? Where have we felt the shackles gall? We ought to particularise. It is "hardly wise to enter upon-revolutionary legislation merely,for the sake of a theory, except. it be ii 'theorv that is a new and true revelation. In'what, dangerous respect dors our prevent Constitution restrict our reasonable-liberty•' -What rightful aspiration is denied us? .Someono lias occasionally whispered 'shortened services.'. Surely to ■ • invite a vast and momentous change in the Constitution of our Church for the sake Of a cause so trivial, and which a-little common sense can largely adjust is somewhat on a par wiflr the policy of the Chinaman in Charles Lamb's famous essay, .who burnt down his house in order to obtain roast pig. Moreover, if the law is to bo changed, we ought to be told- what law is to be substituted for the present one. If (lie Court of Appeal that interprets the law is to be abolished, what is to be_ the constituent element in tlio •• new; l'inal Court of Appeal that is to replace it? Probably there are many who prefer 'the-ills wo liavo than fly to others that we knownot of,' nt tho piping of some of our ecclesiastical.friends. To paraphrase recent words of the Bishop of Ballarat, himself an Australian of Australians, 'some of us want to know that we are not to, exchange King Log for King Stork.'"