GENERAL SYNOD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 26, 30 January 1877, Page 2

GENERAL SYNOD.

The Synod; met yesterday at 4 p.m. , Considerable discussion aroie on the form of the minutes, which, however, ..ultimately were confirmed. ' . > Archdeacon Stock's motion that there should be a third secretary to have charge of the work done by the Synod in Committee was seconded by Mr Rous Marten and discu^rvl afc some length, the Dean of Christchuruli .aid the Bier. Mr Lingard opposing theproposalas;unnecessary. On being put it was lost on the voices, I The Rev. E. Williams' motion that no fresh notices of motion should be received after ; " the /tenth; day of the session- was seconded by Archdeacon Maunsell, and supported .by Mr Lusk, opposed by the Bishop of Duhedin, and negatived on the voices, leave, to amend it by substituting, the " fifteenth" for the "tenth "day being refused. Archdeacon- Maunsell then moved that a committee be appointed to enlarge and improve the New. Zealand Hymnal,.:auch,'committee to cdnswt of the Bishops of Auckland and Nelson, .^rcljdeacons Williams, Stock, and Maunselt, Rev. B. T. Dudley, and Mr Hunter Brown. He sketched the history of the book since the Bench of Bishops were authorised (in 1859) to .compile a Hymnal for the New Zealand Chnrch, if they could not find-r one suitable among those already. I published. It was issued in 1868 and had been in use eight years, but.now.it was desirable that it should be enlarged, and the Auckland i Diocese had taken the initiative, in the. matter by forwarding the suggestions already ;laid before the Synod, the addition of 203 Specified hymns being suggested. The Auckland people could not act without the General Synod, as the Hymns! was the Synod's book, and. ,tb.e Synod, possessed the copyright. He hoped therefore that the request of the Auckland Diocese would be acceded to. ' ' The Bishop of Auckland briefly' seconded the motion, supporting the view taken by the mover, and explaining tha course adopted in the matter by his diocese. Mr Carleton was opposed to all hymnals, especially if authorised. (Laughter.) They were a fertile source of dissension and unseemly squabbles. Hymns were not recognised by the Prayer book, bat when sung during the service were an interpolation practically amounting to an " alteration of formularies." (Applause.) They afforded an opportunity for clergymen who conformed outwardly, but dissented in their hearts, to teach indirectly through their means doctrines alien to those of the church, of which they could make introduced hymns the vehicle. Metrical hymns were discountenanced by the Reformers. In the Church before the Reformation four distinct styles of church music existed, viz., the plain song, antiphonal chanting, the prose anthem, and metrical hymns, the last being sung usually at the Elevation of the Host, and generally being in praise of the Virgin or some Roman Catholic saint. On this account the use of metrical hymns was dropped by the Reformers, who retained the plain song, antiphonal chanting, and prose anthem, according to the use still continued in the English Cathedrals and Collegiate chapels. At the Great Rebellion about 5000 of the clergy were ousted from their parishes, and nonconformists took their place. 1 In their ignorance and hatred of prelacy they abolished the three forms of church music retained by the Reformers, ahdre-introduced that which the latter had abolished as too Popish, viz., the metrical hymns. So the practice crept in, and it became acclimatised. Thus we are apt wrongly to think it a practice of the church. The practice of hymn-singing gradually has inverted the relations of , choir and congregation. The choir has usurped the versicles and chanting, but the people hare had their revenge, and haye usurped what should be the province of the choir. Congregational singing always should be in unison, because their'part singing necessarily must be bad, bwing-7-f or one rqason— to the impossibility of balancing the parts. In the time of Elizabeth and' James I, the anthems used were absolutely bristling with contrapuntal difficulties, and could be sung only by well trained choirs. The ' hymns, however, being written in easy parts, and often /in yery secular style, were readily sung by the congregation. We have too many hymns. In Germany where the number is limited, and, each hymn has its inch's, olubly-associated tune, they have been introduced into oratorios, which are given in the churches, and when these hymns come in the people rise and sing the melody, the two choirs supplying the harmonies. In England, on the other hand, there were hardly half a dozen hymns .thus associated with .their special tunes. If any alterations. were made now it should be by reduction instead of enlargement. (Applause.) . The, Dean of Christchnrch wished to deal most tenderly with the feelings of the Auckland peopla on this subject, but he did not see why they could not do so for themselves all that they now agked the Synod to do. He . should advocate the Synod's authority being withdrawn from any hymnal, and allowing all to stand on their own merits. The New Zealand Hymnal was not used at all in the Middle Island. Mr Rous Marten opposed the motion on the ground that it would commit the Synod to a further sanction of the New Zealand Hymnal, which, he hoped would not be agreed to. The whole hymnal question would have to be settled during the present session, and pending such settlement the Synod ought not to commit itself to any implied sanction of a book which, however much it might be liked in Auckland, was wholly unused in the Middle Island, and was exceedingly disliked in the diocese he represented (Wellington) although it had been forced on them hitherto through the past action of the Synod. If the i Synod were not prepared to adopt some really good hymnal, such as Hymns Ancient and Modern, the choice should be left to the ' respective dioceses, or even parishes. Mr Lusk feared that to leave the question to the various parishes would cause great division. Archdeacon Harper asked what was the present position of Messrs Collins copyright? He did not; see why Messrs Colling should not enlarge the book themselves. It would be much better for the Synod not to adoptany hymnal but to follow the example of the Mother Church, and leave ikan open question.

Hymns must he used hut the Synod ought not to recognise them formally or to make their use compulsory by ; law or by snch; a recommendation aa would amount to law. They ojught not; to thrust ; any hymnal down the throats of the people, but to leave the various dioceses free to choose the one they preferred. •'" v ■•'■•-■ ■■ r-?j..~ Th« Rev. Mr Lingard was very glad that the Church had substituted hymns which could be sung by the congregation in place of anthems by the choir. He hoped the days were coming when the old plain song and Qregorian chants would be in general use and he thought the wide acceptance of such a glorious book as Hymns Ancient and Modern was a sign in this direction. He held that it would be ultra vires ot the Synod to authorise any book; ' The tunes in r tticT Hymnal never were authorised by the Synod but Messrs Collins put in.fwhat they 1 chose/ He hoped they would have some day a combined Psalter and Hymnal in one: ■ In the - South the books in general use were Mercer's Psalter and Hymns Ancient and Modern. It was true some , of ; th«j latter hymns were . objectionable, buS they heed not be sung. The Bishop of Dunedin thought the Synod should have fuller information on the subject He did not believe the New Zealand Hymnal ever had been adopted formally by the Synod. No statute or any binding law in the .^direction of enforcing it had been passedV --He hoped .the Synod would resolve that the copyright of Messrs Collins should hqti>e renewed. It was proposed- now to enlarge and improve the, book, and that Dr. Sfcainer should revise the music. Dr. Stainer, however eminent a musician, was:only one .man, and they (did not know what he might introduce, while in Hymns Ancient and Modern the music was i drawn from all sourcea, old and new, and was ! very beautiful. Hymns Ancient and Modern had- found general adoption throughout the Church at r large, and people might travel anywhere with' that book in their, podket feeling sure that in the great majority of places they would find it uruse, :■;•■ . ...... ...... ■ .... The Rev. Mr Dudley said the Auckland people always had believed the New Zealand Hymnal to be the only authorised book in the New .Zealand Church, therefore they gave it- a fair trial, and used it only. The "■ General Synod Was committed to that book by express resolution,.; The supply of hooks with music was now exhausted, and if it were intended still to use it, it must ;be enlarged to meet present requirements. ..This the Auckland people could not do for themselves. The expense ;would be too great, for it would not pay the publishers to do it for only one diocese. The New Zealand Hymnal had been' a bond of union among different; congregations, which were always unanimous on this question. The objections to the book usually arose from clergy newly arrived in the colony, who had been used to Hymns Aucient and Modern, or from organists who liked to, have a voice in the matter. Whati had been said of the popularity of Hymns Ancient and Modern iv the Christchurch , and Dunedin Dioceses was true of the New Zealand Hymnal in Auckland. To throw ' over the latter book now would be unfair to those clergy who had been faithful to the agreement themselves, and hald used their influence with; the new clergy to follow the same course. Eully thirty of the most popular hymna in the New Zealand Hymnal were not in Hymn 3 Ancient and Modern. If the latter were adopted by the Synod, some con-' gregations would refuse to use it, indeed one clergyman went so far as to say that if that were done he should leave the church and hold service in his own house. He did not mean to express approval of such a threat; but only mentioned it to show the. strong feeling which existed on the subject. " " Mr Hirst said the New Zealand Hymnal was most popular where he lived, and Hymns Ancient and Modern so much the reverse that in one case where the clergymen tried to introduce them it nearly caused a total break up of the congregation. He should support the resolution. . Archdeacon Williams sketched at some length the history of the New Zealand Hymnal, and its adoption by the- Synod. Although it was true that it was not absolutely sanctioned by the Synod by definite resolu? tion, the Synod's past action respecting it ' had been quite sufficient to justify its being called the New Zealand Hymnal, and it was not fair to insinuate that it had no authority from the Synod. Mr Hunter Brown moved a3 an amendment, That the Bishop of Auckland and Mr Garleton ascertain whether the Synod is in possession of the copyright of the New Zear land Hymnal, and report to the Synod. " Mr Lusk seconded the amendment forma, in order to be able to show that it was unnecessary. He produced a deed signed by the late Bishop of Waiapu," on behalf of himself, the Primate, and Archdeacon Stock (the signatories authorised by the Synod), agreeing to give Messrs Collins the cbpyright for five years from 1871, and then for another five years unless, the Synod should give ; twelve months notice of teruiinatioril The Dean of Chnstchiirch asked if that deed were laid before the Synod. The Primate: said he had no recollection of having seen the deed, or of having authorised it to be. signed on his behalf, and he certainly had not the slightest.jdea^ itiwaV proposed to bind the Synod for so lon» a period. ;-■ .:.--•■?... Mr Lusk was sure the Bishop of Waiapu would not have signedthe deed on. behalf of 1 the Primate unlass he had believed he had authority to do so. Copies of the book were presented to the Synod. ; : '•■ Mr Oliver thought it desirable to have' one hymnal for the whole colony. If it were ultra vires of the Synod to legislate on such, a subject, they would lose whafc he held 'to be one of their most.important functions. ■• ' The Rev. Mr Jackson 'agreed as to the desirability of having one common hymnal, but he feared it was not practicable. He had great sympathy with the movers of thi3 proposal and himself had endeavored to bring the book into uae. He thought it a grave matterfor a voluntary church to legislate on a matter which it was not thought wise to legislate upon at Home: The people's feelings became excited and they refused to obey. Thus they acquired a habit of disobedience. ; The Bishop of Nelson supported the amendment because he thought it desirable to have a full statement before them. He thought the last speaker's theory that we >npt legislate in a voluntary church on a subject not deemed wise to be legislated upon "afc" Home a, very dangerous one. : . :. ..„.:. : Archdeacon Stock explained the circumstances under which the deed was signed. He waa under the impression that he had signed it personally, but he must have given authority to the Bishop of Waiapu to sign on. his behalf. The Bishop of Wellington aaid that up to the present time the Synod had distinctly guarded itself against passing any statute on the subject, as some thought such' a step would be such au infringement of the Constitution, but the resolution passed by the Synod was morally binding on churchmen, and he regretted to see parishes acting independently. The wish of the Synod always had been to prevent the hymnal question becoming a cause of division in the dioceses and parishes of this church province. If the Synod did not sanction some book the result would be simply anarchy. He did not believe in the theories of evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest as applied to these subjeots. (Laughter). He believed that taking the New Zealand Hymnal as a basis , they might produce a hymnal in this country such as had never yet been produced at Home; for it was neutral-tinted (laughter), ft ;

avoided all disputed questions which teed; to \dia4enaio'a,and sqttabbles^befcween clergy and peopl« mote than even absibTuieiheresies.'! 10. Ki?er&ultra vires foe the Synd&ito adobt &\ hymnal surely it; would b^for^estry^d; do sp; Hc;shouia-be fetahamedi of\th'e Sykok il tf ;did not act onsffois sabject.f : '•'$ represented a small proportion* of tfie churchmen of New Zealand, merely tho3C few who had registered their votes. The Dean of Chriatchurch said there had been complete peace on the subject in the rChristchurch; Diocese ever." since Hynaaa^ : ;; Ancient and^Modern had been adapted there. J The Hon. Mr Acland maintained^thaS" thff^ Synod had never sanctioned the New Zealand Hymnal. The .members had no idea of : this second Syears agreement" Tlosewho now :: supported, the adoption of the book did so on rather arbitrary grounds. As it certainly would not be accepted by all Dioceses the : ; Synod ought not: to affix its imprimatur... ;Le6 . those who wish for it, make an agreement t with Messrs Collins to print a supplement. -To adojpt it would not causisp^ace, for those who tfow used hymns Ancient and Modern ;cer]tainly wouldrnot give thjeinlup. It would t&e.'bettev to leave each Diocese, to choose one Hymnals nowfiajpse. ilarper said, the true-fissue was whether or&ot uniformity! waa deaf^ible, or so desirable as to be neVes"sary. 16* was fStUn the formularies, but he held aiofr in <;!sof#aTs which formed a useful safety-valve for minor differences, and afc Home wags one of the safeguards? . He; should' more ''subsequently that the Synod do not: sanction any Hymnal at all. .•* :• ; s--' : ■'• j .; ■ ; ;Mr Lusk opposed jthe amendment as a waste of time. . ' I .; . ! - ; :; Mr Quick deprecated forcing the New Zealand Hymnal ou unwilling Dioceses. They were now at; peace but would be then. .. The Southern! Diticeses J would not stand having a Hymnal forced 00 them. 1 ; Let the various Hymnals jtakei their ichaaca*. on their respective merit's. ' j M J ; . Seymour supported- . the Amendment. He did hot think the SyncJd was prepared to say there should be but one Hymndi; : and 'several Dioceses and even .parishes long' had exercised complete liberty of Without any harm or dissensions ensuing. ;._::■' ."; ;The JPrimatej.had no recollection of authorising; the Bishop .of Waiapu to sign tHeMeed on. ha. behalf, bufc:was certain! he. would not have assigned unless he supposed himself to v^7 e ?.uch authority. He (the Primate) had no idea,; what were the terms,, of the agreewas in favor of 'haying one common hymnal, but he found that in all the di .??® s H, wnere . Hymns Ancient and Modern were used' the people were satisfied add did not wish for a change, while it could not be disputed thatin some wherethe New 1 Zealand Hymnal w,as used the people were dissatisfied and desired a. change. " ./:..: : - . ; - 1 ArchdeMon MaunseTi^ihreplyy^iacliSmed any wish to force the New Zealand Hymnal on : unwilling dioceses, but . the -Synod, hadsancfioned it fdr eighteenyears, and it was < nofc straightforward to knock it down now. A" common hymnal* t^Ma, common bqndr ; The amendment was then, put,' when, the numbers? were:— Ayks • Bishops, 4fcClergy, 4; Laity, 9. 1 Noes: Bishop, :1; ' Clergy, 8; La|ty,-6. The amendment was therefore . lost. "'. --. ... ■ ■-■ ..; •... . ... : _ J The original motion was then put and lost, the. votes being:— Ayes : Bishops, 3; Clergy, p Laity, 6. . "Noes' .Bishops* 2 ? Clergy, 7; Mr Rous Marten laid on the table the accounts of the Printing Committee of! lastsession, showing a balance of £17! 10s in handy On the motion of the Bishop of Auckland-,' the memorial of the Waimate Native Church Board was referred to a. Select Committee, and the memorials relating to Trust Property presented to the Synod were referred to the Trusts Committee to report on. ! „ At thisjsfcage, on the motion of the Bishop of Nelson, the Synod was counted out afc 10-30 p.m.: • :