THE BISHOP'S OPENING ADDRESS TO THE SYNOD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5167, 13 October 1877, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE BISHOP'S OPENING ADDRESS TO THE SYNOD.

At the opening of the seventh Synod of the Diocese ou Tuesday last, the President, the Bight Reverend Bishop Hadfield, delivered the following- address : Brethren of the Clergy and of the Laity,— As each successive annual meeting of the Synod recurs, I think we have more reason to be thankful for the ecclesiastical system by means of which our Church work is regulated. It can, indeed, make no pretension to perfection ; nor, indeed, could this be expected. On the contrary, many anomalies are still perceived to exist, which may probably be never altogether removed. But then we may bear in mind that a few years only have elapsed since our Church organisation came into operation, and that its apparent novelty was in manv respects objectionable to those who had lived in England, where there was an Established Church, and had experience of nothiHg eiae, and that it therefore failed to enlist their hearty co-operation. Still, the actual result of our synodical system cannot be deemed other than highly satisfactory. We may sincerely hope that the Church as it exists in England, connected with the State, may long continue to be a blessing to the people by providing for the ministrations of religion in every part of the country, and, moreover, to be instrumental in raising up a class of learned theologians to defend and propagate the great doctrines of the Go pel, and thus to be a source of light and strength to other Churches throughout the world. But duly acknowledging all this, we cannot affect to close our ears to the many jarring sounds that reach us, or fail to sympathise •with the peculiar troubles that beset a Church so closely in many respects connected with the State. It is not needful that I should now enlarge on these. It is thought by some that a solution for their troubles might be attained if greater powers could be exercised by Convocation. But such powers could only be obtained through the action of the Legislature of the State. And constituted as Convocation now is, there cannot be the remotest prospect of Parliament granting to it such extended powers. There is a cry now raised for allowing '*' the living voice of the Church" to be heard. But this can only be understood to mean that an entirely new departure should be taken—that something different from the present Book of Common Prayer should come into use. If to alter the teaching of the Prayer-book is not meant, it is not easy to imagine what is intended by a new utterance of the voice of the Church of England. But it ought to be quite clear to any thoughtful student of the history of England that the exercise of such a claim would lead to thedisestablisbinent of the Church. It has been sometimes said that Nonconformists, whether in Parliament or out of it, ought not to express their opinions as to ecclesiastical proceedings within the Church. But, obviously, in their capacity either as legislators or as citizens, they are perfectly justified in using their civil rights in determining whether a Church established by law shall be of such or such a character. Their right in this respect would hardly be questioned by a statesman. The claim therefore now put forward by some Churchmen in England, on behalf of the Church, to absolute exemption from the control of the State, can only be successful by bringing about a disestablishment. In this country we may labor under many disadvantages, but we ought to be th.tnkful that we are perfectly free to regulate our Church affairs as we think best. \Vith abundance of practical work to attend to, having plenty to occupy our thoughts while endeavoring to extend to settlers in various parts of the country the ministrations of religion,—enjoying as we do the inestimable blessing of the Bible and the Prayer-book, we can bestow little either of our time or our thoughts on the consideration of qu stions which are not of primary importance, certainly not of importance sufficient to distract our attention from the great spiritual work we have before us—that of distributing the word of life to all whom ■we can possibly reach. May God grant that this may ever be the chief objec". of all our endeavors while legislating in ecclesiastical matters.

I will not venture to-day to offer any remarks on the various questions on ecclesiastical matters which are engaging the attention of theologians in England. Any attempt to deal with such questions, I will not say in an exhaustive way, but intellig 'ntly, would be to trespass unduly on your patience, and possibly to lead you away from what is the more immediate occasion of our meeting. There is however a subject concerning which, though not immediately connected with New Zealand, I feel bound to speak, otherwise T would gladly have passed it by. I allude to some resolutions agreed upon by the Indiau bishop 3 concerning the relations which ought to existbetween them and the two Missionary Societies —that for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign parts and the Church Missionary Society. To make my meaning clear I will cite the two first resolutions: —1. "We, the metropolitan and suffragan bishops of the province, desire to record our high appreciation of the work done on behalf of the Church of Engl-md by the great missionary societies which have volantarily labored in her name. In view, however, of the revival and extension of the corporate work of the Church, we feel the necessity of considering, aad more accurately defining, the relation of those societies to diocesan organisation. 2. We further consider that the question of the conditions under which lay agent 3 are to be employed in the Church is one that demands the serious attention of the Church at large." I will now cite the fourth resolution, which will account for my allusion to this subject. It is as follows: — " We severally undertake to bring the whole matter before our respective dioceses, and, through the metropolitan, to forward a copy of these resolutions to the metropolitans of the other provinces of the Anglican communion, with an expression of our hope that they will lay the same before their suffragans, and obtain from them the opinion of their respective dioceses upon the subject referred to." It isnot my intention to ask you to take the resolutions in question into your consideration. My reason for declining to do so I will presently endeavor to explain. But what has induced me to allude to these resolutions at all is, that certain principles involved in them require to be examined. The third resolution I have omitted, as it treats only of abstract principles of a wholly unpractical kind. I do not hesitate to say that I should be nvaaxvd at the want of wisdom displayed in the resolutions, were it not that one only of the four bishops concerned in their preparation had completed the second year of his episcopate. It will be necessary to consider briefly what gave occasion to resolutions which appear so crude and impractical. The Bishop of Colombo, a very young man, whose consecration was for a time delayed because he had not attained the canonical age, reached his diocese early last year. He had only been there a few months when a serious dispute arose between him and certain clergymen acting in connection with the Church Missionary Society. I can come to no other conclusion, after having carefully studied the correspondenee, most of which has been published, that the Bishop withdrew their licences from ton of these clergymen, not only without any formal investigation, much less trial, but in the most arbitrary and peremptory manner possible. These missionaries, some of whom had been laboring in Ceylon for many years, were chiefly engaged among the Tamil, speaking coolies employed on the estates of European planters—their language is a very difficult one. What the bishop proposed was to place these missionaries under the direction of newlyarrived chaplains, who knew nothing either of the Tamil language or the habits of the people. It is wholly unnecessary for my present purpose to go further into the merits of this untoward disagreement. It, however, gave occasion to the resolutions of the bishops. The subjects on which I would desire briefly to touch have a practical bearing on actual missionary work here, as well as on the Church at large. I hold that where large societies, presided over by archbishops and -bishops, such as those just referred to, are acting in England as voluntary ageneieß for enlisting missionaries, and collecting funds to be used in extending a knowledge of the Gospel among vast heathen populations, it seems marvellous that any

bi«h>ps should not willingly and thankfully accept such aid on any conditions that such societies are at all likely to require. Surely, when substantial aid of the character described is gratuitously given, a missionary bishop ought to make every possible allowance for any action of those who, having the duty devolving on them of raising funds, are bound to take such pre-autious as are necessary to secure that the funds are devoted ■to the purpose for which they were raised. In order to show that there is nothing extravagant or impossible in supposing that such an arrangement could be made, it is only necessary to say, or rather to remiud some who hear me, that the Bishop of New Zealand, a man quite as remarkable for his missionary zeal and hiß deep conviction of his responsibility of the episcopal ofiice as any bishop now alive, found it possible, not only to work cordially with the clern-y, and I may add catechists connected with the Church Missionary Society, but to draw thein, with the approbation of the society, into hearty co-operation with himself in all Ids essential plans for eventu lly establishing a compact ecclesiastical system. The period during which missionaries are engaged in perfecting their knowledge of the vernacular of the people among whom they labor, and are occupied in gathering converts from heathenism into the Church, is necessarily one of an elementary stage of ecclesiastical development, even if it can be said to have reached that stage at a'l. Any premature attempt at rigid organisation would undoubtedly have a fatal tendency to retard the extension of the Gospel. This truth a man like the Bishop of New Zealand was not slow to recoguise and act upon. But this the Indian bishops have apparently failed to see. It is not easy to understand how the first resolution could ever have been conceived or agreed upon, for it speaks of " the extension of the corporate life the Church," and of " the relation of societies to diocesan organisation." In replying to this the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel acutely detects, and quietly exposes, the assumption of a state of things which does not exist. He says: " Tn most of the colonial dioceses the corporate life of the Church and diocesan organisation have been much more fully developed than is at present the case in India." The fact is, that hitherto there has been no attempt made in the Indian dioceses to establish diocesan synods, even of the most rudimentary kind. And I fail altogether to form any conception of what could be the status of a diocesan synod where bishops exercise authority under letters patent, in accordance with au Act of the Impeiial Parliament. In connection with this aspect of the bishops' status, I cannot but think that the strangest feature of their resolutions is, the incongruity between the mode in which the Indian bishops came to their sees, and their high ecclesiastical preteusions. That a bishop voluntarily selected, and formally elected by the clergy and laity of the diocese over which he presides; having, moreover, had his election confirmed by the bishops of the ecclesiastical province, should put forth a claim for due consideration for his instructions, more especially when these are in accordance with the canons or rules agreed upou in a synod which represents both the clergy and laity, is in itself reasonable, and would find few to dispute it. But that a bishop directly appointed by a Secretary of State, acting under an authority derived from the State, paid by an annual graut from the coffers of the State, that a bishop of the most erastian type should expect missionary clergymen to regard him in the same light as they would a oanouically appointed bishop, and, moreover, bow implicitly to arbitrary claims to spiritual authority, merely on the ground of his consecration apart from any consideration of particular jurisdiction, is something so marvellous that it is very difficult even to imagine the progress of thought by means of which he could I have arrived at the conclusion that in doing so he was simply discharging a solemn duty. But this seems to have been exactly what the Bishop of Colombo has done. One of the chief comp Hints made by him against an experienced clergyman connected with the Church Missionary Society was, that he encouraged the Tamil-speaking coolies to assemble for divine worship in a place distinct from the church in which the English worshipped, although in its immediate vicinity ; and this complaint assumed that this was au infringement of ecclesiastical order. But in this country it always ha 3 been, and still is the almost universal practise for the Moari-speaking Christi.-ms to assemble in a separate building; and it has been always taken for granted that a mi-sionary ministering to these in no respect interfered with the ecclesiastical rights of a licensed clergyman, whose duty was to minister to the English congregation. But perhaps I am overlooking the fact that all went on smoothly here because the directing mind, at a time when the two classes of ministrations might possibly have come into collision, was that of Bishop Selwyn, a knowledge of whose largeness of heart and comprehensive love would have afforded a tacit rebuke to any narrow-minded jealousy, whether professing to rest in ecclesiastical technicalities or not. I have called your attention to this subject for the purpose of accounting for my inability to respond to the invitation of the Indian Bishops to take any part in their proposals. But I must venture further to add, that it is more in accordance with my feelings, who have been nearly forty years engaged in missionary work, to acknowledge with becoming gratitude the liberal assistance which has been afforded to both the English and Maori branches of the Church in this country by the great English societies, and to rejoice that no small occasional differences of opinion have ever marred the good understanding that has hitherto existed here between the Church and those societies. And I believe that I shall have the feeling of the Synod with me.

Since we last met the triennial session of the General Synod was held at Nelson. The most interesting occurrence was the confirmation of the election of the Rev. John Kichardson —son of our former metropolitan, who was bnrn in New Zealand—to be Bishop of Melanesia, and bis subsequent consecration there. I merely record, without further observation, this well-known fact. Certain alterations were made in some of the statutes, to which I will presently refer, but before doing so, I will venture to offer a few remarks on some matters which came before the Synod without producing any immediate " tangible results. I must again, as I did on a former occasion, express my regret that there are not at present found clerical and lay representatives in every diocese who can attend the Synod at its triennial sessions. Persons—l can hardly say representatives—are not unfrequently elected who are residents iu the diocese where the Synod is about to meet. This is unsatisfactory in two respects, both because it introduces into the Synod too much of the influence of one diocese, and also because, as the different dioceses become the meeting places of the Synod in rotation at lone; intervals, it so happens that the representatives referred to have usually had little or no opportunity of becoming conversant with the debates and proceedings of previous Synods. One unfortunate consequence of this is, that each Synod is practically a different body from the previous oue. It, therefore, apparently ignores what has been done before, seems to take for granted that measuros resolved upon after much consideration on former occasions were adopted without caro and without thought, and that past legislation should be reversed. This want of acquaintance on the part of many members of the Synod with previous proceedings is, to say the least, unsatisfactory to experienced members ; and, moreover, occasions much waste of valuable time. It is to be hoped that before long there will be forthcoming many wellqualified and zealous churchmen having the necessary leisure to enable them to attend as representatives of their own dioceses in consecutive Synods. Very early in the proceedings of the Synod it became evident that a Bill which had been brought before the Synod in 1874, and which had been by order of the Synod sent to all the dioceses for the consideration of the various Synods, was deemed to involve some dangerous principle which would seriously affect the status of the Church in this ecclesiastical province. It was in vain that the advocates of the Bill demonstrated in the clearest mauncr that its only objocfc was to

enact some safeguard against hasty future legislation, and that it involved no principle as to the status of the Church which was not already contained in other statutes, the feeling against it ou the part of som<» new members was so strong, that, though it was supported by all the Bishops, it was rejected on a motion for the first reading. Its rejection is not in itself important, because there is no immediate probability of any attempt being made to alter the formularies of the Church Prayer-book. Still it is impossible to foresee tho changes which, within the next three years, may take place in the Church of England. Such changes might excite stroDg feeling here ; and a deliberative assembly is always liable, under the guidance of one or two able men who may have become possessed of some peculiar view in connection with the prevailing controversies of the day, to which they attach very great importance, to act hastily. I will venture to give an extract from a letter recently received by me from a former member of this Synod, Mr. Sewell :—" It will, I think, appear to the whole body of churchmen in the colony necessary to devise some means for checking hasty action by th*} General Synod in the making of changes iu the formularies. It is through them that attacks will be made on the doctrines of the Church. And if any General Synod is to feel itself at liberty to make any changes in the formularies without due consideration, I foresee that there is great risk of alteration in vital points from hasty legislation. How this is to be avoided is matter of careful consideration. I thought, and still think, that the Diocesan Synods are the best final authorities upon such questions. It is clear that the Church constitution foresaw the need, and meant to provide a safeguard against such a risk by obliging the colonial Church to follow the footsteps of the parent Church—' the United Church of England and Ireland'—or else to obtain ' a license from the Crown.' But these safeguards have besu swept away, and the colonial Church is left dangerously free to govern herself as she pleases. If any one can devise a safer and better substitute for the old safeguards than what we proposed in the Formularies Bill, I shall be very glad to see it adopted. But lam sure it will be unsafe to leave the case unprovided for."

In connection with a remark which I just now made, that one General Synod seems, in respect to many of its members, to be an isolated body, n«t connected with the previous Synod, aud therefore {joins? over ground that had been gone over before, and raising questions that had been debated and settled to the satisfaction of all parties, I will mention that I endeavored to induce the General Synod to make provision for the appointment of a body similar in some respects to the standing committee of a diocese. Such a body I cannot but think would be a real connecting link between one Synod and its successor, and might prepare measures for it —such measures more especially as had met with general approval, but had been lost for want of time to c irry them through all their stages on a previous occasion. Au organisation so obviously needed will, I trust, be provided for by the next General Synod. In connection with this subject I may say that I introduced a measure which might have checked hasty legislation, intituled "Notice of Kuactments Bill:" It met with a better reception than I had anticipated, involving as it did a wholly new principle. It was rejected on the second reading, there being au equality of votes in the order of clergy, although there was a majority in its favor iu both the other orders. I think that some measure of the kind will meet with more favor at the next meeting of the Synod ; its only object being that drafts of Bills to be brought before the Synod should be in the hands of every member of the Synod two months before its session. This would have contained au exception to meet certain possible emergencies. There was one phase of the proceedings of the Synod which was altogether novel, and occasioned some surprise, to which I will very briefly allude. Certain new members made an indirect attempt to interfere with a fundamental principle of the constitution, which provides that the General Synod " shall consist of three distinct orders, viz., the bishops, the clergy, and the laity, the consent of all which orders shall be necessary to all acts binding upon the Synod, and upon all persons recognising it 3 authority." Murmurs were heard when some motion was lost on which there might be a majority of both clergy and laity in its favor, but to which a majority of bishops was opposed. It was also openly contended that in a. committee of the whole Synod important matters should be decided on the voiceK without a division according to orders. I protested against this attempt at innovation in the Synod, and I notice it because it was the first occasion on which such an objection has been raised in the Synod to an essential part of its constitution. It is most important to the future well-being of the Church iu this country that there should be a loyal adhesion to the constitution by all who take an official part in its proceedings. But whatever may have occasioned this expression of opinion, I by no means wish to imply that there was any systematic attempt to take an anti-episcopal line of actiou ; on the contrary, the very opposite of this was evinced on more than one occasion. When, for instance, I made an attempt to have the Diocesan Board Statute of 1871 (which had lapsed) renewed, I met with no encouragement from the majority of the Synod. But this statute made provision that no person should be admitted to the order of deacons until his general fitness for office had been certified by a board appointed by the Diocesan Synod. No statute could be more thoroughly calculated to protect the clergy against the admission of an unsuitable person into their ranks, and the laity from having men to minister to them against whom any social objection, perhaps unknown to a bishop, might exist. Such a measure was in accordance with ancient precedent, and exists now in the American Church. Of course no bishop could really wish to have such a statute to control his own free action ; but when, for the protection of both clergy and laity, a bishop introduced such a measure, it did seem somewhat anomalous that it should have met with decided opposition from those who appeared jealous of episcopal encroachment on their rights. One very important change was made which I consider of very doubtful advantage. In tho Synod which met at Dunedin in 1871 I obtained an alteration in clause 23 of the constitution, to the effect that in the confirmation of the nomination of a bishop, when this duty devolved on the standing committees the votes should be taken by orders. I advocated this for the very obvious reason that unless such a mode of procedure was adopted it might be possible that a bishop should be introduced into the ecclesiastical province, not only without the approval of a majority of the Bishops, but in opposition to all of them. But even the former of these alternatives would bo in direct contravention of well-established ecclesiastical precedents. But during the last session it was enacted—unnecessarily as I think —by statute 2, c. 13, that on all occasions when any difference of opinion existed the votes in the standing committees should he taken by orders. This affords another instance of the inconsistency I havo already noticed in the practical application of principles. This appears to give a bishop an unnecessary control over the management of the details of business matters that are constantly coming under the consideration of tho committee. This fact might have a tendency to deter others from affording their hearty co-opera-tion. I trust it will never havo that effect in this diocese. But I havo thought it right to direct your attention to the fact. Another clause of the same statute now enaots that a standing committee shall consist of the bishop, three clergymen, and five laymen. But this clause wii! not affect this diocese, where it has always been the practice to have a sufficient number on the committee. I presume that it is not intended that the number specified in the statute is needful to form a quorum. If, however, a different opinion from my own (of which I am not at all confident) is held on this subject, it may be advisable to raise it by a motion in the Synod. Statute 5, on tho Appointment of Pastors, contains several amendments of considerable importance, and likely to prove beneficial. It will bo ho longer absolutely necessary, as ap«

peared to be the case before under tho former statute, that all the nominators should meet for the purpose of consultation. There nre other alterations which more immediately concern the nominators and the parochial clergy, which it is not needful to specify now. I use the term parochial clergy, they alone being concerned in this statute. But in the Synod I called attention to the fact that, whereas "parochial districts" are recognised in the statutes, uo provision whatever is made in reference to certain matters which concern them equally with parishes and the parochial clergy. There is, for instance, ho provision made for the notice to be given by a clergyman licensed to a parochial district when he wishes to resign. A bishop would, I think, be justified in expecting from him the same notice as that from an incumbent of a parish. I would venture to suggest—and I can do it now as no election for the General Synod is near at hand —that the clergy would perhaps be wise if they returned as a representative one member at least, who should be in charge of a parochial district. It is, perhaps, quite within the competency of the Diocesan Synod to legislate on this subject. Possibly many such subjects are purposely left open to be dealt with by the same authority. By far the most important measure of the session was the Ecclesiastical Tribunals Statute. A similar one had long been among the statutes as a permissive measure, to be accepted or not by each diocese as it might think proper to determine. In 1871 this statute was made applicable to the whole ecclesiastical province. But an opportunity having occurred last year for testing its suitability for the purpose for which it was intended, it was found to be in many respects faulty. The present measure, which incorporated many of the provisions of the previous one, which it has superseded, was carried through the Synod by Mr. Haumer, a member of the Standing Commision. Great pains were taken to render it as perfect as possible. I only hope that in this diocese it may be long before any occasion may arise for taking any proceedings under it. Clause 4 of this statute contains an alteration in the number of assessors to be appointed. It provides that instead of eight there should now be twelve. This clause enacts, as the previous statute, that " The bishop shall from time to time appoint, with the concurrence of a majority of both orders in Diocesan Synod assembled, six clergymen and six laymen." In accordance with this I lay on the table the names of those whom I desire to appoint, and shall ask for your concurrence in their appointment.

I do not think sufficient time and attention are giveu by the General Synod to the consideration of the various trust properties which it holds. A select committee is usuhlly appointed for the purpose early in the session ; but the report is frequently delayed till its cl se, when very important matters are hastily inquired into in a thinly atteuded meeting of the Synod. Were such a standing committee of the General Synod as I just now alluded to in existence, the reports of trustees might be referred to it during the recess, and might then be brought before it at au early period, and obtain the attention that a subject involving such important questions deserves. It may be in the recollection of some whom I now address that I promised last session to bring the subject of what hymnal should be in use under the consideration of the General Synod, and, !if possible, obtain some decision upon it. But the Synod resolutely declined to deal authoritatively with the matter. Such being the case, I do not consider it advisable that this Synod should consider the question. No doubt it is quite within the functions of the Diocesan Synod to do 'O, for by doing so it would do nothing which is repugnant to any statute or resolution of the General Synod ; but I expect it would not be advisable, more especially as the chief efforts of those who have long helped to legislate for the Church have been directed towards establishing as far as possible uniformity in the ecclesiastical province. The choice of the hymnal is now left to the discretion of each individual clergyman. Every licensed clergyman, however, will have to bear in mind that neither the General Synod nor the Diocesan Synod has given its sanction to any hymnal, and that he is responsible, and may be called to account for the use of any hymnal in his church which may contain any doctrine repugnant to the authorised teaching of the Church. The fact that he might be supported by the vestry would not in the least protect him from any censure to which he might make himself liable by using in the public service of the Church hymns containing any such doctrines as I have alluded to.

I regret to see that the minutes of the proceedings of the General Synod, which were given very fully by the able secretaries, appear in the report more in the form of a brief abstract than has previously been usual. While it has been deemed necessary by the Synod that the names of those who voted in several divisions should be published, information absolutely necessary to enable a reader to understand how some results were arrived at, seems to have been without sufficient reason withheld.

In addressing yon last year I intimated that I had received a communication from his Grace the Archb : shop of Canterbury in reference to a proposed conference of bishops to meet next year at Lambeth, and I laid this, together with my reply, on the table. I then stated that it did not appear to me that anything sufficiently definite was suggested as matter to be dealt with by the conference to induce rne to leave my diocese for so long a period as would be necessary for the purpose of being present at it. I have since heard nothing on the subject. I cannot say whether the conference will be held or not. In case a conference should meet, it would perhaps be not altogether desirable that there should be a gathering of bishops of the Anglican communion from almost all parts of the world, and that there should be. no bishop present from this ecclesiastical province. .But I am unable to say whether any bishop of this Church will go in case the conference should meet.

Turning now to matters of more especial diocesan interest, I would refer to a question that has arisen in connection with the probable position of assistant ctiratea, for which our Church system makes no provision. It does not appear that they can at present occupy any recognised ecclesiastical status in the Church. There were probably two reasons which induced those who originally framed the earliest statutes to abstain from any legislation on the subject. One may have been a recollection of the anomalous position of a curate in England, where he works in entire subordination to the rector or vicar, and can at any time have bis license withdrawn by the bishop. As the rector and the curate are usually both in priest's orders, the contrast in their respective positions is so remarkable, from a purely ecclesiastical point of view, that it could only conceivably exist in an Established Church. The other reason probably was that a few years ago there were no large centres of population, and consequently no large churches and populous parishes. Still, there may be exceptions to very good practical rules. It may sometimes appear desirable, where there is a large population, and also a convenient church, that this should be opened moro frequently, and that there should be au afternoon service. This is one of thoso subjects which might well have engaged the attention of the General Synod. It is obviously a subject with which a Diocesan Synod cannot deal satisfactorily. Any legislation on the subject would bo liable to clash with the statutes of the General Synod. Looking, however, at the question with a view to obtaining some practioal solution of it, for a temporary purpose, this might possibly be obtained without any Speaking generally, the position of curate in subordination to au incumbent ia one which few clergymen in this country would care to hold for more than a limited period. Still, many humble-minded young clergymen might gladly avail themselves, say, for the period of three years, of being in this way initiated into regular parochial work. If such a clergyman could be found, who commended himself to the bishop and the incumbent, and if the vestry undertook, for the period just suggested, to pay his stipend through the bishop, I think an arrangement bo entered on might prove satisfactory to all parties, and could hardly in-

volve any principle at variance with our system. But though I have endeavored fairly to state this aspect of the subject, and think that what I have suggested might under favorable circumstances work with advantage in some parishes, it is not one which commends itself very strongly to me as suitable to the Church in this country. The rector or vicar in England is secure by the law of the land : he cannot be removed from his parish. It consequently never occurs to any one to suppose that he might be ousted from his cure for the purpose of having his place filled by his cur.ite as his successor. Although an incumbent's position here is, technically considered, quite as secure, rumor has informed me that in some parts of this ecclesiastical province means have been resorted to for the substitution of the curate for the incumbent. Besides, I think even in parishes where such a temporary arrangement might with advantage be made, tho present rapid iucrease of population would in a very short time render it insufficient for the wants of the people. Taking therefore, a wider and more comprehensive view of the subject, I should feel inclined to recommend that, instead of haviug recourse to temporary expedients, parishes as need requires should be subdivided, and that there should be a parochial district 'or parish formed under the spiritual charge of a clergyman specially appointed to it. Many whom I address are aware in what a cautious and tentative manner the subject was approached when it was in contemplation to erect a new church in a part of tho parish of St. Peter's. Not only did the effort made to provide for the spiritual wants of the news district meet with the most satisfactory result by the erection of the new church (St. Mark's), but even a stimulus was given to a further effort to provide a new and larger church to replace the old St. Peter's Church, which I hope before long will be realised. Looking, then, at the rapid growth of the population in the parish of St. Paul's, and talcing into consideration the period that would necessarily elapse between a first effort being made towards the erection of a church and its completion for divine worship, I cannot but think that the time has come for taking some immediate steps towards procuring a site and for the erection of a church in whatever may be deemed the most suitable part of the parish. Doubtless vigorous efforts would be needed to raise adequate funds for such a purpose, and many difficulties wonld have to be encountered; but I think the difficulties will continue to increase the longer the work is deferred. Still it must be borne in mind that there is a serious evil to be dreaded by indefinitely delaying what will before long have to be done—an evil which no prospective difficulties should deter us from attempting to avert. I allule to tho increasing spiritual destitution of professed members of the Church, which, together with its probable deteriorating effects in others, more especially in the young, cannot be contemplated without alarm. In these days, when many special benevolent efforts are being zealously made to benefit our fellow-men, we at least should never forget the most effect.u il means of preserving them against acquiring various evil habits, and suffering from the result of these, is by bringing the power of the Gospel to bear on their hearts. I venture to hope that this subject will immediately occupy the attention of this city. We look around and see progress surrounding us on every side. I trust we shall not incur the reproach of its being said that our interest iu the highest object that can occupy the human mind does uot keep pace with the interest displayed in what is immeasurably subordinate to it.

Information concerning matters affecting this diocese has recently been more generally diffused. I would, however, direct attention to the Board of Theological Studies, and express a hope that soma efforts may be made to induce not only those who may be reading for Holy Orders to avail themselves of its examinations, but that Sunday-school teachers also should be encouraged to do so. The mention of Sunday-school teachers reminds me how important is everything that may tend in any way to render Sunday-schools more efficient. If, as appears probable from a measure now before the Legislature, we are to have schools supported at the public expense, in which not only no religious teaching will be permitted, but from which both prayer and the Bible are to be excluded; then the most zealous efforts must be made by means of Sundayschools to avert iu some respects the impending evil results of such a system. The subject of public schools is one of too great importance to be considered at the conclusion of this address to-day. But I cannot refrain from expressing my alarm at the prospect befere the country. The only possible justification the State can have for extracting money from the people for the purpose of education, is so to spend it as to make her rising generation good citizens. But it has never yet been shown that such a result can be obtained by a system of instruction systematically separated from religious teaching. Nor have any valid reasons been hitherto advanced to lead to the expectation that the verdict of universal history will be reversed in this matter. There ate two words constantly in use in every discussion on public educatiou—words absolutely without meaning in the controversy, and therefore misleading—l allude to the words "secular" and "denominational." The word "secular,"! presume, applies to all that concerns a man in this life. Is not religion a matter which influences men's conduct here? or rather, is not religion tin- most poteut principle of action in the human ueart? These questions can only be answered in the affirmative. " Secular," then, cannot be intelligently used as a term antagonistic to religion. But to a student of modern history the word "secular" seems a most ill-devised, term in its present popular application. We read of the regular clergy and of the secular clergy. Now the secular clergy were the parish priests, so that secular education ought to mean that which is given under the direction of the parish priest. But this evidently is not what is now meant by the term by those who clamor for secular educatiou. Then, again, " denominational" is au abused term. What the advocates of the system indicated by the term mean is this: That, inasmuch as a Government, such as ours in this couutry is, caDnot deal directly with religion, it should not deal with it at all, it should neither include it in a system of education nor exclude it from it. Their contention is this, that so long as a school is open to an inspector, and so long as the children in it are efficiently taught, their knowledge reaching the standard required by theinspectorinall subjects ordered to be learnt, then that no inquiry should be made as to the religion taught iu it, it being a matter with which the Goverment avowedly concerns itself. There can be no doubt what ■ ever that such a systom as this could be easily carried out in the centres of population. That it could not without some modification be brought into operation in thinly populated parts of the country is vory possible. But no argument can fau-ly be deduced from this to preclude the application of the principle contended for where there might be no difficulty in applying it. lam aware that at present it is almost hopeless to dwell on this subject. But the time cannot be far distant when the flagrant injustice of what is now proposed will be so self-evident to every careful thiuker that the law if enacted will have to be repealed. Take, for instance, the case of the Roman Catholics alone. AVhatevor may be now thought, it cannot long be deemed just or fair to tax, them for tne support of what they cannot conscientiously avail themselves of. This is impossible. I feet convinced that the members of our Church have not giveu this subject that consideration which it deserves. I cannot doubt that when it is more thoroughly understood they will not be backward iu giving expression to their opinions and making their wants known in a manner that will leave the Legislature no alternative but to respoct the conscientious convictions of a very large part of the commuuity. Unless I have greatly mistaken the character of the settlers in New Zealand, there will not be found a majority who will long be content that their children should be doomed to instruction in godless schools.

I am happy to be. able to say that fresh efforts have been successfully made to increase the Diocesan Fund. The inadeqnajy of the funds hitherto at tho disposal of the standing committee for tho purpose of extending the

work of the Church in new settlements, has long lieeu the most discouraging part connected with my work. I feel very thankful that so promising a beginning has been already made towards removing the insuperable obstacle that appeared to be in my way when I contemplated making any further provision for the spiritual wants of the people in various parts of the diocese. I trust that this beginning, so satisfactorily made by the kind exertions of certain ladies in the city of Wellington, will not only be persevered in, but will by other bp extended 10 the country, and then carried on in earnest. Church members should remember that they are not'only interested in their own particular parish or district, but in the general welfare of the diocese. Nothing is more needed for the well-being of the human heart than to have its sympathies expanded, and extended beyond one's owa immediate locality. I lay on the table the reports from the various parishes and parochial districts. Some member of the Synod will, I think, be good enough to move for a committee to consider these, and report to the Synod upon them. The report of the standing committee will furnish several interesting details as to the progress of Church work in different parts of the diocese. During the past year I have held confirmations at the following places:—Karori, Marton, Patea, Wangauui, Masterton, the Lower Hutt, the Upper Hutt, and in the city at St. Paul's and St. Mark's; at the last-named church the candidates from St. Peter's were confirmed. I also confirmed sixty-five Maoris, having held confirmations at Motua on the Manawatu, at Matahiwhi on the Rangitikei, and at Otaki. On every occasion I was much gratified at the interest taken in the ordinance, which was very evident from the large attendance in the church. I intimated last year that I had it in contemplation to admit to deacon's orders a Maori who had been some time under the instruction of the Rev. J. McWilliam with a view to his ordination. The Rev. Dimaha To Mahauariki was accordingly ordained in December at Otaki, in the presence o£ a large number of Maoris. He went shortly afterwards to Wairarapa, where he has been diligently at work. I lay on the table a short report of his work, which he sent at my request ; and also one on the same subject by the Rev. E. Ruck. Another Maori, who was a fellow student of his, is most favorably spoken of by Mr. MeWilHam, and 1 consequently propose, God willing, very soon to admit him to deacon's orders. It is my intention to send him into the Wauganui District, vhere his energy of character will I trust prove a blessing to those among whom he may labor in preaching the Gospel. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has again signified his wish that the bishops of the Anglican communion should everywhere set apart a day for special intercession for missions. St. Andrew's day is suggested wherever it may be convenient. His Grace's letter has already been made public. However strong our connections may be as to our duty in this respect, to be specially reminded of it, and to be called to help towards it, is good for us all. I would suggest that this year the offertories should be sent to me to be forwarded to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. The offertory last year was given to the Church Missionary Society. I have to record with regret the death of the Rev. B. K. Taylor, a missionary connected with the A.M.S., who had many years been engaged in ministering to the Maori population of Wanganui. His death occurred last year, shortly after the meeting of this Synod. In him I lost not only an old and valued friend, but one of the few Maori-speaking clergy in the diocese. I have not thought it needful to enter into the details of work now going on in the diocese. Information on this is gradually becoming diffused by means of the Church Chronicle. 1 can, however, confidently say that it is on the whole most satisfactory. There are still a few places where—for reasons not easily understood at a distance—'the state of Church affairs is not so prosperous as I could wish, where funds are not so liberally and regularly contributed for the maintenance of the services of the Church as I had hoped they would be. I trust churchmen in the districts referred to will before long see the necessity of making such exertions as are absolutely required where a district is not to be left destitute of spiritual superintendence. But with these few exceptions there has been a very marked development of interest iu the extension of the Church. I am happy to say that clergymen, who in many districts are zealously aided by lay readers, have recently extended their operations, wii ha hearty response from those who feel that they benefit by their ministrations.

I am reminded by the day of the month that it is to-day seven years since I was consecrated and called on to preside over this diocese. I gladly offer my thanks to the members o£ the Synod and many others who have rendered me cordial aud efficient aid in my endeavors to discharge fche responsible dutie3 of the office which I hold. But above all I would acknowledge with profound thankfulness the goodness of Almighty God, who has sustained me hitheito, and in whose blessing on my lal,ors I trust to rely more and more so long as my strength enables me conscientiously to continue in my present office. I conclude by expressing a sincere hope that we shall enter on the duties now before us in dependence on the blessing of God, and be desirous only of promoting His glory and the welfare of His Church.