ANGLICAN SYNOD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2723, 31 January 1910, Page 3

ANGLICAN SYNOD.

BISHOP JULIUS’ RESOLUTION LOST. j Pick i'hkkr association, t WELLINGTON, Jan. 29. The Anglican Synod yesterday failed to rec .d the requisite majority of votes in each order necessary to secure tlic endorsement of Bishop Julius’ poposals in favor of complete autonomy for the Anglican Church in New Zealand. Clause A of the resolution carried on the voices, but clauses B. C, and D were successively debated, whereupon the mover withdrew the remaining clauses, and the hill was declared lost. Clause A affirmed that the church ol the province inherently .possessed the fullest powers of self-governme.it. Clause B affirmed the necessity of rescinding clause 6 of the constitution (enacting that no Synod had the right to amend such constitution). Clause C provided for the necessary steps being taken to secure legal recognition of the “Church of New Zealand,” thus safeguarding the rights of property. Clause D set forth the procedure to be observed should it be desired to vary the and ordinances of the church. Eor a resolution ct the General Synod to pass it is necessary that; a majority of members of each order should support it. This condition was fulfilled in regard to none of the clauses that went to a division, voting lieing as follows:—Clause B—Ayes, bishops 5, clergy 9, -laity 11 ; noes, 1, 11. and 9. Clause C: Noes, bishops 1, clergy 10, laity 9; ayes, 5, 10, and 12. Claji.se D: Ayes, bishops 5, clergy 9, laitv 10; nocs, 11, 10. THE FEAR OF SCHISM. Bishops Neligan, Julius and Williams Canon McMurray, and Mr J. H. bp ton were the contributors to the final stages of the debate. The Canon tabled an amending resolution (ultimately with, drawn in order to prevent confusion), making the proposed severance possible after the several dioceses had approved of it, and providing for a preparatory appeal to Parliament for a definition of the Synod’s isomers. He declared that he had not the slightest sympathy with the aims of the resolution (having never, in fact or in theory, experienced difficulty in working under the fundamental clauses of tlie constitution) ; but, he conceded that the body of opinion on the other side was entitled to consideration, it was not for any member of a Synod to claim that liis will should rule. It was the will of One higher. They must seek to know. Referring to the resolution, he said it was true that it guarded against schism in one direction, against the “wee free menace,” but it failed to guard against a schism of whatever kind, a schism that would appear to be a. party to religion. There were freelances amongst the priesthood, and the separatists among the laity. These people were there and must be reckoned with. There was that involved that lay deeper than the mere possession of property. When they began to touch—and touch in a way that was offensive —a man’s religious susceptibilities they got right down to tlie biggest sore in the church. Absolutely the moment they made men fool that their religious liberty was threatened they were exposing themselves to the greatest and most momentous danger they eoukl possibly open the door to. The 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 the constitution. Unanimity in the partners must he precedent to. any satisfactory solution to this question. He had .a horrible fear 1 of what would follow if this General Synod passed such a resolution as was proposed. Without such unanimity lit meant waiting for a hundred years. They should wait for that. ~

The Primate here administered a severe rebuke to the previous speaker for what he had termed “exaggerated” language. It was not the least likely that such a thing would come to pass. He strongly deprecated such threats or even allusions to such happenings, and hoped future speakers, would confine themselves to the question, and not indulge in wild prognostications. Bishop. Williams corrected the assertion that the framers of the constitution acted under misapprehension. He preferred the Bishop of Auckland’s amendment, because it retained clause G of the constitution. Bishop. Julius ridiculed the alarmist tone adopted by certain speakers. 'The Synod had power at that moment to alter the praverbook or throw clause G to the wind if it thought fit. but no man but a! fool would ever dream of revising the prayer-book at the instance of the church in New Zealand only. He had not suggested altering a line of it. What he- asked was that they should free themselves, from the seeming authority of a Parliament, which neither 'knew nor cared what were their requirements, and make themselves what they professed to he, fully autonomous. Wait for unanimity in the parishes! Wait till thev had cleared the masses out of the church'.; til] they had got a. hundred years behind' times: till there remained hut half-a-dozen old women to read the 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 he rejected, but the time would come when they would be delivered from those unworthy thoughts; perfectly natural in another age, which made their fathers tremble at the idea of autonomy.