FREEDOM OF ANGLICANS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18950, 23 February 1925, Page 10

FREEDOM OF ANGLICANS.

CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND. CLAIM FOR PRIVILEGES. t BISHOP SUPPORTS MOVEMENT. The movement by the Anglican Church in New Zealand for a greater measure of freedom ( was referred to by Dr. Averill, Bishop of Auckland, and Primal c an.d Archbishop-elect of New Zealandj at St. Mary's Cathedral last evening. Dr. Averill dealt, with (lie important decision of General Synod, on the motion of Archbishop Julius, "That a bill be promoted in Parliament by the General Synod to enable the synod from time to time to alter, revoke, add to, ,or diminish the fundamental provisions of the constitution, so that the Church shall have practically the autonomy which, as a branch of the Catholic Church, she now possesses theoretically." The bishop explained that the bill had to be submitted to all the Diocesan Synods, and finally adopted by the next General Synod before any action could be taken in bringing it before Parliament. The bill not only sought the right to make alterations in the Formularies and Prayer Book, but also safeguarded the identity and the property of the Church when the constitution was changed. "No hasty action is contemplated," declared the bishop. "No change can possibly take place without the general approval of the whole Church. At the present time the Anglican Church of New Zealand is tied and bound to t&e Mother Clittrch in England, and cannot alter one formula in the Prayer Book until the Church of England has given the lead, or until ihat church is disestablished, or until New Zealand is separated from the Mother Country." The New Zealand Church was found by the Fundamental Provisions of the Constitution, which declared that the General Synod should have no power to make any alteration in the authorised version of the Holy Scriptures or the Formularies of the Church, except in the event of the aforementioned political contingencies happening in England. The reason of this voluntary compact of church people, who drew up and subscribed to the fundamentals, was the very laudible desire to continue their association with the Mother Church, to remove the danger of any illconsidered alterations in the Prayer Book by the mere handful- of people then in New Zealand, and to prevent any possibility of endangering the Church's property in New Zealand. Time How Ripe. "Without doubt," said the bishop, "the framcrs of our constitution did consider that the Church in New Zealand would become competent to enjoy the rights and privileges of an autonomous church. We believe that it is our duty to claim that right and privilege now. The question may be asked, 'Why seek to alter the constitution now, inasmuch as no serious obstacles have presented themselves hitherto V The answer is—'Because of the dangers ahead.' " The New Zealand Church was described in the constitution as a branch of the 'United Church of England and Ireland.' There never was any such church. The alliance contemplated by Parliament was never accomplished. But even the supposed union came to an end with the disestablishment of the Irish Church. It might be held therefore that the constitution did not permit the New Zealand Church to make any changes even if the Church of England did so. But even if this difficulty were overcome, the New Zealand Church was bound to follow the Church of England in any alterations she might see fit to make in her Formularies and Prayer Book. Slip would have no liberty to adopt any change which the Church of England had not originated. When the Revised Prayer Book, which had already been 17 years in preparation, emerged and was adopted in England, it might not bo at all suitable for New Zealand purposes, and yet it must be accepted here 'in toto' or in part. The New Zealand Church might prefer to adopt the Revised Prayer Book of the Canadian or South African Church, but her present constitution forbado it. The church here ought to be free to adopt, whatever Prayer Book appeared to her most suitable for New Zealand. There was another danger. If the Church in England were disestablished or if (which, God forbid!) New Zealand were separated from the Mother Country, it would be possible for any member of General Synod under the present constitution, to propose any change which he might devise in the Formularies or Prayer Book of the Church. The intention of the sent movement was to make such alteration impossible without the consent of two consecutive General Synods and all the Diocesan Synods. " Obsolete Formularies." " I strongly oppose the tendency," declared the bishop, •' to assimilate the Church of England and witb it the Church of this Province to the obsolete formularies of medievalism. I believo that our churchy however small, has its contribution to make to the welfare and' unity of the whole Church. lam of the opinion that wo should have the same freedom to work out our ovnj salvation in matters religious as we have in matters civil and political. I fully realise the responsibility which will devolve upon myself in the future in connection with this present movement for legitimate freedom and self-government-; but I have no fear of any danger to the Church by increasing the responsibility of General Synod, for I am convinced that as the Holy Spirit has guided us in the past and is guiding us, I believe, in the present, so He will continue to guide us in the years to come. Personally I trust that the present Primate and Archbishop, who has fought for years for this rightful freedom, will be spared to see the fruits of his labours. The resignation of the Primate will leave a tremendous blank in the Church of this Province, and we must hope and pray that he will be spared for many years to give counsel and advice to thoso who arc called upon to carry on his work."