CHURCH AUTONOMY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 37, 12 February 1904, Page 2

CHURCH AUTONOMY.

DISCUSSED BY THBMSekeiUL SISod The bill proposed by Archdeacon to provide for the amendment of , * damental provisions of the eonSw? such manner as to provide nomy of the Church of the ProvL New Zealand was further ° f the Anglican General when the second reading debate Jf** , snmed. was *«- The Rev. Canon MaeMurray soirt amble to the bin was contrarl Pre " Bishop Selwyn having stated J? 0 **«. province was founded that it was r^-^ constitution had been altered taMBl ■■*• ing a statement of Bishop Selwrn% T*}' in that year that he wuldS t"* from the chair any proposals g l fundamentals. The revisions made the nou-fundanientul principles He V/i? that if the constitution were altered S properties held under the Bishops or Zealand's Trust Art would be iLi? imperilled. He hoped that the do nothing so rash and unwise asrto 25 this measure, which would create hwS and disunion, and would open the dooTfo any revolutionary movement. Onw th« gavp the General Synod power to the fundamentals, they gave them m*~ to tear up the prayer boot. i~»er ■ Mr Tanner urged that Mr MacMumrt, argument was founded on a mlaannrXn sion. The bill did not propose to tew Z the constitution, but to bind ft „„:? tighter. The bill did not alter the eSS? tutlon, but merely put it In modern iiT ' guage, and in accordance with the er&T ing conditions. Clause yl, ■of the constitution, which declared that the General Synod should not Save power to alter the fundamental provisions of the constitution n, never seriously intended, the iramerg knowing that they could not bind.their successors. It was agreed to' simply as a check, and apparently it still had an effect of this nature on Canon MacMnrray;. Bishop Williams (Waiapu) thought it an extraordinary thing that the constitution was to be amended if no alterations-were to be made as had been said by the laet speaker. TL-e declared that unless taa fundamentals of the constitution had.been put in it would have been impossible, to have formed the compact at ■which the constitution was framed. On no other line* could the church people have been brought together to make rules for their guidance. There could be no ■ doubt bnt that the General Synod was founded on that constitution, and as a result of.that compact. He admitted that some of-he clauses in the fundamentals were , obsolete, but if that were so. what harm, he asked, could they do? There was no Established Irish Church, but the mention of the Irish Church in the fundamentals had no harmful effect on our position. He did not know what dangers the bill would obviate, as had been suggested in the course of the debate. He would vote against the second reading. The Rev. Sprott was in favour of the bill. Although in point of time we were only separated by 50 years by the framers of the constitution, we were really separated from them oy centuries in point of view. The chasm between the generations was that they believed that the whole of Divine truth had been revealed. and_.that - It had ail been apprehended, wiiile the Church now was more modest and.believed that the Divine truth had not been fnllT apprehended. If the bill passed, ■no changes would be made in the- formularies without a jjenenil consent of the whole body, and those who thought the Chnrct would in a moment of panic, did not believe the Church was a spirit bearing body. Further, suppose the Church did apoetaeik no unalterable fundamentals written in the constitution would keep it in the faith. He declared that there was an immorality in asking ministers of truth to subscribe to what they new fhey did not accept, and a cynicism in telling a candidate for hoi? orders that lie could accept just so much as he felt inclined to. Mr Seth Smith favoured the second read* ing of the bill. At 10.30 the debate was adjourned, thert being no possibility of finishing that night