GENERAL SYNOD

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1920, 20 April 1880, Page 3

GENERAL SYNOD

Monday, Apbil 19. The Synod resumed at four o’clock. The usual preliminary business having been dispssed of, a number of notices of motion were given. Tho Yen Archdeacon Harper moved — “ That the following be adopted as a new Standing Order of tho General Synod : “ Tho following Sessional Committees shall be appointed by the President, unless otherwise ordered. The Committees to be announced not later than tho third day c-f session : “ 1. Printing Committee. “ 2. Committee on the state of tho Church as shown by the diocesan returns. “ 3. Committee on the General Church Trust. “ 4. Committee on Native School Trusts. “ 5. Committee on Diocesan Trusts. “ 6. Committee on Melanesian Mission and Trust. “ 7. Committee on Home and Foreign Missions. “ 8. Committee on tho Board of Theological studies. “ Each Committee shall consist of not less than three, and net more than five members, at tho discretion of tho President. Provided that in the case of the Committee on the state of the Church there shall be one member from each diocese. Each Committee shell choose its chairman.” On tho motion of the Dean of Christchurch the Synod went into committee to consider the resolution. At tho hour of the evening adjournment the Chairman reported progress, and on resuming at 7.30, The Synod proceeded to tho Orders of the Day. The Yen. Archdeacon Edwards moved the second reading of the Bill to amend Statute No. 4, relating to the formation of parishes and defining the duties of parish officers. In moving tho second reading ho remarked that the object of the Bill he had charge of was to allow a person non-resident in n particular parish to become a member of that parish, should he wish to do so, on subscribing a declaration that ho wishes to become a member thereof. Mr Q.uick seconded tho motion, and pointed out that a person who had left one parish to live in another might often find himself in an anomalous and inconvenient position as the statute now stood. Tho Doan of Christchurch admitted that hardships might occasionally occur under the present regulations, but he objected to breaking down toeir parochial system, which had been proved by experience to be the best that could bo devised. Mr Upton said there were evidences in his own experience which showed that tho parochial system was very far from perfect. \ Ho instanced one case, and did so in conse-

Iquenco of the remarks which had fallen from the Dean. But he supported tho Bill hefere the House on the ground that according to tho present system a man might bo deprived of the privilege of taking part in tho administration of a Church towards which ho paid voluntary taxation. Tho Rev. Mr Leighton supported tho Bill. There wore, ho said, cases of persons residing in one parish and desiring to retain their connection with the church of another, and in this respect the present proposal offered a measure of relief which he hailed with sathfaclion. Tho Bov. Mr Fnncourt expressed himself strongly opposed to the Bill, particularly as it would affect the case of new parishes taken out of largo and flourishing town parishes. It would enable tho old parish to be prosperous at tho expense of tho now and struggling parish, and further, tho proposal before the House would bring about a species of Congregationalism, calculated to cr ale a spirit inimical to the general harmony and welfare. Tho Rov. Mr Tanner thought there could bo no objection to the Bill. One of tho chief objects of the Synod was to legislate in accordance with what their experience had taught them to believe was best, and the present proposal was one which might well claim their careful consideration. The Bishop of Dunedin answered tho remarks of the lay secretary (Mr Upton) touching the financial aspect of the question. If a person chose to go outside the legislation of tho Church in contributing money, ho should not therefore endeavor to force that legislation into a direction consistent with his will, Mr Collins opposed tho Bill. Ho should bo sorry to see the parochial constitution altered. Archdeacon Harper said it appeared to him (hat most of (he speakers in support of the Bill had looked to tho good of tho individual instead of tho benefit of (ho community upon which latter consideration the system was based. Ho had no doubt tho grievances existed, but believed that as tho parishes grew things would right themselves. He regarded the Bill as a revolutionary measure, and hoped it would not be carried. Mr Maude pointed out that there was a difference between an established endowed Church and a purely voluntary Church like ours, and he considered the passing of n measure like that under consideration (providing as it did for greater liberty) would be for the good of tho Church here. The Bishop of Melanesia related an experience of his own in England to chow that difficulties would arise in a system based on the principle of Archdeacon Edwards’ Bill, and said tho tendency would bo to reduce the clergyman to being the servant of tho congregation. instead of tho friend and advisor of the whole parish, knowing no distinction of class or position. By carrying this Bill they would, for the good and convenience of tho few, be disregarding the good of the many. The Rev. Mr Kel son said tho question was net a now cue, having boon discussed at tho Dioces..n Syncd in Auckland, and the General Synod at Wellington. He supported tho Bill, and proceeded to criticise the speeches of those who had taken tho opposite side of the question. No doubt tho parochial system was time honored in England, but they had to bear in mind that a time honored institution in one country might be found to boar a totally different aspect under altered circumstances, and even in parts of England it was not found to work with complete success. He also heard with some surprise tho argument advanced that a clergyman should not endeavour to make his church attractive to the people, and he suggested that they might well take a lesson from pure Congregationalism. He hoped tho question would bo looked upon impartially, and apart from past prejudice, and concluded by observing that in his opinion the general welfare of the church was best conserved by looking at first to tho individuals.

The Yen. Archdeacon Maunsell regarded the Bill as subversive of the main principle of then' parochial system. He ridiculed the arguments of some of those who had supported tho Bill, saying that because of tho supposed grievances of a few persona they would sweep away all boundaries, all laws, and allow every man to do as he liked. [Laughter]. The Bishop of Auckland should be sorry to see the Bill pisst-d, as it would out at the root of their parochial organisation. Mr Q-rigg said all the arguments used seemed to be based on the ground c£ expediency. Personally he thought if they were to adopt such a principle into their Church as that contained in this Bill, they would lose their chief characteristic and principal attraction. Archdeacon Stock suggested that tho difficulty might bo surmounted by providing “ that ary person of tho ago of twenty-one years attending any church, and having signed tho churchwarden’s book, shall ho taken to be a parishioner of such parish during that year.” Tho Rev. Mr Beaumont opposed the Bill. His Lordship tho President spoke against the measure, and in doing so remarked that it would be found to act prejudicially against tho poor, who ought to be their special charge. Also he deprecated meddling with tho parochial system. Archdeacon Edwards having replied, The question—“ That the Bill bo read a second lime ” —was then put and negatived on tho voices. The Synod then went into committee for tho further consideration of Archdeacon Harper’s motion re tho appointment of Sessional Committees, which was subjected to considerable amendment and reported to the Synod, when tho Yen. Archdeacon Harper gave notice that he would on the dsy following move —“ That tho resolution as reported from Committee be adopted by tho Synod.” Tho Right Rev. the Bishop cf Melanesia moved a resolution standing in his name, making it a rule to give notice of all matters to he discussed at Synod, and that no motion to bring in a Bill, or to repeal or amend a statute of the Synod, bo accepted unless three months’ notice be given to the Primate. The resolution contained other rules binding tho Synod as to debate. A discussion ensued, and at the generally expressed wish of the Synod, the mover was induced to withdraw his resolution. With regard to the proposition given notice of by the Bishop of Nelson, as to a devotional service at the close of each day’s business, it was found that, whilst regarded favorably in tho abstract, tho suggestion could not bo practically carded out, ana tho Bishop of Nelson withdrew his motion. A motion given notice of by the Bishop of Dunedin having been, postponed, The Synod (at 11.30) adjourned till next day.