THE ANGLICAN SYNOD.

Evening Star, Issue 3924, 22 September 1875, Page 2

THE ANGLICAN SYNOD.

A fu’l choral service, inaugurating the proceedings of the thiid annual session of the Church o' England Synod, was held at St, Matthew’s Church last ev. nihtg. The Revs. E. G. Penny, 1 lifford, and Gr anger conducted th-‘ service. The united chor.rii of St. R.Matthew's, St. Paul’s, and All Saints’ churches, ied by Mr A. J Towsey, rendered the music, including an anthem from Psalms 135, v. 5, 0, •ml 21, vt iy efficiently. Mr 1 debar.lson pi esided at the organ. The church was filled with people, and at the conclusion oT the service a c llectiou Was made m aid of Matthew’s building fund, which realised L 26 .5s lid.

■ he Secret ry (Mr B. Quick) read the roll, and the following members of Synmd answered to their names :—' lergy : Ven. Archdeacon Edwards, Kev. Messrs G. P. Biiiiurnont, R. Coffey, J ; 1 ewe, A, Gifford, E. I.L Granger, W, N. Leeson, C, J Martin, K. G. Penny, li. L. Stanford. Laity : Messrs Jas Ashcroft, Jss. Anderson, S. Br.-nt, Bellett, Id Kraer, H J. Gibbs, H. F. Hardy, M. W. Hawkins, D’Aiv.y Maggi t, H, Howorth, M. Houghton, H. R. dones. l.usk, A. D Lubecki, W. H. Mansford, W. Maudcrs, E. Quick, Jaa. E. J. i* pence, and F. Ihe President (Bishop Nevil), tiben declared the Synod duly cons ituted, a* id read the following

ADDRESS. Reverend Brotl reu and Dear Brethren of the Luity—l would first of nil express, on behalf »of this Synod, our humble thanks to Almighty God t. hat of His mercy we are permitted to re assemble, after the lapse of a year, without having to mourn the loss of any of our members by the baud of deaf, b. Certain alterations in the Synod Roll, bowel 'or, have occurred by the removal, resignation, or »ab« Bern eof members. The Rev. A. Duseul ha-jug I’e* siped the charge of the parish of WaikouaHi, • i c li ias for period of twelve yew is followed to tbe Dmcose of Wellington by kind wishes of many friends. His placo hae beou failed by the appointment of the Kev. E. H, Gi augor, M.A., to the united parishes of Waikoualtl uud Palmerston, ni consequence of which we axe enabled to welcome again to our councils one who already done good work among us. The Rev, E. Williams has also removed from this Diocese,' and accepted a cure in that of Waiapu, As yet no successor has been found for the important district of Aaschy. On the ether hand, the Rev. C. J. Martin has come to us well accredited from the Diocese of Hobart Town, and has already won for himself n large share of esteem in the cure of Cavershum, to which he has been licensed, To fill up vacancies which have occurred among the lay members, writs were issued to the Returning OlHceis of the undermentioned districts, with the results here recorded, viz.:—Tunpeka and Wmtahuna, Messrs C. W. Adams, M. FraserTokomainio, &c„ Mr R. R. J nos ; Riverton, Messrs If. Houghton, H. F. Leary; Popotuaoaand Alataura, Air E. J, Spence; Oamaru, Air James AsUciult; Clyde, Air W. Fraser ; Cromwell, no nomination; St. Matthew’s, Dunedin, no nomination ; Mauiototo, Air F, Wayne. I think the time hue no w come at which it is desirable for the Synod to address itself earnest] v, though, at the same time, calmly and caroiudy, to the consideration of the very important measure submitted to ns by the General Synod of 1874. I mean the Bill which it ia proposed to adopt for settling a rule of the Church in reference to alterations of her services, formn!anc--( and articles, known as “Alteration of Foruma nos Bill.” lam not unmindful of the fact that another meet ing of the Synod of this diocese will take place hetoic the next regular meeting of the ■ euci'al Synod ; but theie are reasons for regarding the present ns the most convenient opportunity for entering upon the discussion oi this matter.

THE GENERAL POSITION. Now, it, is of the first importance that wo should approach this subject with a clear apprehension of all its surrounding, or, otherwise, we shall full to perceive cither the ‘‘necessity" declared b; tho General Synod for devising rules at all, or the value of the provisions suggested ; but while there axe, no doubt, some anione us who, from position or predilection, have become familiar with the points involved, so that the question, to their minds, is narrowed down to a simple issue, I cannot forget that, wilh the majority of tin members of our Church—t may even suppose, without offence, with a con sidemble portion of the members of this Synod—--his can hardly bo the case. lu almost every disUHsiou upon this proposed enactment a uambei of preliminary and external questions—the incidence jt which, indeed, has gone far to establish the lawiuluess ml necessity of it—are entered upon with m earnestness, not to say vehemence, proportioned f° the novelty with which they present themsdves to the mind of the speakers. I think, therefore, it will be an advantageous course to enter somewhat 1 ui ly into the general subject before noticing the actual points at issue ; and I am disposed to take his course, both because 1 believe it will prove to us an economising of time in the end, and because cue questions involved are making themselves felt in it nor portions of the Colonial Church, in which, up •o tho present lime, t bus been less necessary to ■samme them strictly than among ourselves. ,r U1 ‘ e ’ therefore, entirely disclaiming the idea of iirenug instruction ■to those from whom wo should ° vv ; l ,, lngl y l earu > we may yet hope that the effort ° . v further clear our own minds up<ou the subjoct before us, will not be without its utjo to others nmilarly situated as ourselves. Tho broad question, hen, which underlies the whole, is th.dt of

OUR RELATION TO TBK MOTHER CH URCH. And the lirst difficulty which presents itself when this subject has to be touched upon arrises from the

\orj laudable sentiment of loyalty and love, which causes th« instinctive, though ill instructed, exclamation, “ We are members of that Church, and if you are going to tell mo that I am not a member of the English Church, I have done; I shall give up all interest in end effort on behalf of this organisation !*’ Such remarks proceed from a failure to discriminate rightly between identity in matters of r aith, doctrine, and constitution, and the totally distinct question of authority and regimen. But it may he replied, “Wo understand that distinction, hat we insist upon the extension of the authority which prevails in England to the Church in the Colonies, so that the bond may bo external, as well as intornal, and wc may be without distinction one.” Now, the answer to this has two branches corresponding to the two branches of the authority which prevails in the English Church i.e., that of the Church, and that of tbo State. I shall proceed to show that bat for special reasons—of which more hereafter—neither one nor the ?ther„ ot these authorities can be applied from an gland to the Church in New Zealand, and it will be allowed that if neither, separately, can extend their rule, so as to include us, the union of the Churcii and State with England will not bring ns within the scope of their protection or dominion. I will touch first on

THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE

in its application to us. The State, in its most concrete form, is expressed by tho Crown. Up to about twelve years ago it was supposed that the authority of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters operated equally in all parts of her Majesty’s Co onial Empire, and that apparently iu spite of the fact that it did not so operate over the limited area of the British Isles. Thus, in the appointment of a Bishop to a Colonial see, the Crown (1) nominated, (2) issued letters patent which set forth the territorial jurisdiction of tho Bishop, (3) and sent a document to the Archbishop of Canterbury, ordering him to consecrate to the office of Bishop for such See the person named therein. It is not enough to know that the first two of these steps have been surrendered, and that the third has been modified to the extent of issuing only a mandate to consecrate, without mention of any locality in which tho newly-made Bishop should exercise his office. We should understand why these alterations have been made. The explanation is that it was subsequently discovered that wnen the Crown has surrendered so much of its prerogative as is implied by tho granting of representative government to any Colony, it cannot consistently step iu afterwords and create counts of law and jurisdiction, such as were set forth in the letters patent. This led to the definition of the actual position of the Church in Colonies so constituted, and the definition which was given by the Privy Council made it evident that for the Crown to nominate the Bishops would bo as inconsistent with the liberties of a Cnnrcli so situated as to issue letters patent was inconsistent with the liberty granted to the State within which it, w as. The; Church, then, must appoint her own officers, and it is only in the accidental case of the person appointed residing in England and being consecrated by the Archbishop ot Canterbury that evens mandate is issued, and that because by the relation of the Church to the State iu England the Archbishop may not •xerciae his office for the consecration of any Bishop whatever without such mandate :rom the Crown as a license to do so. The circumstances which led up to this position are full of instruction, but cannot he set forth here; suffice it to say that the first step ia the course arose out; of the refusal of Mr Long to obey tho instructions of the Bishop of Capetown, because he believed that the calling together of a Synod on the part of that saintly and far-seeing Bishop was the commission of an act of schism against the Church ot England. Mr Long having publicly iu his church proclaimed his repudiation of all authority on the part of the Bishop over him, the matter found its way eventually to the Privy Council, on which occasion tho famous judgment was given which, us it forms the basis of the constitution of our Church, I do not think is undesirable to place before you again—at least so far as regards its most important decisions. Its language is as follows: —“ The Church of England, in places where there is no Church, established by law, is in the some position with any othere religious body—in no better, but in no worse position; and tho members may adopt rules for enforcing discipline within their body, os the members of any other communion may adopt rules for enforcing discipline within their body, which will be binding on those who expressly or by implication have assented to them.” “ It may be further laid down that where any religions or other lawful association has not only agreed on tho terms of its union, hnt has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether the rules of tho Association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what shall be the consequence of such violation, then the decision of such tribunal will be binding.” This judgment was recorded in June, 186J, and bore withthe greatest force upon the questions which at that time, aud long subsequently, agitated the Church, arising out of the proceedings rendered necessary by the grievous Heresies promulgated by Dr Colenso. Some grain of comfort may, perhaps.be extracted out of those sad circumstances, inaamuch as the sifting, point by point, of the whole position by the most eminent jurists of the day which this trial involved made clear at length the fact that the Ecclesiastical Courts of England cannot, by their veiy constitution, be open for the reception of cases arising in places outside of the limits of the union between tho Church and the State —that is, at the present time, beyond the boundaries of England itself. In other words, that the Church iu tho Colonies cannot appeal to the existing courts at Home. Before I pass frem this branch of the subject I must allude to the only argument—so far, at least, as I am aware—which ban been advanced by any person in authority in support of an opposite conclusion. I mean the judgment of Lord Roinilly when Master of the Bolls. It would bo needless to speak of this ■decision, inasmuch us it was pronounced to be bad in law, and was reversed by the higher Court, were it not that the arguments set forth in it and the underlying desire find place in many minds, and lave recently found expression by some whose inilaouce iu the Church is deservedly great. Lord Romilly’s theory for the establishment of a legal connection between the Church in England and her daughters iu the Colonies, set forth that the Supreme Court in each Color y should be a court of appeal from tho decisions of a bishop ; not in the way and to the extent that there must be appeals from all voluntary religious bodies to civil courts — ▼iz., to see that justice has been done, but on what are called the merits of the case. 'I his link once formed, then would follow, iu duo course, appeals from the Supreme Court of the Colony to, the Courts at Home, aud thus the legal connection would be established. By this process it will be seen that Lord Bonnily simply ignored all Provincial organisation and authorityjon the part of the Church, andsought to promote an impossible connection between the voluntary association and the legal institution. I think I have sufficiently tilustrated the first, branch ' of the subject of the relation of f.ue Church in tho j Colony to the Mother Church, and shown that the 1 State department of that Church’s authority fails to exercise within our B nuds either discipline, control, or protection, or, indeed, any other legal power, so far as general principles are concerned. It may be said—“ Yes, but surely the mother Church, as ft Church—quite apart From all tho consequences of her relation to the State in England—having extended herself to these regions, has authority over her distant members !” I might reply that, inasmuch as the two branches of authority of which I am speaking do not, in ecclesiastical matters at Home, operate separately, but with inextricable commixture, I do not see how the Church in England could utter an uumixed note to those beyond the seas, and I think that this is a point which should bo bonie in mind by those who busy themselves with efforts to weave cords of concoction to take the place of the imagined ones which liiavo so suddenly disappeared ; I allude to proposed voluntary Courts of Appeal, the acknowledgment of the Archbishop of Canterbury as Patriarch, aud the like ; but the true answer to this arrangement rests on oth°r grounds. As briefly as lean, I will produce them. Having seen that the estate no longer interferes with our ecclesiastical arrangements, we uro driven back upon the principles which prevailed within tho Church anterior to any union with any State ; these are more easily discovered than many suppose. Not only have we the.' stream of Church- historians to consult, but the works of eminent compilers of Church law; and, above all, the well preserved canons of tho early councils. The exhume;! bones of birds and beasts, put together by tho hands of science, display the form of creatures our eyes never saw; with even more of certainty do these make clear to us the; constitution of tho pro-Con-Staatine Church, and even glancing at this wc find that as the Church, developed groups of Bishoprics were associated for purposes of discipline and internal regulation into provinces under a .Metropolitan or Primate. Wo find that considerations of eonvanieuco— geographical, national, and tho like — entered largely into the formation of province;;; that tho limit’s of the authority of Metropolitans were very distinctly laid down, and consisted chiefly in being the proper officer to summon nnd preside in the Synod of tho province or General Synod, an t in his booig the chief consccr.itor of bishops of nil dir.coses witliiu his province, ami no point is more clear Mian the one illustrated iu so many ways, viz. —that the

AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH WERE TO BE SETTLED IN THE i. PROVINCE TO WHICH THE I RELATED. Tt would I e easy to quote a multitude of canons to this effect. It must be remembered that our church receives the canons of the first four General Councils. The Council of Nice (-25), in making order to this effect, adds, “Let the on dent customs prevail.” The second canon of the Council of Const antmoplo enacts that the Synod of each province must administer the affairs of the province according to that which was decreed at Nice; and the third General Council (Ephesus) refused to allow the claim made by the Bishop of Antioch to ordain bishops for the Island of Cyprus, as being contrary to this principle. We have therefore the decisions of three out of the four first General Councils, so that, I need not s.-ek further to establish the point, though the evidence is temptingly abundant, and Bpelman, Bede, and William of liolmsbury might be quoted to show that jn early days the same principles prevailed in England. No appeals were allowed beyond P e authorities of the province, excepting, of oouiso. in matters of such gravity as might affect the universal Church, and then a Gena ral Council might bo called. Only I have to observe that for a time a circle larger than that of provinces was intioduced, vi*., that of Patrjarm »tes, to which appeal in certain eases might be made, bijf the arrangement never became universal, and goeunj to have almost fallen Into disuse; and the Council of Milevis, in Africa, determined that appeal could only be allowed to African dyutkli; or Primates,

and that to cany a cause beyond the seas should entail excommunication. The next question then naturally is

HAS THE CHURCH IN NEW BIGHT TO BE regarded aslYa”! distinct province op the CHURCH UNIVERSAL? It need not occupy much time to find an answer to this question. Undoubtedly, the chief step in the organisation of a Province is the advancement, with the consent ot all concerned, ot the Bishop of one of tho dioceses which it is proposed thus to associate, to the dignity ,>v . .iumte or Metropolitan. The creation of a Metropolitan within the formation of a province would be as reasonable as the making of n king without giving him a king, dom. But we have”a 'Metropolitan (more accurately described, indeed, for a certain reason, as n Primate, but tho authority is the same.) How did we get him? With the full consent of all who at that time hedieved they had consents to give. The circumstances nro these :—The original diocese of South Africa requiring,’sub-division it he Bishop of Capetown placed himself in communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the t hen hccrctary of State, the fluke of Newcastle ; it became evident that important, questions were involved concerning the relation of the proposed new dioceses of Grahamstowu and Natal with the diocese of Capo Town, and of all three with the Mother Church of England; at the request of tho Secretary of State, the Archbishop stmt noued for the consideration of these questions ull the English. Irish, and Colonial Bishops then in England, and it was resolved by this.assembly of full forty Bishops, that there should bo Metropolitans for Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand. The State was asked to give its formal consent to this, and the fullest sanction which it was then supposed the Crown couldfgive, wus'obtaiucd, aud.thus the office was created. This was iu the year 1852, or early in 1853. It must also he observed that not only from that time to the present have the Churches of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand cordially recognised that office, but that in that great as. sembly ot the whole Anglican Episcopate at Lambeth, in September, 1867, it was acknowledged and honored in a remarkable manner. It is enough to add that our Church constitution, statutory euaclmonts, our doily life and order as a Church, proceed upon tho ground that we arc such an independent province as I have described; and the last step in this process of organisation was taken when iu our last Provincial Synod we accepted onv provincial name. lam enabled, then, to sum up tho general position thus : —The authority of the State, speaking ecclesiastically, falls short of us; and the authority of the Church finds legitimate expression iu our own Provincial Constitution, and not by the voice of sonic other province, even though it bo one so venerable and dear to ns as that of the province from which tho most of us have sprung.

THE PARTICULAR QUESTION.)

I trust that lay preparatory remarks suffice to justify the review I have put before you, hut I have mow to confess that what I have hitherto advanced bears only indirectly upon the point which is before us. If we may assume that the general principles I have sought to illustrate apply to us hero in New Zealand without let or hindrance, then it will be allowed that it is the part of wisdom to enact some such statute as the proposed bill, the object of which, be it remembered, is not to facilitate, but to regulate, change; but the narrower question to which I now return is whether a certain self-im-posed bond continues to interfere with the operation of these universal principles, or whether it has ceased to restrict our native liberty ? It will be understood that I refer to the pledge contained in the first clause of the “ Fundamental Provisions " of our Church Constitution, by which the conventions which represented the Church in the preparation and confirmation of these Provisions, declared that the General Syned “shall have no to make any alteration in the authorised version of the Holy Scriptures in the ‘ defined’ formularies of the Church,” except under certain conditions !described in clauses 2, 3, and 4 of those Fundamental Provisions. Of the provisos set clauses 2 and 3, we can at once dispose, inasmuch as the conditions which they contemplate are no llonger possible. Yet it is worth while to point out the object of those clauses es distinguished from clause 4. Clause 2 defines the circumstances under which alterations of the formularies of the authorised version of the Bible shall be admissible; while clause 3 sets forth the sole condition under which rules not affecting doctrine may be devised, or existing rules modified, to meet the peculiar circumstances of the Church in this Colony. Again, I obsei ve that these circumstances of this condition nre uo longer passible. Is it, therefore, to follow that uo alteration, cither of regulation or formulary, shall he possible in this Church for ever? The General Synod is clearly not of that opinion. It has drafted a Statute to fake the place of one, id least, of these two clauses —which events, ovet which wo have had no control, have rendered obsolete —that Statute —viz., the oue now before us—divides itself naturally into preamble and clauses. If the preamble be established, it is doubtle«s high time to consider whether the clauses are the best which can be devised to provide against an obvious danger, viz., that of rash aud ill-considered alteration. The full title of the Bill clearly enough sets forth this object : it is “to limit vindtdofine the powers of the General Synod in reference to such alterations, and to settle the mode of procedure in reference thereto;” and I wish to direct y«.,u attention also to the amendment to the second reading of this Bill (p 2-19. G.S. report), because from that amendment it will be seen that the Bill is not remitted to us on account of any doubtfu ncss on the part of the General Synod upon the necessity of such a statute ; on the contrary, the first sentence of the amendment distinctly recognises this necessity, and, further on, contemplates the adoption by the Synod of such a measure, but, inasmuch as such rules ought to be made fundamental parts of the constitution, aud the constitute was originally agreed to by a oouv*n I lion representing the whole Church, it was thought that to submit this proposed enactment to the Diocesau Synods would be the best practical method of obtaining a like assent of the whole Church to this necessary modification of that con stitution. I do not think sufficient weight has been given to the opinions of the General Synod upon this subject in those quarters iu which the matter has been discussed already. It is surely not a light matter that in that Assembly were present not only the selected loaders of our Church throughout New Zealand, but also a considerable number who are the venerable fathers of our Church here, and who teok part by voice and vote in the framing of the constitution itself, and were therefore well able to communicate to the General Synod the ideas under which that constitution had been framed, Now if further evidence be required as to the mind of the General Synod upon this point, beyond that which I have already adduced, I beg your attention to Statute No. 19, wide!.' was enacted at the last mooting of that Synod, the preamble of which sots forth the grounds upon which it felt itself to be justified iu “making certain necessary alterations.” The first two clauses of that preamble are identical with the clauses of the proposed Bill; the arguments iu the one ease arc therefore regarded as equally applicable to the other, aud what, were the alterations themselves | which were then made? Two relate to the Ordinal, and authorise certain omissions aud changes in formal parts of the services for the Consecration of Bishops, aud the Ordination of Priests aud two were notes of explanation to he apponted to the 21 st aud 37th of tlm thirty-nine Articles respectively.- Certain changes then, however formal, however necessary, having been made, the General Synod would define the process by which alone any future ones shall he introduced. I wish with these remarks I could turn to other matter, but the brunt of the discussion is made to rest upon clause 4 of the constitution, mid I observe that, by virtue of n, certain .supposed incompleteness in the satisfaction of the contingencies therein mentioned, the Nelson Synod is of opinion, in spite, it would seem, of the very strong expression of the General Synod, “ that the practical necessity for legislation on the subject docs not exist.” I before remarked that clause 4 was to ho distinguished from clauses 2 aud 3. It hj surely more than a more corollary to them. It treats of an entirely new subject—clearly enough set forth in its opening sentence—viz., the security of our Church property, which, it, was supposed, would “be placed in jeopardy, unless provision were made for the contingency of a separation of New Zealand from the mother country, and for tiiat of an alteration iu the existing relations between Church and State.” Vicwe i from our present position, it is very hard to sec what danger could arise to us in matters of property from the occurrence of cither of the contcni plated contingencies. Not so. however, when confused ideas prevailed as to the hold which tlx Church or the State, oi both together, at Home might have over us. On the supposition that w-.i were an integral part of tho’.y united authorities, the danger under the contemplated circumstances is evident enough, and the security desired is provided for by the declaration that in either of those events the General Synod should “ hare full power” —that is. in my view, should fall hack on the gene, ral principles of freedom which belong to every lprovince of the Church without, let or hindrance. M j answer to the whole clause would bo simply that, having been framed under a misconception -ef the real fas'- \ it fails to the ground of it elf, aud now that, we ur<- recognised ;is u voluntary association has no more force of application than either of the j two former oauseg. As to ihu security fur which some would geek the aid of luc Legislature, for nil newly-acquired property, v,-,. can erect our own trusts, and for such property as was best-owed or acquired anterior to the settlement of the constitution, 1 believe that the proof of historio continuity in such a miinner as Is already provided for in the description added to our provincial name, would be regarded as sufficient in law. If my view bribe correct one, all discus-ion as to whethci the disestablishment of the Irish Church satisfies the conditions of the clause is supcrtlomi, though 1 could say a good deal upon that point where it required. It will thus to seen Unit I have uo hewtutiou in claiming for the hurch of New Zc-silnnd all tho rights, privileges, duties, and responsibilities, which may belong to any provit.ee af the Church Catholic. Whnl iboae rights are, bo far as regards tho alteration of forn.uh.rica, may ho seen by rel'erpfico to the 31 th Article. I have thought it ivlvi ianl» to Ircgt thus fully Iho subject, winch appears to many to bo one of so great difficulty, although I am consequently obliged to cither pass over, or only filightly touch upon, other subjects of fopNdcrrible |u, pci tunes. The only other' matter Voi erred to us by tho General bynod of which I will siy anything, is tho appointment r.f Fustors to t\,"riA.ev Statute, No. 5, and that only to any that the report

and recommendations of tho Committee appointed by the Nelson Synod are such as I would commend to the favorable consideration of this Synod. I believe that a copy of those resolutions has been forwarded to most of the members. To form two Boards, ns has been suggested, the one for nomination and the other for confirmation —would to my mind be not only to depart entirely from the principle of the Statute, but I ) fully helievi would be but a mo'T fruitful cause of the evils which it is sought, by alteration of tho ex sting statute, to avoid. A motion, with this object, was introduced at the last General Synod, but it did not meet with any encouragement. Passing on to mostjpurely diocesan I am anxious that the Synod should deal with the important suhjeci of “ tiro General Clergy Maintenance fund,' which, as the mailer stands, would no much more appropriately named tho “ Particular Clergy Bonus fluid.” Far bo from mo any desire to annihilate a schema so good in conception, so worthy in principle. Without departing Irom that principle, I think that the plan at present in operation can b>* modified so as to make itsnpplicatinn really general and at tho same time not press with s<> great weight upon the parochial finances, while equally eonsid.u ing the interests of those who have hitherto bora benefited by it. I lay upon tbo table figures illu ■ trativc of the plan I should suggest, and I hope thSynod will appoint a committee to consider and report upon tbo matter.

INVERCARGILL RURAL DEANERY,

I nlso place upon the table a copy of the con stitutiou of the Rural Deanery Board of Invercargill, framed by nae iu accordance with the resolution of the lust Diocesan Synod. I take the present opportunity of announcing that I have appointed tho Rev. \V. F. Tanner to bo rural dean under that constitution.

DIOCESAN STATISTICS

In the brief outline, which is aW I can now present, of Diocesan progress, I have first to say that of clerical changes within tho diocese, tho Eor. J. Jones having been nominated to Queenstown, and the Rov. J. Dewe to succeed the former ut Clyde, those clergymen have accordingly been licensed by mo to tho above cures, though not at present instituted. The only Ordination during the, year was that of the Rev. C. F. Witbcy. to Priest’s orders, which took place during the last session of the Synod. Tho following gentlemen have been appointed Lay Readers: — Mi-Every. Andirsou’s Bay; Mr Wakefield, Cromwell; Messrs Steele and Kyrle, Clinton; Mr White, Wmton; Mr Medlaud New.sham, Otcpopo. I am happy in beiug able to report that four now churches have been opened for divine service during tho past year, viz., St. Michael’s, Anderson’s Bay; St. Andrew’s. Cromwell; St. Matthew’s, Dunedin; and St. Mark’s Balclutha. Of these, two arc stone churches, and of St. Matthew’s I think it may without doubt be said that it is the finest stone church which lias yet been built in New Zealand. L’here are other churches in course of erection and ready to open. I ought to mention that of St. George’s, Naseby, because, though a substantial concrete erection, it is now ready for consecration, lining free from debt. My visitation of the diocese during the year involved the traverse of 1,265 miles performed upon the coach or on horseback. During the progress nine confirmations were held, at which •138 persons received tho rite, viz., 65 females nnd 73 females. A considerable proportion of these wore of au age which testified at once past neglect and present care. May I impress upon all the solemn importance of this subject: it can hardly he overrated ; and to the clergy I would say, lot no pressure ot other engagements interfere witk your attention to it. 1 strongly advocate, when possible, the conduct of classes for preparatiou ol candidates for at least half a-ycar before confirmation ; if, indeed, such classes he not always going on. The Church portions of the cemeteries at Queenstown, AiTOWtown, aud Skippers were consecrated, much interest being evinced in the services at each of the places named, though occurring on a week-day on two of tho occasions. Several new districts have been partially organised, and committees formed. Green Island aud Otepopo may, I think, be at ouee recognised as parochial districts, and with regard to others, the ouly impediment to this first step m the way of formal constitution, is the impossibility at present of obtaining clergy to supervise them. Many important districts have waited long iu vain, pre-eminently Tupauui, Otepopo and the neighborhood. The Wnitaki Plain, Wintou, and Arrowtown, Naseby, Roxburgh, and Riverton. aro vacant, or will shortly become so, and from most of tiie places I have named I received credible assurances that full stipends can be obtained. There is a need wo share in common with the Australian dioceses. T have had to refer to it before ; I do so again both to express the hope that i committee will be formed 11 cm sider the subject of the supply of clergy tor the diocese, aud to announce my intention of naming the Third Sunday in Advent ns a day of special supplication to the Almighty Lord of the harvest that be would scud forth more laborers into his )mrve : -t; ami may that Divine and ever Gracious Master inspire us all, now and at all times, with a more pure desire to labor ■july for His glory.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS,

Two hymns were then sung by tho congregation, and the Synod adjourned to the schoolroom, when the following officers were elected : —Rev. K, L, Stanford, ck-rh al secretary ; "-‘t M. Quick, lay secretary ; and Mr John ,’>cwe, cliainu„n of committees.

HOURS OF MEETING

Aft-r icsolvmg that they should mef-t daily (except Saturdays and Sm days), at 4 ;> m., adjourning at G p.m, for an hour and a half, the Synod adjourned,