ANGLICAN PRIMACIES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 804, 29 April 1910, Page 3

ANGLICAN PRIMACIES.

FIXED OE MOVABLE. THE POSITION IN NEW ZEALAND. Eeferring to the recent election of the Anglican Primato of' Australia, the "Guardian" (London) stated:—"Thoso movable ■ Primacies are a mistake. They result, no doubt, from anxiety to smooth over local jealousies; but such an arrangement is fatal to the growth of traditions. -'Australia is.young to-day and has not-felt the.need of traditions. But the will need them presently, arid as population and dioceses increase' it will be of the first importance to, .her Church life that there should :be a permanent, centre for. advice and co-ordination' and the accumulation;of. experience., We are gratified to see.that;two at, least of '..tha-Australian Church papers are .'.alive to the unwisdom of a movable Primacy." . -, Eeferring to this question, the Eev. A. de H. Robinson, formerly curate of St., Paul's, Wellington, writes to the "Guards.!" as follows:—"In your notes of February 25 you refer to tho mistake of movable Primacies. In New Zealand tSis same anomaly exists, and ah unsuccessful attempt was made a few years ago to obtain the sanction of General ,Synodto a, fixed Primacy. No doubt, as you say, the fear of local jealousies has something to do.with the matter. I think,.however, that tho chief reasons' .alleged by the .opponents, of this/innovation are that the diocese; selected for. a •permanent Primacy would have to'forego; the privilege of choosing its own Bishop, for tho Primate is elected by tho General Synod; also that such diocese would lose in efficiency what it gained in dignity, since, according to the present constitution of the Church of the Province of Now Zealand, the, vacant see would normally be filled by the Bishop next in seniority. At all events it would be most unlikely that this see would ever obtain a Diocesan in the prime of • his ..energy—-a- thing naturally desired- in-most colonial dioceses.. It would, moreover,, .have to. 1 surrender- permanently a- considerable share of the time and energy of its Bishop I to the larger needs of the province;, whereas.now this bt.-'den,.whidh is probably not nearly so great as it would he under a fixed' Primacy, is shared by different dioceses in rotation. I think I am right in stating that the principal opposition to this proposal came from the laity; however it is an interesting fact that where, as in New Zealand, the litity hear a much larger share in deciding tho counsels of the Church than they do in England, they generally prove to he much the most conservative of the three orders in Synod." Mr. Edward V. Cox writes a? follows: "Allow me, as onoiwho has had'twenty Years''.experience as a member of both. Diocesan arid General Synods in New Zealand, to point out a fatal objection to • a'fixed Primacy. When the seat of the ; Primacy became vacant it niight not be i ' possible or desirable that the most suitable New Zealand Bishop should,give up ' ihis existing Bishopric and take the post,,; and it is-unthinkable that an outsider, : however eminent in England or.elsewhere, : without colonial experience, should take , the Primacy'over the heads of the existing Bishops with many years of such, experience. 'New chums,' whether Bishops, clergy, or laity, have a good deal to_ learn, and. generally make a good many mistakes before they make good colonials." Commenting on the abovo letter, the "Guardian" remarks :-"The contingency contemplated by our correspondent is surely not more impossible or undesirable in New Zealand than in England. Tel in England a Primate is ' usually translated." '