The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1913. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1648, 15 January 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1913. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTION.

'. - : \ ■'•'■■'—: — i^- t — ■'.['■, '■.'■:■' !.' ' The question as to whether "the General Synod of the Anglican ' Church of the Province of New . ! Zealand has the power to alter the 7 fundamental clauses of its constitution will, wo understand, bo again debated by. the, General Synod at / its mooting.in Nelson, which opens to-morrow. The mattor is of groat iimportance, inasmuch as . the au- . tonomy of the New, Zealand Churchand the nature of the bond which binds it to < the7mother Church of : . .England, is involved, and since .it \ was debated by the ' Synod ..three, years ago> it has acquired renewed interest, by reason of the light that has bean thrown upon tho subject by the vigorous' discussion of, similar problems by the Synods'of'the Anglican Church- in Australia., It is, generally recognised that the posi--tion of -the governing bodies of the Australian Church, and the legal nexus.with the Church of England; are most unsatisfactory, and, it .is felt-that sooner or later the present ; chaotic system will have to be.re- ; constructed. _ In_New Zealand tho Church constitution is far more log- ' ' ic'al and consistent; but it is felt by many .of those best able to judge that, the inherent independence of the Church is seriously compromised . and its natural: and legitimate development in accordance with its own special needs and circumstances is unduly hampered by somo of the provisions , of the constitution'. Though the Church in New Zealand ' claims to be autonomous, it has-in certain matters fettered itself in a ' most extraordinary way. For instance, it is prohibited from making alterations in the authorised ' version of the Bible or in the.Prayer. Book, unless such alterations shall ; have been previously adopted by the Church of England with the coriJ sent of the Crown and Convocation; or unless the Dominion becomes sep- ; ara-ted from the Mother Country ' or, the- Church in England is disestablished. It is felt by many that it is most undesirable that the power of. a young'and vigorous Church to adapt its services to meet its own needs should be made to depend upon i certain ecclesiastical and political i possibilities Oyer which it would have no control.,. Such,a -position can not be permanently tolerated by a I free and self-governing institution. ' : The '.question then. arises as .to 1 whbther tho General Synod has J power to alter those clauses of the i constitution which are declared un- ] alterable. The negative, side, of this i question is argued very fully in a i pamphlet recently published by i Archdeacon Richards, of Otago, and 1 was supported at the last meeting 1 of the General Synod by Bishop < Neligalj, Canon MacMurhay,- Mr. I Upton,, and others.' The cause of 'i complete autonomy has .been very i ably advocated'by the Primate,'tho ! Bishops of Christchurch a-nd Wei- < lington, Mr. T. F. Martin, and '. others,-and at the last General Synod ] the proposals of tho Bishop of J Christchurch'in this direction 'se- j cured'the votes of-a majority of the j bishops and laity, and was only dc- i feated by : failing to obtain a ma- 1 jority among the clergy. The 1 Primate has latoly replied .to Arch- i deacon Richards's pamphlet with i that-ability, directness, and courage i which is characteristic of the man. i The arguments of the two pamphlets 1 are thus summarised by the Church I Guardian (Dunedin)i — ' . ( The Archdeacon's position is that tho ' fundamental provisions having been ( formulated by the conference of 1857, and ! then and 1 subsequently accepted and acted l ' upon as unalterable, are thereforo unalterable by the General Synod, and that * tho acceptance of these provisions as un- ( alterable was. the basis on which General t Synod first existed. Tho l'rimate holds i Hint the General Synod was constituted to be the Church by representation, nml i that tho Church is inherently free, and ' that the General Synod, as her orcan of expression, partakes of her freedom The Archdeacon contends that tho / Church is in danger of losing her property if the General Synod alters the ! fundamental provisions, inasmuch as tho ( property held bv the General Synod is j held on the unalterableness of those pro- i visions; an'<l in support of his contention he refers to the decision of the House' of ' Lords in the Frca Church case. Tho I Priinato in reply argues that there is J]

, no analogy between the Frco Church ens - and the position which the Church wi be in if it docs niter tho said provision! t Tho Archdeacon declares that the cm ■, fititution would be broken, hence ther •, is an analogy. The PHmnto asks: "Jin ! t would tho constitution be broken? nil e holds that "the.disregard- of certain pre , visions would arise out of the-nature c tho case for which ivc nrfi not rcspoi sible, and those provisions never coul . operate since it was declared on the higl est authority, after they were formu lated, that the supremacy of the Crowt ; on which they rested, did Hot extend t ' tho colony." s On' the wliolc, we think that th , Primate hns decidedly the best o e the argument, though many .church men who suppdi't him in his mail contenfcidns nid,y tlisagfco with hin in his opposition' to securing.an Ac of Parliament so as to make it quit< t imiwssiblo, if the constitution shoiih 9 bo altered, for ;a. handful of irrecon cilables to claim to be the Chnrcl • of tho Province of New' Zealand , and therefore the legal owner of'al Anglican Church property in 'th.ii Dominion. . There is no need to fear that i. the proposed alterations in the con stitution are carried tho Synods wil embark on a , career of wild anc reckless change. The natural ten dency of ecclesiastical institution! is rather in the direction of excessivi caution. In any case, nothing car t bo done without the consent of i t majority of the bishops, clergy, anc t laity, voting as separate orders, anc t it. is Well known no# difficult it ii , to secure this consent for any im 1 portant departuro from traditiona ' ways. The proposed change is no . likely to result in any wholesale re [ vision of the Prayer Book by thi New' Zealand Church; indeed, thi . probability, is that, •in view of th< - suggested safeguards, the preacn • generation would not see tho crosi \ of a "t" or the dot of an "i" re ' movod. Tho suggested alteration ii 1 the constitution, however, woulc niakotho'theoretical freedom of th< Church a # reality, placing it in •£ position in tho, future to worl out its .own..salvation, and tc develop oil its •.■ own _ lines : tt; a living autonomous institution ■ in full communion with the Mothei Church, .but free from all restric- '. tions which may, hamper it in.doihn its full share, of the work of providing for the spiritual needs of the people. of New Zealand in : the present and infuture ages.', ;