ments are as yet few and quite inadequate for the support of the clergy, we have of course to rely on the voluntary system. No doubt it has its defects. But, on the other hand, it is invaluable in arousing and maintaining the interest of the Laity in the work of the Church. And its results are good. Speaking chiefly for our own diocese of Christchurch, I may say that the average stipend of the clergy compares favourably with any diocese at home. Moreover, they are free from the official fees which are such a hardship at Home. The clergy are not responsible for dilapidations in regard to their churches or vicarages; the cost of these falls on the parish, that is, the Laity. A general endowment fund for the whole diocese, together with special funds of a similar nature, contributed by the Laity in every parish, supply an annual grant to every cure, and an additional grant in the case of the poorer parishes and missionary districts. The voluntary system needs this aid, but without doubt it is the secret spring of that vital interest in Church work which the Laity show in New Zealand. It goes far to make them realize that the Church is not merely the Clergy, but themselves as well. They are not merely passive members of the Church. The Church does not merely consist of an official caste of Bishops and Clergy. Bishops and Clergy are not "Lords over God's heritage" any more than they were in the days of S. Peter and S. Paul, but fellow servants and ministers. The Clergy are not freeholders, in legal possession of their benefices, but priests in charge of their flocks. The Laity support their Clergy. It has taken some time for churchpeople emigrating from home to realize this responsibility. But to a great extent they have done
