ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 636, 13 October 1909, Page 8

ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTION.

FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS.AUCKLAND SYNOD OPPOSED TO ALTERA- ''-•' ■ ■' ■■■'.:■ :;TIONS.. ; . v' ' (By Telegraph-Press Association! ; :''.>. Auckland, October 12.. ■The Anglican Synod received a resolution : from the' Wellington Synod, advocating that General Synod should- secure the. right to complete self-government of the'Churoh. It wai resolved,.' without 'debate,'that,, the synod has no sympathy with any proposal to ohahgo thf provisicn6,.of the, constitution called-fUndA mental. ' • ■ -.' ~.r■;.. ■•■. ,'

THE WELLINGTON SYNOD'S RESOLUTION

On the motion of the Rev. T. H. Sprott, the' following resolution was agreed to by the Wei lington Synod :— i"That this synod, while gratefully acknowledging the wisdom displayed-by those wh< drew up the constitution of this: Church of thi Province-of New Zealand! is strongly of opinion that the unalterable character of, the pro- ■ visions in the.constitution called fundamental is injurious to the best interests of the Church, and a t hindrance to its" progress, and prays th< Genoral Synod to eeoure, by Act of the right of complete self-government for thi Churcn. Providea always thatn6,altcration' ; ii the Book of Common Prayer; in the .for'm.'&ni' manner of making, ordaining, and eohsecraV ing of'bishops, priests, and, deacons, and. in the Thirty-Nine, Articles of, religion shall'-'be. made until : it shall be'firsj-proposed V. oho General Synod, and made, known.to, the several Diocesan Synods and finally agreed ■to in... the meeting of the General Synod next ensuing/',. , Speaking on' the motion, the. Bishop .of Wellington (Dr. Willis)' said it seemed .to him that it would bo a'horrible thing'to say that they must'never make changes in the fundamental provisions.. That would bo- a denial of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church. It would bo. a terrible thing to say that the Chnrch,.was to. be bound for genera--tions to. come by regulations that were framed three centuries, ago, aid to have no power to alter them. '.',,-.

' The Rev. T. H. Rprott stated that the proposed change should be made as a lmitteWof principle, quite apart from any praotfcal- advantages that mignt be derived from it.- Tha English Church maintained that unity and catholicity consisted in the federation of free, self-governing churches. .• The difficulty in regard to the fundamental provisions was not merely, that thoir Uauda wore tied, but that they were made dependent on another Church. Under,the fundamental provisions- it was open to them to adopt changes'/ in' the formularies of the Church, provided tlriyMiad; boon adopted by the Church' in England;.,' A committee of the English Church was. now ongaged in a revision of the Prayer Book,.which was being made without any thought at all of what.was needed for Now Zealand purposes. The committee sot up was considering the riteds of the Church ■ m -England, and -if Convocation and tho Crown'finally authorised, its suggestions, the Now Zealand Church, was nt liberty to adopt them. But the, report would hot-bo drawn up to meet Now Zealand' needs at all. The Now Zealand Church hod given away the local autonomy which it had, joalously guarded at another point.