THE DUNEDIN BISHOPRIC.

Evening Star, Issue 3033, 8 November 1872, Page 4

THE DUNEDIN BISHOPRIC.

The following is the conclusion of Bishop Jenuer’s pamphlet ;~ There is only one other point in the Bishop of Wellington’s address that I need advert to. The late Metropolitan of New Zealand had stated (letter to the Bishop of Christ* church, January, I860) that ‘‘the constitution provided no mode of election or nomination of a Bishop for a newly constituted Diocese.” This statement the Bishop of Wellington (with characteristic politeness) says “is not true.” And he appeals to the ]3tb clause of the Constitution as “absolutely decisive of the -whole question at issue.” Let us see, then, what clause 13 lays down : “ The General Synod shall have full power to determine how and by whom all patronage shall be exercised.” Very well: then the General Synod was acting strictly within its defined limits, when it authorised Archbishop Longley “to select a clerg> man” for the see of Dunedin. I have not the least objection to endorse—though in a slightly different sense—Bishop Hadfield’s remark, that the clause is “ absolutely decisive of the whole question, ” In conclusion, I wish to observe that this address of the Bishop of Wellington makes it more than ever impossible that I can surrender one iota of what I have maintained to be my right; unless, indeed, the conditions 1 have proposed be accepted. How far Bishop Hadfield’s language represents the sentiments of the other Bishops, or of the Clergy and Laity of New Zealand at the present time, Ido not know. But this I do know, that the only possible consequence of their supporting in their corporate capacity his views in regard to my former claim, will be the revival of my actual claim, to the Bishopric. For if the resignation which I tendered last June be not accepted; if the New Zealand Bishops and Synods persist in deriding the very notion of my ever having had a see to resign ; it is clear that my resignation becomes null and void ah initio. In which case I do not see what course will be open to me, but to act upon advice given not so very long ago by an honored Metropolitan of the Colonial Church: “If I had been consecrated Bishop, I should have gone out and said ; “Here I am, who wishes to belong to the Church ? You alone have a commission, as we believe from the Holy Ghost, to fold the flock.” For the natural result of such a course of action —for the increased scandal, and confusion, and bitterness, and strife—who would be responsible? hot I, assuredly : but rather those, through whose inconceivable perversity that course had been rendered inevitable. If any doubt whether I am justified in contending so obstinately for my own rights —and those rights pertaining only to the past—l would "beg them to remember the vast importance of the principles at stake. While, 1 as freely admit, I consider even the vindication of my own historical position a matter by itself quite worthy of a struggle, my real justification lies in the conviction that it would be wrong to acquiesce in the grievous injustice that has been committed, under the pretence of an adherence to the time-honored usages of the Catholic Church. It now therefore only remains for me to declare that, while disclaiming all wish to interfere in any way with Bishop Nevill, his tvork, or his position, nothing short of the award of such an arbitration as I have proproposed shall induce me to desist from pressing my claim to have been the lawful occupant of the See of Dunedin, from August 24th, 1866, until June 16tb, 1871, at feast. And that, while ready and anxious to condone as far as 1 have the power the intrusion of Bishop of Nevill into my see, I require, as a condition precedent to sucli condonation, one of two things—either the acceptance of my challenge to arbitration, or else a distinction recognition of my (original) right to the see. It will manifestly be no fault of mine, if by a refusal of terms, which no one can call unfair or unreasonable, the Diocese of Dunedin remains in charge of an intruder, and the whole ecclesiastical Province qf New Zealand implicated in the scandal of a permitted and encouraged violation of ecclesias? tical right and order.