THE PRIMACY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2010, 20 February 1890, Page 3

THE PRIMACY.

The Dean of Christchurch has sent the following letter to the Christchurch papers:—

fc?iß, —I observe that the Bishop of Nelson has sent by telegraph to both the daily morning papers of Christchurch a letter written by me to his Lordship on the 13th December last with reference to the confirmation of the election of the Yen. Archdeacon Julius to the Bishopric of Christchurch and the arrangements to be made for his consecration to that office.

Ihe history of that letter is simply this. X was instructed by the Diocesan tfynod of Christchurch on the 27th September last, as soon as the election in question bad taken place, to take the necessary steps for giving effect to it, A tedious delay occurred before I could take any steps at all in the matter, in consequence of the reference of the Primacy question to the Standing Commission. The decision of that body was given on the 10th December, and on its being made known here I lost no time in communicating with the Bishop of Nelson who, by the decision of the Commission, was adjudged to “be and act as Primate, until the Geneial Synod should make other provision in that behalf.” It was not fer me to question the powers of the Standing Commission, nor had they been questioned by any one at that time ; it was my duty to carry out the instructions of the Diocesan Synod forthwith.

The Bishop of Nelson has published this letter of mine because, as he says, “ it will explain his action throughout.” His Lordship must forgive me for saying, that it is not his action which requires explanation, but his inaction his inaction in taking no steps for the convening of a special session of the General Synod—his inaction in being content to occupy for more than two months a position to which he was not elected, and in allowing another Bishop to be deposed from that position, to which without question ha was elected, on the sole ground of an informality in his election, for which he was himself m no way responsible. The one thing I venture to say, which requires explanation is this : Why his Lordship has shown such manifest unwillingness to convene a special session? Why, under the circumstances, he did not, immediately on the decision being given, move two other Bishops to request him to convene it, in order to extricate him at the earliest possible moment from what one would have thought he would have regarded as an intolerable and humiliating position P Ihe Bishop closes his communication with these words : —“ I appeal to the people whether my actions have not been justified”; will his Lordship appeal to the people to decide tvhether his inaction has been justified 1 Our aim should be, I think— the aim of clergy and laity generally—to fix the responsibility for a solution of this most miserable and lamentable difficulty, to use the mildest term, in the proper quarter. Now, will the Bishop of Kelson say distinctly that he is ready to convene a special session of the General Bynod if two Bishops request him to do so ? If the Bishops dtcime to do so, as appears nob unlikely, what than? The re*

sponsibilitj is clearly shifted to their shoulders. And what then ? The 1 Bishop of Wellington has been asked to take one of two courses —namely, either to convene, as Primate, a special session of the General Synod to cor- , rect the informality of his election, or to resign his position; and his Lordship has said that he would take the coarse which his episcopal brethren should advise. The responsibility therefore now—l say it with all deference—seems to rest upon their Lordships the Bishops. The Church looks to them to put an end to this scandal. Our trust, under God, is in their wisdom and firmness. Further indecision and delay will be beyond measure disastrous.—Tours, etc., Henry Jacobs. The Deanery, February 18th, 1890.