in its Constitution as a "Branch of the Church of England associated together by mutual compact," is not a living but a dead branch. It must surely have its own inherent powers of self-development. If it be argued that the terms of our Constitution forbid all such possible development, except under the authority of the State Church at home, which can no longer give that authority, what hinders us from altering those terms? They were not imposed on us by any external power; we adopted them ourselves. Are we to be enslaved for all time by the dead hand of the past? I lay stress on this, not for the sake of change or innovation, but as a necessary condition of our Church life. There may be need of change; the whole trend of opinion, even in such a conservative body as the Church in England, shows this. Debates in Convocation illustrate it. We had an eloquent speech in the Auckland Synod from a well-known Wellington clergyman in favour of some revision of the use of the Psalms. Once free from legal difficulty in the matter of property, and our position clearly defined, our first care should be to provide that no sort of change in our formularies should take place, except after such a process as would clearly indicate the mind of the whole church in the Province of New Zealand. And we might be certain that the Church here would do nothing that would interrupt its true spiritual communion and union with the Mother Church at Home.
With regard to Church finance, the General Synod actually controls only a few Trust funds belonging to North Island dioceses. In general, Church finance is diocesan. General Synod, during its recess, has no executive body which can transact business. Its
