THE PRIMATE'S PROTEST.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 769, 18 March 1910, Page 6

THE PRIMATE'S PROTEST.

ENGLISH PRESS OPINIONS. It is no secret (writes the London "Record") that there was a strong feeling manifested at the last Lambeth Conference on the part of some of the colonial prelates against the supremacy of Lambeth. It is clear, howjjver, that no very definite steps were taicen to change the present position; and at the general synod of the Church in New Zealand recently the Primate, Dr. Nevill, made an, emShatic protest against the arrangement te said it was "improper for a selfgoverning Church to submit to the overlordship of a Church in some other country," and in reference to the fact that the new Archbishop of Sydney had had to make a declaration of subordination to the Archbishop of Canterbury'he said it was "an act of ecclesiastical immorality for the Archbishop of one province to require the Archbishop of another to make a declaration of submission which could mean nothing." These are strong words, but (adds the "Record") they snow the depth of feeling which has been stirred. It is impossible to challenge the force of the protest. We have not got rid of a Pope to establish a Patriarch. But while the independence of the colonial Churches must be guaranteed, some way must surely be found 'for preserving, as far as possible, the happy union which exists between the Mother Church at Home and the . daughter Churches ,in the colonies. It is fortunate that there is now ruling at Lambeth a Primate whose sterling good sense would • prevent him from ever seeking to impose on colonial Churches a burden they were unable or unwilling to bear.

The Primate of New Zealand (says the "Guardian") is reported to have made some severe comments on the "declaration, of subordination" wjiich the Archbishop of- Sydney was stated to have made to the Archbishop of Canterbury. We understand that this has no reference to the ordinary oath of due obedience to the Archbishop, which was not made on this occasion, and which in fact the rubric distinctly orders not to be made at the consecration of an Archbishop, but to the declaration recommended by Re-. solution 9 of the Lambeth Conference of 1897, the text of which is' as follows:— "When it is intended that any Bishopelect, not under the Metropolitan jurisdiction of the See of Canterbury should be consecrated in England under the Queen's Mandate, it is desirable, if it is possible, that he should not be expected to take an oath of personal obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but rather should before his consecration make a solemn declaration that he will pay alldue honour and deference to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and will respect and maintain the spiritual rights and privileges of the Church of England, and of all Churches in communion with her. In Hhis manner the interests of unity would be maintained without any infringement of the local liberties or jurisdiction."