ANGLICAN CHURCH.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19622, 28 October 1925, Page 9

ANGLICAN CHURCH.

VARIATION OF CONSTITUTION: FAVOURED BY AUCKLAND SYNOD. {Fbom Our Own Correspondent.) AUCKLAND, October 27. The Auckland Diocesan Synod, with some dissentients, iavours measures to secure autonomy for the Church of the province of New Zealand bv varying the fundamental clauses of its constitution which at present tie it to the Church of England and prevent it from adopting a revised prayer book of its own, or from doing certain other acts which are in the power of other churches in communion with Canterbury. Mr C. J. Tunks, chancellor of the Diocese, yesterday moved ; (a) That this Synod , approve of the resolution passed by the General Synod in Dunedin this year, directing that a Bill be promoted in Parliament authorising the General Synod to alter, revoke, add to, or diminish the fundamental provisions of the constitution in order to secure practical as well as theoretical autonomy. (b) That the draft Bill adopted by the General Synod be approved. Mr Tunks explained the position in much detail, pointing out that the mental clauses which were declared to be unalterable contained provision for their own alteration. To meet certain changed circumstances the present legal position, he added, could be determined only by an appeal to the courts, whose decision could not be predicted with certainty. The only alternative was to secure the authority of Parliament for the varying of the fundamental clauses by the Church itself through •the General Synod. Archdeacon M‘Murray opposed the motion on several grounds. He failed to see that the Church was suffering or likely to suffer for some time from limitation of her authority. Proposals to alter the constitution had been defeated again and again. The proposed appeal to Parliament was extrtmely undesirable, because if it succeeded in future the General Synods would be in the invidious position of deriving its authority from Parliament and not. from the Church as at present. He quoted Lord Halsbury to show that the constitution of a religious body could not be properly altered without the unanimous consent of its members. He appealed to churchmen to wait until the revised English Prayer Book appeared. It it were suited to New Zealand needs there should be little need for such, action as was now proposed. Mr W. E,. Lush drew attention to .the fact that, •if the discussion were deferred for a year, they would have the separate opinions of the proposed Waikato and Maori dioceses as additional forces. He favoured a vear’s grace. “I distrust the judgment of both our own General Synod and Parliament in this matter,” said Mr D. Hay. , He urged that New Zealand should not break away from England. The Rev. G. Gordon Bell said he was surprised at the temerity of those who wanted to rush headlong' into the scheme. In his opinion the General Synod had no power to change the constitution of fundamentals. Bishop Richards of Dunedin had himself urged that no undue haste should be resorted to in this age, when theological opinion was so changeable and when there were so many movements inside and outside the church. It _ would he .presumption to take risks which might one day lead the church to disaster. The Rev. H. T. Steele said, amid laughter, that from the remarks of certain speakers it appeared that their desire was to create a new Pope at Canterbury wiio would be able to say what the church in New Zealand was to clo and was not to do. He contended that the church in New Zealand was a national one, and so should possess autonomy. Archbishop Ayerill said' that as far as most of them were concerned they knew as much as they would in a year’s time. The motion was oarriecl by a large majority, amid applause.