SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4221, 30 September 1874, Page 3

SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Tcesday, September 29. The third session of the sixth Synod of the Diocese of Wellington wa3 commenced to-day. The members having attended Divine service, met at the Diocesan-room. There were present—The Bishop, Archdeacon Stock (Secretary), Eev. B. W. Harvey, Eev. H. W. St. TTill, Eev. A. Toogood, Eev. W. Ballachey, Rev. T. Fanconrt, W. H. Quick, Esq. (Lay Secretary), H. Sewell, Esq., G-. Allan, Esq., T. Buchanan, Esq., C. P. Powles, Esq., and E. Eearce, Esq. The Bishop read the following address : Brethren of the C'lekgy axd of the Laity,— Since our last meeting the General Synod has held its triennial session here. Many subjects of great importance were brought before the Synod, some of which were dealt with satisfactorily. It is, however, to be regretted that certain questions which required consideration, and scarcely admitted of delay, were allowed to stand over for three years, until there should be another session. Doubtless it would be very inconvenient to members of the Synod to be ion{f absent from their respective dioceses. The period, therefore, during which the session can be reasonably prolonged must necessarily be very limited. But it did appear that less time would be wasted if some executive body or standing committee could, with certain defined powers, represent the General Synod during the three years' recess, which might be empowered to prepare work in a systematic manner for the session. Suggestions, however, made by some members with a view of establishing such a committee did not meet with so much acceptance as might have been expected from its really urgent necessity. It was a matter of surprise to some experienced members of the Synod to see one hundred and twentyfive notices of motion placed on the order paper. Many of these were evidently placed there without much forethought as to the time they would occupy, the greater part of them having been subsequently withdrawn, by leave of the Synod. Naturally enough a difference of opinion exists'amongst members of the Synod as to the class of subjects that should be brought under its consideration. It would be very unwise to attempt to lay down any rigid rule for the purpose of defining this. The General Synod is supreme in the Church here, and may legislate on all ecclesiastical matters. But the practical solution of any question or. this subject ought to be found in our actual Church organisation, which supplies the means of dealing with every land of subject affecting the wellbeing of the Church. Surely, when we have not only the General Synod, but Diocesan Synods, standing committees, parochial vestries, and meetings of parishoners—a gradation, in, fact, of bodies with their respective functions—it would be wise for the General Synod to confine its attention, during the limited period available for its session, to those great questions with which the inferior bodies are not empowered to deal, and not descend to subjects which not only more properly belong to these, but which these can far more satisfactorily manage. But while valuable time was thus more or less lost in connection with minor matters, which Diocesan Synods could have effectively provided for, great subjects of pressing importance, such as the consideration of the canons, the best means of extending the Diaconate, the status of deacons in reference to Synods, whether they should hold a distinctive license, and several others suggested in a pamphlet written by Sir William Martin, were passed over almost without notice. Now, these are subjects with which, under our present system, Diocesan Synods are not competent to deal. There appeared on the part of some members of the Synod a reluctance to recognise the fact that there are subjects of great magnitude which it has now devolved on the Church in this country to face and deal with. On former occasions I have pointed out that our present position in reference to these is not one of our own seeking. Our Church Constitution, which has been in existence for some years, as well as all our subsequent cautious proceedings, most conclusively establish this. But decisions of the highest Court of law in England, as well as express declarations of leading statesmen, have made our actual independence of the Church in England perfectly clear. The consequence is that certain duties have devolved upon us which we cannot repudiate or ignore. But the endeavors made by some members to impress this fact on the attention of the Synod, seemed almost to bo regarded by others as merely an effort to bring about a state of things which did not now exist, and which might possibly be avoided. But it is not true wisdom to ignore facts, more especially when the existence of the facts calls for immediate action ; nor is it consistent with either the dignity or responsibility of such a body as the General Synod. What the Church should do is, candidly to recognise and cheerfully to accept its actual status. The beneficial result of such a recognition.of its true position would be that, earnest churchmen, whether clerical or lay, would seriously devote their attention and their energies to the best means of securing that inheritance of truth and sound doctrine which we possess in onr Book of Common Prayer, while we at the same time adapt our organisatipn to our altored circumstances. On a former occasion I exhorted members of this Synod to recognise and hold fast their great privileges as churchmen, and strive to discharge faithfully their corresponding obligations. I will not now repeat what I then said; but I venture to say that subsequent events have shown that what I did say was neither uncalled for nor premature, and that there are still before the Church in New Zealand difficulties which must be boldly faced and fairly and honcstlv grappled with. I allude to this now because I think'l observed in the General Synod a backwardness—almost amounting to timidity—to enter on the consideration of some of the more difficult problems that presented themselves for solution. There appeared to be a consciousness of imperfect information in reference to such subjects which seemed to render legislation on them dangerous. If thl3 really was the ease, inaction may possibly have been true wisdom; for to be stationary under such circumstances is preferable to making false steps in advance. But then, as Churchmen, we must remember we have no alternative set before iig for our choice; we are under an obligation to act for ourselves ; there are matters wbi'jh must be provided for: we must qualify ourselves for the discharge of our important duties. Two years ago I directed the attention of the Synod to the necessity of making some change in the name or designation of the Church in this country, in consequence of thero being no longer a United Church of England and Ireland, I then suggested that we could not do better than follow the precedent afforded by the Church in South Africa, and call ourselves the Church of the Province of New Zealand. That designation has now been accepted by the General Synod, as formally expressed in statute 19. Fears were entertained by some, who seemed hardly aware of the South African precedent, that the action of the General Synod iii reference to this subject would be misunderstood la England. For the purpose of showing that this Is not likely to be the case I will allude to a circumstance connected with the recent consecration of the Rev. W. W. Jones, as Bishop of Capetown, which took place at Westminster Abbey. It is required by law that the Archbishop of Canterbury shcnld administer to every Bishop whom he may consecrate the ( ath of due obedience to himself and his successors. But the Bishop of Capetown was to be Metropolitan of the. Church of South Africa, and as such could not be bound to canonical obedience to the Metropolitan of any other ecclesiastical province. The oath, therefore, was taken with conditions restricting or limiting its real meaning. These are contained in the following document, which had l>een

previously submitted to His Grace for approval : " Bv the oath to be taken in the consecration service I intend to. profess that the Archbishop of Canterbury holds the first place in honor anions all prelates of the AngUcan communion, such as was acknowledged by the Bishops assembled at the Lambeth Conference in ISo7. But, inasmuch as the see of Capetown is acknowledged to possess Metropolitan authority in the Province of South Africa, and inasmuch as it is necessary for me before consecration to declare my consent and adhesion to the Constitution and canons of the Church of South Africa, I am not at liberty to recognise in the Archbishop of Canterbury any other jurisdiction over the said Metropolitan See of Capetown than that which is already, or shall be hereafter provided for, or implied, in tiie laws or Constitution and canons of the South African Church." Here then it would appear that the Archbishop, acting with the other consecrating Bishops, namely, those of London, Winchester. Kochester, and Oxford gave his formal sanction to the designation—Church of South Africa. But I have a further object in view in calling your attention to the document I have just read. There is a.fact connected with it that occasions very serious thoughts. It is one which I ventured to mention last year to the Synod, that is, that an absolutely unmeaning oath is administered on an occasion so solemn as that of the consecration of a Bishop in England for a see included within another ecclesiastical province. It is satisfactory to see that this anomaly has not altogether escaped the notice of churchmen in England. It is commented on in the Guardia n newspaper of May 20, as follows:—" The oath of Canonical Obedience, which, by the requirements of the ordinal, must be taken to the Archbishop, has been taken, not as by a suffragan to his Metropolitan, but as restricted and interpreted by the Constitution and canons of South Africa, which the Metropolitan-elect signed before consecration, and is limited with the consent and approval of the consecrating Bishops, to a profession ' that the Archbishop of Canterbury holds the first place in honor among all the Prelates of the Anglican communion, such as was acknowledged by the Bishops assembled at the Lambeth Conference in 1807.' Few persons will be found to admire this cumbrous method of meeting an accidental difficulty." But while saying this the writer fails to perceive the true remedy. He looks for it in Imperial legislation. He proceeds—"ln the present case we accept thankfully what has been done to ward off a rapidly approaching scandal, and can only express our sincere desire that in the prevalent passion for eccle siastical legislation some statesman, lay or clerical, will be found who, caring for liberty rather than coercion, for extension rather than repression, shall recognise and provide for the altered relations between the mother and daughterChnrches of ourcommunion." The true remedy, I "think, is to be found, not where English churchmen seem to look for it, but by adhering to well-attested ancient ecclesiastical precedents, in accordance with which an elected Metropolitan was consecrated in his own provincial church. During the late session of the Convocation of Canterbury, it was proposed by the Bishop of Lichfield that the Archbishop should at an early date, possibly next year, convene a meeting of Bishops similar to that which met in ISO 7, commonly called the Lambeth Conference. It is not my intention at the present time to express Any opinion on the general question as to the advantages "that may be derived from such a gathering of Bisl.o;)S for consul ation at various parts of the world. But there are some questions of no inconsiderable importance in their bearing on our ecclesiastical position here raised in the discussion which took place on the subject in Convocation, which 1 think it desirable to notice. What I chiefly refer to are the very distinct utterances of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as reported in the Guardian, oa the present status of the churches in Colonies such as tins. I will read two or three extracts. He says—" The Bishop of Gloucester has pointed out that my revered predecessor was very careful when he summoned what is commonly called the Lambeth Conference, to have it very distinctly understood that it claimed no authority except that which naturally belongs to a number of persons of position, of mature age, and most of them of learning and piet)-, gathering together as Bishops of the -Church, and expressing their opinion upon various matters in friendly conference. If that was necessary at the time that Archbishop Longley convened the Lambeth Conference, it is even much more necessary to bear it in mind now, because a very great change has come over the Colonial Church during the years that have intervened since that time. I am aware of what is going on, principally from the action of the Government in its dealings with the Colonial Church, and by the withdrawal of all letters-patent which gave, or professed to give, some sort of compulsory authority to the Bishops. Each of these Churches is now an independent voluntary community. "We may say so of almost all of them; and these independent voluntary communities either already have, or are on the point of forming for themselves very definite or distinct Constitutions." Again ".Not only have we the mere fact that these Constitutions have made the government of those Churches more distinctly to consist of the three orders than they did In many instances at the time of the last Lambeth Conference, but that all communications with them on the part of persons in authority at Home have bound this upon them. Therefore, we must be careful, even more so than before, that we do not claim that which we certainly cannot carry into effect without an interference with the independence of those bodies." Again, after alluding to a probable difficulty that would arise in the West Indies, the Church of Barbadoes being es' ablished by law. His Grace goes on to say—" So that there was the same sort of difficulty which we have to encounter here, if in any way we profess to neglect the distinct right of each individual church to arrange its own affairs exactly as it pleases. Therefore, I think that my revered predecessor was extremely wise, and that it would be necessary to bear this in mind. If there was the necessity of 'doing so in his time, there is the necessity for bearing it in mind still more now ; and while a friendly council and gathering of all the Bishops of the Anglican communion may be productive of the greatest good, they must_ be very careful not to claim any power or authority beyond that which is willingly conceded to them by the several voluntary bodies whom they may represent." We cannot ignore the fact so prominently noticed by the Archbishop. He here clearly and distinctly asserts the practical independence of provincial churches. The Bishop of Lichfield, while advocating another conference of Bishops, such as that which was convened in ISO 7, does so on the assured necessity that exists for some final Court of Appeal which ma3 r be recognised as such by all branches of the Anglican communion. He thinks, moreover, that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be acknowledged as Patriarch; or in some such capacity. I must briefly notice both these questions. In the speech delivered on the occasion referred to, he is reported to have said, —"That there was, in the ancient Church a Patriarch who had authority over the Metropolitans of various provinces, I suppose it not necessary to prove. . One remarkable fact is, that although I And mention of Patriarchs in early church history, yet in the great authorityin ecclesiasticalmatters in the Church of Home—Van Espen—the word does not occur, I suppose because the Pope issupposed to have absorbed the authority of all the Patriarchs. I think we may now fairly consider whether the time has not come when something equivalent to the office of patriarch ought not to be adopted by the Anglican communion; and I am persuaded thai it is the earnest desire of the Anglican Church throughout the world that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be recognised in some such capacity." It is, of course, impossible to say what period is alluded to under the terms " ancient church" and "early church history;" but I think I may safely venture to say, that there is no doubt among competent authorities on this subject that the term patriarch never occurs in any official Church .document until long after the time of the Emperor Constantine, when many attempts ' were successfully made to assimilate and conform ecclesiastical to civil institutions. I will merely trouble you on this subject with a short extract from Bingham's Antiquities. He says : —"lndeed, the first time we meet with the name of patriarch given to any Bishop by any public authority of the Church, is in the Council of Chalcedon. . . . Buchcrius, who has written accurately about the councils, can trace the name no higher. Among private authors, the first that mentions Patriarchs by name is Socrates, who wrote his history about the year 440, eleven years before the Council of Chalcedon. By what he says it appears that during the interval between the general Council of Constantinople anno. 381. and that of Chalcedon, the name patriarch began to be an appropriate title of some eminent Bishops of the Church." (Book 2, oh. 17, s. (J.) I have no hesitation in saying that the only trustworthy guide to which the Church in this country can safely look for direction in its endeavors to meet and provide for emergencies arising out of its altered position here, having no longer any legal connection with the Church in England, is the usage and practice of the Church in the four first centuries. I have already on a previous occasion expressed this opinion to the Synod, and deem it unnecessary to repeat what I then said. I do not think that the subsequent history of the Church affords many instances of beneficial results of patriarchal interference with provincial churches, there would be little difficulty " in adducing many occasions in .which disputes and quarrels, with their concomitant evils, were aggravated and prolonged by means of such interference. But certainly at no period of the ancient Church, which can have any claim to be so called, do we hear of any Patriarch whose authority was acknowledged (however he may have attempted to exercise it), beyond the limits of his clearly-defined territorial district. It would be simply trifling with ancient Church history to expect to find in it a precedent for anything, I will not say similar, but at all analagous to tho proposed Patriarchate to extend its authority over provincial churches spread over the face of the earth. The first place in honor no branch of the Anglican Church would refuse to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I will briefly notice the second question raised by the Bishop of Lichfield. He seems to think that some central Court of Appeal has now become absolutely necessary. He says:—"On this point, relating to doctrine, it is impossible to lay too much stress. I know not what may be thought in England, but unless in the Colonies there is some such power of ascertaining without much expense what is the received doctrine of the Church of England, it would be scarcely possible for the Colonial Church not to deviate widely from the Anglicau standards of faith." Ho then adds: —" Having nearly 100 bishops who preside over the Anglican communion, I.am persuaded that a voluntary tribunal of appeal, established by their authority under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, would be accepted as a court of final appeal on questions of doctrine now threatening tho disruption of various branches of tho Church," It is wholly impossible to conjecture what ground the Bishop of Lichfield has for anticipating such deviation from the Anglican standards of faith on the part of the Colonial Church. Certainly nothing has yet occurred to justify any such anticipation. I am not aware that a single Colonial church ha 3 proposod any innovation in doctrine to which his language can apply, or which can afford any ground for supposing that it has manifested any tendency to depart from the faith of the Church. Again the notion that a "voluntary tribunal of appeal," consisting of a few persons appointed as suggested in the "recommendation of tho last Lambeth Conference," could bo allowed to tako tho place of an (Ecumenical Council is, if this is really meant, so chimerical that I could hardly Imagine it could be seriously entertained by anyone. But two years ago, in my address to the Synod, I pointed out tho impossibility of such aCourt of Appeal acting for churches ho differently organised as the Church of England, bound by the decisions of tho Courts of Law, and the freo Colonial Churches with power to legislate for themselves. What I then eaid in-reference to such a Court of

Appeal, was this :—" At any rate, as its rulings would be simply set aside by the civil Court, no uniformity of either doctrine or ceremonial could be achieved by means of it, for even if these were accepted by Colonial Churches, they could not be acted upon in England. A diversity of practice would, therefore, be the result." Nor doe 3 this aspect of the subject appear to have escaped the observation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, an analogous difficulty having already presented itself in the West Indies. He is reported to have said in Convocation :—"The Bishop of Lichfield knows that the particular Constitution which was established bv the Assembly of Barbados, is somewhat peculiar. But the idea of the West Indian Bishops was, of course, that there should be ft Provincial Svnod to control the various Diocesan Synods ; but there being au Established Church in Barbados, with a peculiar Constitution of its own, settled by an Act of its own Parliament, and with the same sort of sanction as lias been given to those Acts of Parliament which established the Church in England, of course it would not do for a Provincial Synod to override any of those enactments which have been made for the newly-established Church in Barbados. Iho real security, the true, ground for confidence will, 1 believe, be found in the promise of Christ's perpetual presence with his Church. Possessing as we do the Holy Scriptures and our venerable Book of Common Prayer, and having a Church organisation similar m all essential points to that which was in existence immediately after the Apostolic age—that is, in the second, third, and fourth centuries, while the Church was still nourishing and extending her boundaries in the world we may safelv trust to the guidance of the Holy Spirit if we endeavor faithfully to discharge our duty. Under such circumstances, any mere human expedients, of very doubtfu wisdom, may be dispensed with. If any particular Provincial Church should deviate from the faith, it would not be long before the sister Churches would, after the custom ol antiquity, with united voice, solemnly condemn her error, and proclaim anew the ancient truth. Two very important statutes were enacted by the Synod. I refer to statutes 0 and 10—one for establishing Diocesan Courts, and Courts of Appeal ; the other, to define Ecclesiastical Offences. These statutes, almost in their present form, have during the last nine years had the approval and sanction of the Church ; but their acceptance was left optional to each particular diocese. Six veais ago, this diocese accepted these statutes, which liad received the careful revision of some high authorities in church-law in England. It was thought that should they contain even many imperfections, anything was preferable to lawlessness and anarchv; tho preservation of the peace of the Chnrch was" deemed to be of the first importance. Though suggested by the subject before me, I must not allow iuvself to be drawn away from what more immediately" concerns ourselves, to consider what has recently taken place in England, in consequence of a Bill for the regulation of public worship having been introduced into Parliament by the Archbishop of Canterburv. I would only say, that it ought to bo to us a subject for thankfulness that we are members of a Church free to regulate its own affairs, without interference from the State. Tho irritation which the measure I refer to has occasioned among churchmen, both clerical and lay, appears to have had no sufficient cause. The mere alteration of a coercive law already in existence, for the purpose of simplifying and rendering less tedious its application, seems to involve no new principle. But it is impossible carefully to notico and r. fl c. upon what has recently occurred in England in connection with this subject, without arriving at the conviction that the views maintained by many churchmen are incompatible with an established Church. I allude to this subject in order that churchmen here maj- appreciate as they ought the position of freedom which we enjoy,—a position analogous to that of the Primitive Church, when Christians, while cheerfully rendering the most loyal fealty to the State, claimed and exercised the right handed in to them by the holy Apostles of Christ, to maintain both the purity of the faith and the discipline needful for carrying out the purposes for which the Church existed at all as an organised body. The Synod proceeded very cautiously in reference to the adoption of a new table of lessons. Statute 21 was enacted, which distinctly recites the grounds on which so important a change in a formulary of the Church is made. It moreover declares that the new table of lessons is adopted for a limited time, until, that is to say, it shall have been formally determined by the Synod on what principles, and in what manner, any alterations in the formularies of the. Book of Common Prayer shall be made. The new tablo of lessons is now in use in this ecclesiastical province. The Synod passed a resolution, stating its "sense of the paramount importance of a system of education for the young which should include religious instruction;" and further expressing a hope, that the various Diocesan Synods would use every endeavor in their power to obtain such a result. It is not improbable that before long a general system of primary education, will be adopted for the whole of this country. That the education given by the State should have a tendency to make the population better citizens would seem to be the only justifiable ground on which it can expend the public money in any system, of education would seem almost a self-evident proposition. .An exception, of course, there may bo to this, as in the gratuitous distribution of the necessaries of life, in the case of those who are destitute. But the assumption that mere intellectual acquirements, apart from the development of the moral nature—apart from any conviction of responsibility to a righteous judge, whom it is man's duty to serve in the manner in which he has revealed His will, can bring about such a result, and make men better citizens is what few, who have taken the needful pains to think out the subject, will admit. For the Government, indeed, in a community such as this to prescribe any particular religious teaching would be both unwise and impracticable. But this by no means Implies that the Government might not under certain necessary restrictions, thus avoiding all offence, afford facilities for religious instruction being given in day schools. I feel convinced that any system which fails to provide such an opportunity for religious instruction will both prove ineffectual in its professed object, and will meet with little hearty support throughout this country. The omnipotence of Parliament is an expression which, in a technical sense, lias a definite meaning, But on such a subject as the education of the people, a Statute that should involve a principle repugnant to the feelings of a large proportion of the population will undoubtedly prove to be a political blunder. I must leave it to the Synod to determine whether any step can with advantage be now taken in this matter. A resolution was also passed in the Synod "deploring the prevalence of intemperance" . . . "and requesting the several Diocosan Synods to give their earliest and most serious attention to this important matter." If the Synod is prepared to give its attention to this subject, and advise any specific action in reference to it, I shall most cordially, co-operate in endeavoring to carry it out. But having said this, I do not hesitate to avow my own carefully formed opinion, that the clergy, over-weighted as they are in this diocese with direct Church work, and having little time to spare, will most effectively promote the end we all have in view in reference to this subject, by endeavoring to bring the power of religion to bear on the hearts and consciences of all to whom they can obtain access, which will really prove a more effectual preventative as well as remedy for this and every other vice, of which there are too many, than any special organisation to deal only with one. Several important subjects brought before tho Synod have been remitted to the Diocesan Synods for their consideration before any final decision should be arrived at in regard to them. I have taken, no steps for the purpose of bringing these under your notice now, as the General Synod will not meet again for more than two years, and there will be a new election for the Diocesan Synod next year. Still, if any members of the Synod should deem it advisable to consider any of these subjects during the present session, with a view to their elucidation, and for the purpose of clearing away any difficulties connected with them, there can be no objection whatever to such a course. There is, however, one subject which I must briefly notice : I allude to a resolution of the Synod in connection with a general pension fund. A scheme is suggested for the approval of all the Diocesan Synods. The resolution is given at page 55 of the Report. In connection with this, the Synod also passed two resolutions (to be found at pages CO and 6'S of tho Eeport) recommending that the fire-insurance branch of the Pension Fund should be continued and extended as widely as possible; "and that tho Standing Committee of the Diocese, of Wellington be appointed agents of the General Synod, for the management of the fire insurance business, and be authorised to tako over tho accumulated capital for the purpose of carrying on the same." It would thus appear that in the opinion of the General Synod fresh efforts should be mado to establish on a sound basis a general Pension Fund... 1 But the Synod, at the same time, expressed a strong conviction that the desired result could not be obtained without the hearty co-operation of all the dioceses in their endeavors to accomplish it. Any further action on the part of the General Synod seems to have been mado dependent on such co-operation. A resolution of the Synod was passed for the purpose of extending the northern boundary of this diocese beyond Patea, as far as the river Tipoka, about half way between Patea and New Plymouth. As some such extension of the northern boundary, was contemplated when the Province of Hawke's Bay was separated from this diocese and added to that of Waipu, the proposed alteration appeared to be only reasonable. This Synod will be asked to give its sanction to the alteration of the boundary. The report of the Standing Committoe, which will be laid on the table, will convey information on several diocesan matters to which I need not now further allude. I must, howover, again mention tho Diocesan Fund—the only fund [in saying this I ought to except a small annual grant from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which cannot bo depended upon for any length of time], by means of which the ministrations of tho Church can be oxtended into newly peopled districts. While I thankfully acknowledge the liberality of a small number of persons who for many years have never failed to give their subscriptions, and to a few others who havo done even more than this, I feel unablo to understand why these annual subscriptions, notwithstanding both the increased population and the increased wealth of tho community in the diocese, have not reached a larger amount than they did ten years ago. I would again venture to impress on the members of the Church that what the Standing Committee needs to enable it to avail itself of opportunities for extending Church work, is a larger number of annual subscriptions, which can be relied upon, lyhilo incurring expenditure with a view to future results. It would be of the greatest assistance to me, while endeavoring to provide for this desirable object, if persons who have some leisure would act as collectors in various parts of the diocese. I think that owners of property, more especially those who possess largo property, should recognise the obligation devolving upon them in a country like this, where no tax Is imposed for religious purposes, not even for tho religious education of tho young in schools—to give liberally of their own free will for the support and promotion of religion. I say this, because I know that tho clergy in some parts of the dioceso are very inadequately supplied with what is needful cither for themselves or for defraying the expenses incurred in itinerating in their extensive districts. Having from convictions of its paramount importance entered on their sacred work, they are doubtless prepared faithfully to discharge tho duties of their holy office so long as thoy have the necessaries of life, knowing that the most fatal mistake an earnest minister of Christ can mako is that of ever appearing to manifest any undue anxiety about the things of this world; but this affords no reason why I should not call attention to the fact, with the hope that what I have now said may bo heard evon beyond the walls of this room.

During the present year the Rev. T. L. Tudor has been instituted to the parish of Christchurch, Wanganui. This change has occasioned a vacancy in the Porirua Koad district, which hitherto I have not been able to fill. The Eev. 11. W. St. Hill has kindly rendered some assistance, more especially in the administration of tho holy communion. The Eev. W. Ballachey has visited it at stated intervals. I have reason to think that during the ensuing year arrangements will have been completed for additional clergymen to be located in some out-lying parts of tho diocese which are now only occasionally visited. The Eev. E. U". Granger, who last year resigned the charge of a parish in the Diocese of Dimedin, the duties of which he efficiently discharged for several years, has recently accepted a spiritual charge in this City, whero a new district will shortly be assigned to him. It has been determined to erect a new church within the limits of the present parish of St. Peters, the population of which has much increased. He has been licensed to officiate in the diocese. While I am unable to announce any special progress during the last year among the Maori people of the diocese, there is certainly an increasing interest taken by thorn in religion. The recent demand for the Holy Scriptures and prayer-books, which they are willing to purchase, is an evidence of this. I regret to say that it is more the absence of laborers among them than any reluctance on their part to attend the ministrations of religion that occasions the appearance of apathy or indifference. Whenever I can visit them I meet with a cordial reception, and am listened to with attention ; this, I believe, is also the experience of others. I feel sure that there is now an opening among them for doing much good. Both at Wairarapa and the East Coast as well as to the north of Wanganui assistance is much needed. Since our last meeting, but now nearly a year ago, my old friend and fellow-laborer among the Maoris before New Zealand was a British Colony, tho Eev. Eichard Taylor, has been taken to his rest. I lay on the table the returns which I have received from the various parishes and parochial districts. These will, I presume, be submitted as heretofore to a Select Committee to be reported upon. There is also the usual tabulated statement of the trust properties in the diocese. At page 205 of the report of the General Synod there is a recommendation in reference to the grouping or consolidation of trusts, which it may be advisable for the Synod to consider during the present session. You will have already gathered from the remarks I have mado that I continue to have firm faith in the ecclesiastical system we have adopted in this country. In matters of general interest which concern the Church in its corporate capacity we have the power of legislating In our Synods. In these all orders take part. Such a system affords every reasonable guarantee for efficiency, security, and peace. While it prescribes certain necessary general rulos and regulations for the preservation of order, and facilitating cooperation, it affords to every individual member of tho Church the fullest freedom within those needful limits for tho exercise of his zeal and energy in tho promotion of religion. May Almighty God continue to vouchsafe to us' His blessing and His presence in all our efforts made for the promotion of His glory and the welfare of His Church. BUSINESS OP THE SYNOD. Archdeacon Stock read the report of the Standing Committee, the balance-sheets of the Pension Fund, of the capital account of tho Pension Fund, and of the Endowment Fund. The Standing Orders were suspended to allow the appointment of certain Committees immediately. Notices of motion having been given by members, the Synod adjourned till next day at two o'clock.