The Press. THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 6, 1890.

Press, Volume XLVII, Issue 74518, 6 February 1890, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 6, 1890.

All persons who care for the welfare o! the Episcopal Church in this colony, and, indeed, all who are even well affected towards religious organisations oi any land, must sympathise with tbe tone of the letter from Dean Jacobs, published by us yesterday, relating to the disgraceful—the very disgraceful — disputes about the Primacy. The conduct of tho Bishops of Wellington and Nelson k nothing short of scandalous. That, is by no means too strong a term to use, and we are sure that we only echo : the general feeling of the community i -when we make use of the phrase. We are not concerned to inquire which of the Bishops is the most to blame. The general public, both the religious and irreligious, care but little about the merits of the dispute, if indeed aj shameful quarrel about technicalities can be said to have any merits at all. Ecclesiastical lawyers and laymen of an ecclesiastical turn of mind may find it a labor of love to discuss the pros and cons, and argue upon the interpretation of Canons, but we are sure that the vast majority of persons anxious for the welfare of the Church of England in this colony feel nothing but shame and anger ia watching the progress of the struggle between

th-ae two Chriatian prelates for the possession of an empty title. If any men more than others in the Church are expeoted to set an example of Christian charity and unselfishness, surely two aged Bishops, neither of whom can expect a much extended lease of life, are those men. But* as it is, there ia no half-fledged curate in the colony who would not be ashamed to have caused such embarrassment to the Church as they have done. . The Bishop of Wellington forfeited much of the respect due to his long services and high position when it was discovered that he wai the secret slanderer of Mr. Bryce; and the Bishop of Nelson's love of political controversy has, ere now, got him into hot water. But we certainly never expected that these Bishops would, in this manner, raise their hands against the Church which they have both for so long served. We do not agree with those who attribute the conduct of the | Bishops to the even meaner motive of ! a desire to impede the acceptance of office by Archdeacon Juuus, fearing that his reputation for vigour, eloquence and well-directed zeal would soon cast their own into the shade. But it is, perhaps, as well that the Bishops of Wellington aud Nelson should know that there are many uncharitable persons who give them credit for no higher motives thau this, and it must be admitted that the Bishops' conduct lays their motives open to this misconstruction. We see in their action nothing but a proof that Bishops are but mortal after all, and have their full share of human vanities and follies. Still it is distressing to find that the vanity of two Bishops should have been brought inco such bold relief by this unhappy quarrel. We entertain no doubt whatever that the Bishop of Wellington, morally, at all events, bad originally the best of the dispute. He can at least claim to have been the chosen Primate, and his claims to assume that dignity are, if invalid, invalid ouly on technical grounds. Had the Bishop of Nelson not endeavored to take advantage of these technicalities no trouble would ever have arisen, and we think that his action was wholly unworthy of his position as a high officer iv the Chriatian Church. But, of course, the action of the Bishop of Wellington, iv disputing the decision of the Standing Oomniission, again on technical grounds, and still claiming to be Primate, and endeavoring by the suggestion of further technical difficulties to impede the consecration of the new Bishop, brings him quite down to the level of Bishop Suter. We are simply amazed that the Bishops do not see the error of their ways. The contention that they are only asserting their claic_s in order to avoid confusion hereafter is akin to the excuse which some men make for going to law or doing other harsh things when they claim to be acting on principle. The only safe principle for a Christian Bishop to act upon in matters relating to his own position is the golden,rule of the Divine Head o their Church.

We believe that the Bishops have very likely been led astray by that little knot of satellites and parasites who always surround persons in high office with high-sounding titles, and they may possibly have been induced to believe that the public were anxious that the dispute should be settled by a binding decision, as to who is legally in the right. But if so, their Lordships have been most woefuily misled. In the first place, it is a matter of very little consequence who is Primate. It is of some consequence who should be a Bishop, but as the Primate must be a Bishop, and is really nothing more in this colouy than the titular head of the Bishops and the Chairman of the. General Synod, it is not of much consequence which of the Bishops is Primate. Nor does it matter to anybody but persons with a diseased appetite for argument as to the construction of Canons whether the Bishop of Wellington waa rightly or wrongly elected Primate. But it does„ matter very much that there should be two persons at the same time claiming the Primacy, aud it is of the utmost importance that the dispute should be .ended at once, and peace restored to the Church. The question then is, How is the matter to be settled ? for as the dispute has arisen some decision must be arrived at. The Bishop of Nelson's proposal was preposterous and insulting to everybody of intelligence. One suggestion which found a considerable amount of favor was that the three Bishops should call together the General Synod. An alternative proposed by Dean Jacobs, whioh has a good deal to be said in its favor, is for the Bishop of Wellington to resign the Primaoy. If he will do so, he will have made the best amends now in his power for whatever ill he has done, and he will earn the gratitude of all who are anxious for the welfare of the Church. If Bishop Hadpielb takes this course, then Bishop Suter will, beyond all doubt, become the acting Primate, or, at any rate, become 'entitled to call together the General Synod, and if he should then decline to summon it for the election of Primate he will deserve universal condemnation, and will render it most manifest that his only object is to grasp, by an accident, a position and power whioh he feels sure he would never acquire in the proper way by the suffrages of the clergy and laity of the Synod.

There can be no doubt that this is the course which the Bishopß will follow if they have any regard for their Church. But we do not think it is well to proceed on the assumption that the Bishops have come to their senses, and will do what is right without pressure. We think, therefore, that Churchmen, both clerical and lay, should take care, either by public meetings or by petitions, to let the Bishops know at once what is expected of them. If, unhappily, the Bishops or either of them should still prove obdurate, we feel sure that their conduct will lead to

large secessions from the Church. The CoustHtutioa of the Church will

have been proved to have been too autocratic for this democratic age, aud there will be many Churchmen who will desire to worship God in some other church, where their endeavors

for its progress and welfare cannot be thwarted by the high-handed and autocratic conduct of any vain or arrogant Bishop. We deeply regret that the closing

c^,^ B W ! -___s L!L ~»! i unseemly bear testimony to the fL ?>H to be aoquitted of all hi! tha *-*_ = patter ; of Nelson and WeUingC\ B ]S more regard for their n Jg 5 I league than to bring i*-' about his head *ust she _T *S H long and useful career M -ft* 1 * !l Bishop. ™ * vbrS jf