ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 729, 31 January 1910, Page 4

ANGLICAN CHURCH CONSTITUTION.

;.., -■, The , most,;important debate of \the present session of the Anglican Geh: oral Synod, was'; brought /to a; close on Friday, when .the motion : of :; the. Bishop of ; Ohristchurch,-, affirming .that in order to exercise the Church's full -'inherent powers of; self-govern:, ment it would be, necessary: to 'rescind Clause VI, of the'' Constitution,, was/in its main provisions rejected by .a; narrow/majority...: ;in. ;times gone by an opinion widely prevailed that the.bishops were the most, conservative-body in -the '. Anglican Communion,' but the,'experience ..of the-New: Zealand' Church;, and recent 'developments ; in':Church 'life and thought:in.England,; have' gone far to' upset this idea.: Many of the 'most liberal and.progressive ,;minds. of the nation, are at, present to. be found in the episcopate; at Home, and the voting: on:'■ the ,i Bishop 7of •. .Christchurch's motion . on, Fridayshowed : clearly--that in ;New- Zealah d the'bishops:are not afraid to';'come: boldly out' of old 'grooves" when the necessity ..arises; in order- to' adapt the 'organisation of-the Church; to the needs of ..the present and the future. No fewer than.five out of the six diocesan bishops present/voted for; the ijriricipal -clause of - the .■ mo-, and'the laity declared in favour of it by a majority of two, but the clergy, also by a majority of two, decided .that the present.: position should be maintained, : ; The motion ; did not contain, any :revolutionary proposals, hut in effect it.merely affirmed; that' those',provisions .'of..the Constitution', .which : make action by the Church'of the Province of New Zealand in: certain important" respects .dependent upon;what may or may not.ibe done by the Church of England and the British P arliament, are inconsistent with the inherent rights of the Church in this Dominion' ; to : complete . Belf-gbwrninenfc. The 'Bishop, of:. Auckland made a; powerful 'speech, in the, course'of which he drew a terrible picture'of the-awful things that might happen if the motion weretcarried, but the' Bishop of Christclmrch was not. at all terrified by these pessimistic predictions. Ho made a most able and effective reply, stating that when any great reform was proposed there were always those who predicted that disaster would follow, and he reminded the Synod of the danger; of putting the' proposed change off until tho Church had alienated tho sympathies of many of its most earnest-minded and 1 progressive members. In order to carry a motion in the Synod it is necessary to secure a majority in each of the three orders (bishops, clergy, and laity) voting separately. The Bishop of Christchurch's motion, did not succeed in this, but taking the voting as. a whole it had a majority of four in its favour. All

things boing considered; Dr. JoLitrs.l and "those who support: him in this matter\havo good reason to be satisfied 'with the result, and the probabilities- are that the next i General Synod will carry the proposal they, have so ably advocated. .Until then, or until it develops sufficient:conJi-' dehce in itself to stand' alone, the Church of the Province of New. Zealand will, it seems, have to .rest content in the , less heroic position of being, to use : the -words .•of'. the Bishop of Christchureh, "tacked on to the Church of England—Parliament and all." . ■■■ •' ; .. :, y : : / ',