Waiapu Church Gazette. Wednesday, November 1st, 1922. THE "SECESSION"' OF THE AUSTRALIAN CHURCH.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XIII, Issue 5, 1 November 1922, Page 418

Waiapu Church Gazette. Wednesday, November Ist, 1922. THE "SECESSION"' OF THE AUSTRALIAN CHURCH.

The ignorance of the majority of sub-editors with regard to religious and ecclesiastical questions is notorious ; cables dealing Avith. religious events m other countries are quite unreliable. The Press agent who sends them has usually r a false impression of the facts which he reports, and the ... local sub-editor frequently misunderstands , the: message and gives it an utterly.' misleading heading. An instance m point is given m the headings m several newspapers of- news, items from Australia; dealing with the question of- the ' ' Nexus. ) ' i We ! wish to make clear the: following points : The Church of

Australia' is' by right as independent of the Church of England as Australia is of- the Parliament of England. The same is true of the Church of New -Zealand. 'To assert this independence is not a "secession" or a "separation"' or anything of the kind. When Australia was a Crown colony it was governed by the British Parliament. As soon' as it was strong enough it became self-governing. So also New Zealand long ago secured its own Parliament, and now governs itself. There was a time when the Church m Australia and the Church m New Zealand' were merely' offshoots'bf the Church of England, but that time is' long past. The Eoman Church is governed from Rome, but the elementary principle of the : English reformation was that National Churches have - the right of selfgovernment. Each National . Church must, of -course, retain the Catholic creeds and the Episcopal succession and some other characteristics which are common to all' parts of the Catholic Church, but the way m which we say our prayers, the prayers we say, the rules of ceremonial and similar questions are matters for each church to decide for itself. It was on this principle that the Church of England revised its own prayer book during reformation times and is revising it again, whilst m no way condemning the usages of other National Churches; it is on this principle it has acted throughout,- governing itself, so far as an Erastian State allowed it, from then till now. The Church of England is oppressed by the Erastian tyranny of. the Privy Council and other secuiar courts and .has herself long groaned for freedom. The daughter churches of Australia and New Zealand during their childhood bound themselves to follow the example of the mother .church m certain matters of customs and rites, for example, m the use of the English prayer book; But this discipline was self-imposed and we are at liberty to assume the freedom which "belongs to us when, we are disposed to do so. It is not necessary for the Church of New Zealand to remain m slavery because her mother' is not yet free. Her subjection, for example, to the Act of Uniformity, is perfectly voluntary. If the Church of New Zealand wishes to cast aAvay its self-imposed restrictions it can do so by the same' authority by which it imposed ;them. The only difficulty m the way is'that m the eyes' of the State the Church is . a voluntary with certain fundamental principles adopted as its Constitution. As an association it holds property, and its continued enjoyment of this property depends upon its remaining- the same identical' corporation as it has been. If "fundamental ' ' provisions of the Constitution are to be changed, the State

must be satisfied that such a change does not affect the identity of .the. Church." It is a serious anomaly both m Australia and New Zealand that we (by our self-imposed restriction of our liberty), are bound to use a prayer book,fwith which the. English Church herself is dissatisfied. The Bishop of Queensland recently called attention to. the f ; act that the older dioceses. of Australia had by their constitution bound themselves to . accept the decisions \ of an English se v cular court (the Judicial Committee of the Priyy Council) m matters of prayer boot interpretation, a court before which they could not even plead. ' ' It would be- equally reasonable to refer the question of expenditure m concrete for the streets of Sydney to the London County Council." To sum up no one proposes any secession or separation of the Colonial Churches from the Church of England, only that being now come to years of discretion they should no longer be tied to the apron strings, of a fond mother Tvho would much prefer them to realise that they are no longer little children but capable of managing their own affairs, and to enjoy the freedom which belongs to them biit which she "herself has not yet obtained. . The cables inform us that among other strange doings, of the diocese of Sydney a motion for severing the "nexus"— rthat is, that the Australian Church' resume its rights— was rejected by its Synod last month. The motion had' been relegated to the Diocesan Synods by the General Synod for their consideration. Sydney is so . far th'e: only diocese that has rejected the motion. Of the rest several have accepteji'the principle of autonomy unanimously, others have appointed committees to further investigate the quest^oii. The claiming of the rights of ' ' autonomy:: by the Australian Church is not a '.^separation" or a "secession" or a. "^schism" or anything of the kind.'. ': The cables frequently mislead the public "by informing us of air kinds of strange sayings of extreme modernists, extreme "evangelicals" and extreme V Catholics. " Many of these do not m the least represent the sane opinions of" theii' "party," certainly do not represent the English Church, and they are frequently obscure preachers/who have no weight whatever m the' Church. It would be strange if th^ Anglican Church had no faddists'among its' thousands of clergy, but" it is unfair for the Press representatives' to cable their effusions as if they represented the mind of the Church; ■ ■