ANGLICAN SYNOD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2721, 28 January 1910, Page 5

ANGLICAN SYNOD.

“INDEPENDENCE” PROPOSALS,

IPeu Press Association.! WELLINGTON, Jan. 27. The “independence” proposals of the Bishop of Christchurch, were further debated at tho Anglican Synod to-day, the discussion hinging in the main on: clause 6 of the constitution (now proposed to be repealed), which reads,. “The above provisions shall be deemed, fundamental, and it shall not be within, the power of tlie General Synod, or any Diocesan Synod, to alter, revoke, addl to,or diminish any of the same." \Vhen. the Synod rose the debate was still unfinished.

Bishop Averill deprecated tho intro-, duction of side issues, and appealed for, a vote on the question of the principle* involved—were or were they not in ai false position. When he came to this country he believed he was coming to a* church that was independent, instead he found they could not make any alteration or do anything without the sanction of the British Parliament. Left them get away from this false position. What was done in 1857 was plainly done under a misapprehension. The Church of New Zealand was a branch, not of the Church of England, but of th© Holy Catholic Church, yet they were not to claim the right to fully manage their own affairs.

Bishop Wallis held that the Church, had power to repeal an ordinance as much as it- had power originally to create it. He felt bound to help his brothers to remove a burden vyhich he felt should never have been imposed' upon them. The resolution had beem already approved of by the Wellington Synod and considered by the other Diocesan Synods. The Rev. J. Hobbs (Hastings) deprecated the attempt to take away from/ the bishops powers which they had 1 used with discretion. The alternative of self-government .appealed to him. He preferred to trust the bishops. Archdeacon Williams contended thafi the mere fact of the Synod of 1865 reaffirming the constitution of 1857 did not give the General Synod a fresh welL spring of new authority. What was aimed at by the resolution was to secure indemnity against the consequences of what the courts of justice were quite likely to declare was a wrongful act.

Mr. Thomas Wells asked them not to throw the whole fundamentals of the constitution into the melting pot. He had no faith in a body which could take away from the churchmen of the province (as was done on the previous night, the liberty to vote for,members of the Synod. They had thrown £jvay the rights of the churchmen in this, and they would throw them away all through. The Primate said the present Synod was even more representative of the Church of the country than was the conference of 1857, and had equal authority to speak for the ChurchArchdeacon Williams (Cambridge) re-, fused to support- a movement to rescind any of the fundamental clauses of the constitution.

Bishop Mules proposed an amendment referring to the next Diocesan Synods the proposal to rescind clause 6. Mr. H. D. Andrews quoted from the Verv .Rev. Henry Jacobs’ “History of the Dioceses of New Zealand” to show that the original constitution was only tentative and possibly temporary. Archdeacons York and Richards contributed to the debate, the latter denying that the proposals were in the least degree conservative.