THE DIOCESAN SYNOD.

Press, Volume III, Issue 70, 13 September 1862, Page 2

THE DIOCESAN SYNOD.

The Diocesan Synod is summoned to meet at Christchurch for its annual session on the 24th of this mouth. The exact place of meeting is (at present) in nubibus. Many matters of interest to the diocese at large will doubtless be brought forward, but we wish at present to speak of two in particular, vMeh have acquired especial prominence of late : we refer to the clergy maintenance question, and the Christchurch Parsouage spoliation case. The letters of Mr. Alabaster and " A Synodsman," recently published in the ' Lyttelton Times,' have drawn attention to the former subject. In order that the present state of the question may be generally understood, it will be necessary to mention briefly what was done at the first meeting of the Synod, in 1859. The majority both of clergy and laity in that Synod, the clergy indeed almost without exception, were ; .n favor of the principle of a diocesan or general, as opposed to parochial or local, funds for the maintenance of the clergy. The predominant feeling was, that the clergy ought not to be immediately and directly dependent for their maintenance on the people to whom they minister, in • a country at least in which the voluntary system prevails. It was thought desirable to protect them against the possible efleets of caprice, and the precariousness of popular favour, and at the same time to take from them the temptation to veil the truth, through fear of giving otic nee to some on whom their livelihood depends. It was not deimed safe however, considering the very general feeling in favour of the local system, to trust to a general fund entirely ; it was hoped that the principle of such a fund would win its way gradually ; and in the mean time a compromise was adopted. The proceeds of the church property, the fees, and the proceeds of offertories in all the churches on the first Sunday in every month, were to be brought into a general fund, to be administered by the Standing Commission ot the Synod; and though the local subscription lists were retained, yet the proceeds of these also were tobe remitted to the Diocesan Treasurer, to be paid back, together with a certain proportion of the general fund, in one sum to each parochial minister. Three years experience of the working of this system has certainly failed to establish it in general favour. It may be, that no other plan would have succeeded better; but however that may be, it certainly cannot be said that'//«'* has succeeded. So far from the principle of the diocesan fund having gained ground, the movement has been in the opposite direction ; one concession was voluntarily made to the parochial system at the last session of the Synod, by making the'proceeds of the offertory on the chiei Sunday in the year (Easter-Sunday) an Easter offering to be paid directly to the Minister without passing through the bauds of the Diocesan Treasurer; another has been extorted from the Standing Commission by, the ve°t.rv of the metropolitan parish in the manner

described by Mr. Alabaster, aud (as he informs us) by his advice. The guarantee of local subscriptions -Squired by the Standing Commission from the vesirv o f each pariah, was made by the Christchurch vestry to include the amount oi the on'ertorks for the, general fund. We cannot, we eoniWs. louk upon this plau in any other light than as an evasion of the system adopted by the Synod. The .Synod clearly j intended these ofl'ertories to be free contributions to the general fund. If the parish of Chri.-tehuivh, or an y other pariah, is dissatisfied with the system, let them adopt the proper constitutional course of petitioning the Synod for an alteration, and requesting their representatives to support their views. A memorial from the parishioners, or even from the vestry, would doubtless have great weight with the Synod. The town parishes complain that their interests are sacrificed to those of the rural districts; that the present system is complicated, ill-understood, and unpopular ; that it discourages the liberality of the people ; that it substitutes the government of a central Board for that parochial independence and self-government, to which so much of the strength of the English Church is due. Well then, let these complaints be put in a formal shape, and represented at the proper time in the proper quarter. If a change is to be made in favour of local funds, we ourselves are strongly of opinion that the safeguard against the evils of the voluntary system should be sought in the gradual formation of lucu l e»ih>ioincuts. A certain proportion of the annual proceeds of the offertory, or the proceeds of special offertories, paid over to an endowment fund, and invested from time to time, would in the course of a few years result in the acquirement of a valuable property, and the outlay in the mean time would scarcely be felt. These questions of ecclesiastical economy, as it may be called, are just those which rightly fall within the province of the Synod. We have sometimes heard it said that it ought to seek a higher range of subjects, and not concern itself so much with questions of Church finance and the like. But we do not agree with this view. All questions connected with the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England are happily placed beyond its reach, unless it should be called upon under any circumstances which may arise, jealously to guard from any infringement the deposit committed to its charge, or, as the representative of the Church in this diocese, to join with sister churches, •or with the mother-church in England, in any defensive movement on behalf of the common inheritance. can it deal with matters directly spiritual. It cannot preach to the people, nor convey the message of the gospel to their homes and hearts. But it can clear away many impediments ; it can do much to promote good order and discipline; it can provide for the appointment and maintenance of n't men to minister to the spiritual wants of the people. And in prosecuting this its proper work, it cannot avoid the necessity which, as we remnrked last week, attends nearly wry question which arises in a young community, that they must ultimately run up iuio questions of finauce. We have extended our remarks to such an unforeseen length, that we must defer what we have to say about the Christchurch Parsonage spoliation case till another week. But one word about this class of subjects generally. If we occasionally write of matters which exclusively concern the members of the Church of England, let it not be supposed that we ignore the existence of other coii.nuiiiions, or that we are indifferent to their systems and modes of working. There is very much that the members of the Church of Kngland may learn from them, especially under the altered conditions of that Churchy when transplanted to the colonies: much both in the way of Z9 al, and of organization ; and not least of all in questions of Christian economics, and iv the liberality with which they support their ministers. Let it be understood that these are our constant sentiments, though we may not on every occasion go out of our to put them forward.