AGAINST AUTONOMY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7039, 29 January 1910, Page 7

AGAINST AUTONOMY

SYNOD WILL NOT STAND FOB SEVERANCE. BISHOP NELIGAN'S DIRE FOREBODINGS. AND THE PRIMATE'S REBUKE. Tho Anglican Synod yesterday failed to record the requisite majority of votes in •each order necessary to secure tho endorsement of Bishop Julius's proposals in favour of complete autonomy for tho (Anglican Church in Now Zealand. Clause a of the resolution was carried on the voices, but clauses b, c, and d were successively defeated, whereupon tho mover withdrew tho remaining clauses and tho Bill was declared lost. Clause a affirmed that the Church of the province inherently possessed tho fullest powers of self-government. Clause b affirmed tho nocessity of rescinding clause six of tho constitution (enacting that no .Synod had the right to amend such constitution).

Clause c provided for tho necessary steps being taken to secure legal recognition of tile "Church of New Zealand," thus safeguarding the rights of property. Clause d set forth tho procedure to be observed should it be desired to vary tho forms and ordinancies of tho Church.

For a resolution of General Synod to pass it is necessary that a. majority of members of each order should support it. This condition was fulfilled in roga.rd to none of the clauses that went to a division, the voting being as follows: CLAUSE B. Bishopa. Clergy. Laity. Ayes 5 9 11 Noes .1 11 9 CLAUSE C. Bishopa. Clergy. Laity. Ayes 5 10 12 Noes 1 10 9 CLAUSE D. Bishops. Clergy. I." Ayes ... • 5 9 10 Noes ... - 1 11 10 Bishops Neligan, Julius and "Williams, Canon McMurray and Mr J. H. I Upton wero the contributors to the final stages of tho debate. Tho former, who tabled an amending resolution (ultimately -withdrawn in order to prevent confusion) making the proposed severance possible after the several dioceses had approved it and providing for prefatory appeal to Parliament for a definition of the Synod's oowers, declared that he had not the "slightest sympathy with the aims of tho resolution, (having never, in fact or in, theory, experienced difficulty in -working under the fundamental clauses of the constitution), but conceded that the body of opinion on tho other side was entitled to consideration. It was not for any member of a synod to claim that his will should rule—it was the, will of One higher- they must seek to know. Referring to the resolution, he said that it was true that it guarded against schism in one direction—against tho "Wee-Free" menace. But it failed to guard against a schism ot another kind-a schism, .that would appeal to party religion. There wero the free-lancer amongst priesthood; the separatists amongst the laity These people were thero and must he reckoned with. There was that involved that lay deeper than.the mere possession of property. When they began to touch, and to touch in a way that was offensive, a man's religious susceptibi-lties, they got right down to tho ibiggest sore in the church, absolutely. The moment they made men feel that rtheir religious liberty was threatened they were, exposing themselves to the most great and momentous danger they, could possibly open the door to. Tho curse to religion was party spirit, whether political or ecclesiastical. He believed that Bishop Selwyn purposely put those barriers in the way that were embodied in tho constitution. Unanimity in tho parishes must be precedent to any satisfactory solution of this question. He had an aiwful, horrible fear of what would follow did this or any General Synod pass such a resolution as was proposed without such unanimity. If it meant waiting for a hundred years they wait for that. The Primate lioro administered a soveiro rebuke to the previous speaker for what he termed his "exaggerated" language. It was not in the least likely that such things would come to pass. He strongly deprecated such threats, or even allusions to such happenings, and l hoped future speakers would confine themselves to tho question and not indulge in wild prognostica*idns.

Bishop Williams corrected the assertion that the framera of the constitution acted under misapprehension. Hepreferred the Bishop of Auckland's amendment because it retained clause 6 of the constitution. Bishop Julius ridiculed the alarmist tone adopted by certain" speakers. The Synod iha-d power at that moment to alter the Prayer Book or throw ; clause 6 to the windis if it so oho Se. But no man hut ai fool would over dream of revising the Prayer Book at the instance of the church in New Zealand only. Ho had not suggested altering a lino of it. What ho asked was that they should free themselves from tho seeming authority of a Parliament which neither knew nor oared what wero their requirements and, make themselves what they professed to bo I —fully autonomous. Wait for unanimity in the parishes! Wait till they had cldared tho masses out of the church, till'thoy had got a hundred years behind tho times, till there remained hut half-a-dozen old women to read tho Prayer Book to! Not one hundred but two hundred years must elapse before they would secure that unanimity. It was quite likely his resolution -would be rejected, but tho time would como when they would he delivered from those unworthy, thoughts (perfectly natural in another age) which irtado their fathers tremble at the idea of autonomy. !