THE ANGLICAN PRIMACY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 533, 19 June 1909, Page 6

THE ANGLICAN PRIMACY.

METROPOLITAN SEE.

THE TITLE OF ARCHBISHOP.

(Bt thb RIOHT REV. W. L. William*,' Bishop of Waiaht.) Tho three quostions which were submitted by: tho General ■ Synod. to tho . commission which sat at Christchurch-on May 27, are all involved in the proposal advocated by a writer in 'to Dominion, ,of June 5, viz., "That the Primacy should bo permanently, attachod to the See of Wellington, and, that the bishop of this diocese should assume the title of Archbishop of Wellington,'and Primate, of New Zealand." Is It Expedient? Tho lirst' of these questions is, "Whether it is expedient and practicable to constitute one of the existing Sees in the Church of New Zealand as the Metropolitical See of the Province?" Tho writer of the article answers this at once, in the affirmative, condemning tho present arrangement simply on the ground that "many church people are of opinion that the system of a roving Primacy is a mistake," and that if the Primacy were fixed, the See to which it might be attached would! as the years go by, "secure an increasingly honoured place in the affections of Anglican churchmen." It ha* not occurred to him that Bishop Selwyn, Bishop Harper, Sir W. Martin, and the other members , of the General Synod, in 1868, who deliberately. substituted tho title 'Primate" for that of "Metropolitan;" • may have had Borne good reasons for so important a change. When the Diocese of New Zea? land was divided, Bishop Selwyn was callod Metropolitan, and this title was discarded bccause it was thought better that the Primacy should not be attached permanently to any one See. The reason for this change la riotfar to seek. 1 ■"

Onr Constitution lays down tho rule (Section 23) that the nomination of the bishop for any diocese shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, This is a principle which ii recognised in all the free churches of the Anglican Communion. But the appointment of a Primate is a matter in which all tho dioceses in the province naturally claim to have a voice, and-if, the PrimncV is fixed, this .claim ■ must conflict with tho right of the dioccse to elect its own bishop. Various methods have been devised with the' object ? J, TCr ? omm f this difficulty, bnt it can i. sa that a satisfactory solution of it haß as yet been discovered.

An Illustration. The ■ practice of the Church of Ireland is well illustrated- by what took place when the Jiotropohtical See of Armagh became vacant in .1896. The synod of the Diocese of Armagh immediately, proceeded' to elect Dr. Chadwick, who bore, ad interim, the title of Bishop-elect of Armagh; \ On his eleotion being , confirmed by the House of Jiif 3 ' tt. e said House of Bishops elected ■rv 6 .-,. Bishop.of Derry, Dr. Alexandor, to the Archbishopric of -Armagh, and Primacy RUhin ImS ' "4 D r- became Bishop of, Dorry. Thus neither of theso two n t ny -"25? in the appointment L'' °"? bls 'iop. The experience again- of to province of New South Wales, though the oourse_ pnreued there has not been the nn?hw i. , G Church of Ireland, has noti been, such as to recommend the arrangomfflit of a fixed. Primacy, of i Province of Now Zcawndl is not smgular m having chosen to have what-is.omtempteoTrely called "a roving K is coratenanoed in this pracPmW™ Emsoopa Chnroh in Scotland; the j > n United Tn^'l' ohn^ h m ae West Indies, in all tfroao tho system has so far worked S:, 1 " f l . O Yf® 1 Bishop of '1883, and the Bishop of Jamaica in 1893. Tho latter is now called of Jamaicfuaad iArehbtsbtofe !of'Hfo .'r-

Alteration of Title, The second question submitted to the commission is, Whether it. be expedient that ,th|: tltlo of Pnmato should bo altered and' i-i i.i f Archbjshop-and Primato.be substituted for tlbo titJo of Primate?" It will bo understood that the adoption of any title for our presidmg bishop that may seem desirable is entirely within the-compotenco of the General Synod. It is to be born© in mind that Inmate »■ really a higher title than Archbishop. Thm the AnjhWAop of Armagh, u Pnmate, takes precedence of his brother of Dublin, and whichever of the arohbishops in Australia mv ghortly.be elected to the Primacy .wfll takeprecedcsiee of • all- the' other srchbishopa; This fact was emphasised by the General Synod in 1907 m the rejection of the proposal to adopt tiie titlo of arohbishop. At the same is no doubt that the proposed title looms larger in tho eyes of most people, and, in consideration of tow, it may well be tacked, on to tho present ratio by the General Synod at its next'meeting. Method of Election. \ Tho third question-is, "Whether any improvement can be made in the system, as at if, force, of tho election of Primate P" Should the _ Genera! Synod take tho step of attaching the Primacy., permanently to one see, the present mode of electing tho Primate !™> be done away with altogether. Hut should that change not be made, there is no doubt, tha,t some improvement on the present .system-is very, desirable. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States Us no canon on the subject, but the diocesan bishop who. is-seaiior: oy c©Medrati<m is the presiding bishop. ; The simplicity' of; this arTangoment a recommendation. The Episcopal Church in Scotland has. enacted that tho Primus shall be chosen •by the dioOcsan bishops from their own number, by the said bishops assembled in synod. It is to bo hoped that the commission may be able in its report to suggest some chanqjo which may commend itself to the General Synod. • . ' W. L. Waiapu.