THE BISHOP’S OPENING ADDRESS TO THE SYNOD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5172, 19 October 1877, Page 6

THE BISHOP’S OPENING ADDRESS TO THE SYNOD.

At the opening of the seventh Synod of the Diocese on Tuesday last, the President, the JKight Reverend Bishop Hadfieid, delivered Sfie following address : Brethren of the Clergy and of the Laity,— A» 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 Sfce contrary, many anomalies are still peraaved to exist, winch may probably be never u altogether removed. But then we may bear ; 5a mind that a few years only have elapsed . sines our Church organisation came into operaaS»n, and that its apparent novelty was- in BKm> respects objectionable to those who had Jtved in England, where there was an EstabEihed Church, and had experience of nothing and that it therefore failed to enlist their hearty co-operation. .Still, the actual result of wnr synodical system cannot bo deemed other tban 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 Site ministrations of religion in every part of t&e country, and, moreover, to be instrumental in raising up a class of learned theologians to defend and propagate the great doctrines of the So pel, and thus to be a source of light and strength to other Churches throughout the •arorld. But duly acknowledging all this, we cannot affect to close our ears to the many jar«iog sounds that reach us, or fail to sympathise ■with the peculiar troubles that beset a Church aa closely iu 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 Bhrliament granting to it such extended powers. There is a cry now raised for allowing “ the Bring voice of the Church” to be heard. But Ibis 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 slier 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 'ai England that the exercise of such a claim would lead to the disestablishment of the Church. Jt has been sometimes said that Nonconformc.fe, whether in Parliament or out of it, ought aot to express their opinions as to ecclesiastical proceedings within the Church. But, ob- - -riously, iu their capacity either as legislators .or as citizens, they are perfectly justified in using their civil rights in determining whether » 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 thankful Shat we are perfectly free to regulate our Church affairs as we think best. With abundance of practical work to attend to, having plenty to occupy our thoughts while endeavoring to extend to settlers in various parts of the aotmtry the ministrations of religion,—enjoy- - feg as we do the inestimable blessing of the Bible and the Prayer-book, we can bestow little either of oar time or our thoughts on the con3»deration 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 ■ Shis may ever be the chief object 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 theologians in England. Any attempt to Seal with such questions, I will not say in an exhaustive way, but intellig ntly, would be to trespass unduly on your patience, and possibly So lead you away from what is the more immediate occasion of our meeting. There is however a subject concerning which, though aot immediately connected with New Zealand, Z feel bound to speak, otherwise I would gladly Save passed it by. I allude to some resolutions agreed upon by the Indian bishops conoemSng the relations which ought to exist between them and the two Missionary Societies—that So r the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign parts and the Church Missionary Society. To make my meaning clear I will cite the two Srst resolutions; —1. “We, the metropolitan iffld suffragan bishops of the province, desire So record our high appreciation of the work gone on behalf of the Church of England by She great missionary societies which have voluntarily 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, and more accurately defining, the relation of those societies to diocesan organisation. 2. We further consider that the question of the conditions under yhich lay agents are to be employed id the Church is one that demands the serious attention of the Church at large.” I will now cite ihe fourth resolution, which will account for aiy allusion to this subject. It is as follows: “■We severally undertake to bring the whole matter before our respective dioceses, and, f&rough 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 S,y the same before their suffragans, and obtain Scum them the opinion of their respective dio«wes upon the subject referred to.” It is not vay intention to ask you to take the resolutions to question into your consideration. My reaaan 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 Sc- examined. The third resolution I have omitted, as it treats only of abstract principles id a wholly unpractical kind. I do not hesitate to say that I should be amazed 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 i&e second year of his episcopate. It will be necessary to consider briefly what aave occasion to resolutions which appear so Srwde and impractical. The Bishop of Colombo, » very young man, whose consecration was for j, time delayed because he had not attained tfce canonical age, reached bis diocese early io.it year. He had' only been there a few months when a serious dispute arose between 4im and certain clergymen acting in coimecSfon with the Church Missionary Society. I can come to no other conclusion, after having carefully studied the correspdndeuee, most of which has been published, that the Bishop •withdrew their licences fvojn ten of these clergymen, not only without any formal in/wt!"ation, much but in the most arbitrary and peremptory manner possible. 'These missionaries, some of whom had been laboring in Ceylon for many years, were ahiefly engaged among tho Tamil, speaking coolies employed on the estates of European planters—their language is a very difficult one. What the bishop proposed was to place those ja&sionaries under the direction of newlyarrived chaplains, who knew nothing either of t&a Tamil language or the habits of the people. 15 is wholly unnecessary for my present purswse to go further into tho merits of this untoward disagreement. It, however, gave ocjasion 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 tsfgo, I hold that where large societies, preyed over by archbishops and bishops, such ■an those just referred to, are acting in England -sa voluntary agencies for enlisting missionaries, aod collecting funds to be used in extending a knowledge of the Gospel among vast heathen populations, it seems marvellous that any

bishops 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 precautions 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 remind some who hear me, that the Bishop of New Zealand, a man quite as remarkable for his missionary zeal and his deep conviction of his responsibility of the episcopal office as any bishop now alive, found it possible, not only to work cordially with the clergy, and I may add catechists connected with the Church Missionary Society, but to draw them, with the approbation of the society, into hearty co-operation with himself in all his 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 ail. 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 Bi-hop of New Zetland was not slow to recognise 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: “ In 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 an Act of the Imperial 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 pretensions. 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-canona or rules agreed upon 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 grant from the coffers of the State, that a bishop of the most erastiau type should expect missionary clergymen to regard him in the same light as they would a canonically 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 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 complaints 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 an infringement of ecclesiastical order. But in this country it always has been, and still is the almost universal practise for the Moari-speaking Christians to assemble in a separate building; and it has been always taken for granted that a missionary 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 ray 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 iu accordance with my feelings, who have been nearly forty years engaged iu missionary work, to acknowledge with becoming gratitude the liberal assistance which has been afforded to both the English and Maori brandies 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 X 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 Richardson—son of our former metropolitan, who was born in New Zealand -to be Bishop of Melanesia, and his 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 jepresentatives 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 in 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 long 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 one. It, therefore, apparently ignores what has been done before, seems to take for granted that measures resolved upon after much consideration on former occasions were adopted without care 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 well-, qualified 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 1 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 manner that its only object 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 on the part of some new members was so strong, that, though it was.supported by all the Bishops, it was rejected on a motiou 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 Brayer-book. Still it is impossible to foresee the changes which, within the next three years, may take place iu the Church of England. Such changes might excite strong 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 wholfe body of churchmen iu the colony necessary to devise some means for checking hasty action by the General Synod in the making of changes in the formularies. It is through them that attacks will be made on the doctrines of the Chux*ch. And if any General Synod is to feel itself at liberty to make any changes in the formularies without due consideration, X 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 thick, 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 _ been swept away, and the colonial Church is left dangerously free to govern herself as she pleases. If any one can devise a safer and bet er 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, not connected with the previous Synod, and therefore going over ground that had been gone over before, and raising questions that had been debated and settled to the satisfaction of all parties, X 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. An 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 Enactments 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 an equality, of votes in the order of clergy, although there was a majority iu 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 an 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 erders, 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 its 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 voices without a division according to orders. I protested against this attempt at innovation iu 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 in 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 action ; 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 deaeons until his general fitness for office bad 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 iu 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 iealous of episcopal encroachment on their rights. One very important change was made which I consider of very doubtful advantage. In the Synod which met at Dunedin in 1871 I obtained an alteration in clause 23 of the constitution, to the effect that iu 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 be iu 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 be taken by orders. This affords another instance of the inconsistency I have 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 the committee. This fact might have a tendency to deter others from affording their hearty co-opera-tion I trust it will never have that effect in ; this diocese. But I have thought it right to direct your attention to the fact. Another clause of the same statute now enacts that a standing committee shall consist of the bishop, three clergymen, and five laymen. But this clause will not affect this diocese, whore 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, 1 however, a different opinion, from my own (of j which I am not at all confident) is hold on tills subject, it may be advisable to raise it by a motion in the Synod. Statute 5, on the Appointment of Pastors, contains several amendments of considerable importance, and likely to prove beneficial. It will be no longer absolutely necessary, as ap-

peared to be the case before under the former statute, that all the nominators should meet for the purpose of consultation. There are 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, no provision whatever is made iu reference to certain matters which concern them equally with parishes and the parochial clergy. There is, for instance, no 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 moat 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 1874 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. Hanmer, 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 iu their appointment.

I do not think sufficient time and attention are given 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 attended 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 he brought before it at an 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 hear 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.

X 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 bepublished, 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 you last year I intimated that I had received a communication from his Grace the Archbishop 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 mo 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 bo 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 ain unable to say whether any bishop of this Church will go in case the conference should meet.

Turning uow to matters of more especial diocesan interest, I would refer to a question that has arisen in connection with the probable position of assistant curates, 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 yioar, and can at any time have his 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 more frequently, and that there should be an afternoon service. This is one of those subjects which might well have engaged the attention of the General Synod. It is obviously a subject withwhich a Diocesan Synod cannot deal satisfactorily. Any legislation on the subject would be liable to clash with the statutes of the General Synod. Looking, however, at the question:with a view to obtaining some practical solution of it, for a temporary purpose, this might possibly be obtained without any legislation. Speaking generally, the position of curate in subordination to an incumbent is one which few clergymen in this country would care to hold for more than a limited period. Still, inaay : humble-minded young clergymen might gladly avail themselves, say, for the period of three years, of being iu this way initiated into regular parochial work. If Buoh 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 bishep, I think an arrangement so 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 curate 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, the present rapid increase 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 having 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 iu a part of the 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 blit 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 port of the parish. Doubtless vigorous efforts would be needed to raise adequate funds for such a purpose, and many difficulties would have to be .encountered; but X 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 he 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 allude to the 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 effectual 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 oci cupy the attention of this city. We look / around and see progress surrounding us on every aide. I trust we shall not incur the reproach of its being said that our interest in the highest object that can occupy the human mind does not 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 some efforts may be made to induce not only those who may be reading for Holy Orders to avail themselves of it's 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 in 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 before 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 religions 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 aie two words constantly in use in every discussion on public education—words absolutely without meaning in the controversy, and therefore misleading—l allude to the words “secular” and “ denominational.” The word “ secular,” I 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 the moat potent principle of action in the human, heart? 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 terra by those ■who clamor for secular education. Then, again, “ denominational" is an 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 country is, cannot 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 opeu to au inspector, and so long as the children in it are efficiently taught, their knowledge reaching the standard required by theinapeotorinall subjects ordered to be learnt, then that no inquiry should be made as to the religion taught in it, it being a matter with which the Goverment avowedly concerns itself. There can be no doubt whatever that such a system as this could be easily carried out iu the centres of population. That it could not without some modification be brought into operation in thinly populated parts of the country is very possible. But no argument can fairly 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 flan-rant injustice of what is now proposed will ho so self-evident to every careful thinker that the law if enacted will have to be repealed. Take, for instance, the case of the Komar. Catholics alone. Whatever may be now thought, it cannot long be deemed just or fair to tax them for the support of what they cannot conscientiously avail themselves of. This is impossible. I feel convinced that the memhers of our Church have not given this subject that consideration which it deserves. I cannot doubt that when it is more thoroughly understood they will not he backward in giving expression to their -opinions and making their wants known in a manner that will leave the Legislature no alternative but to respect the conscientious convictions of a very large part of the community. Unless X have greatly mistaken the character of the settlers iu New Zealand, there will not be found a majority who will long be content that their children should be; doomed to instruction iu godless schools.

I am happy to be able to say that fresh efforts have been successfully made to increase the Diocesan TTuud. The inadequacy of the funds hitherto at the disposal of the standingcommittee for the purpose of extending the

work of the Church in new settlements, has long been 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 be extended to 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 own immediate locality. T 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, Wanganui, 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 of 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. McWilliam, and I consequently propose, God willing, very soon to admit him to deacon’s orders. It is my intention to send him into the Wanganui District, where his energy of character, will I trust prove a blearing 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. I 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 in 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, with a hearty response from those who feel that they benefit by thenministrations.

I am reminded by the day of the month that it is to-day seven years siace I was consecrated and called on to preside over, this diocese. I gladly offer my thanks to thje members of the Svnad and many others who'have rendered me cordial and efficient aid in my endeavors to discharge the responsible duties of the office which I hold. But aVove all I would acknowledge with profound thankfulness the goodness of Almighty God, who has sustained me hitheito, and in whose blessing on my labors 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.