EARLY HISTORY

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20978, 5 October 1933, Page 16

EARLY HISTORY

DIOCESES OP NELSON AND ■ CHRISTCHURCH jf SERMON BY BISHOP SADLIEB S The early history of the dioceses ■ Nelson and the formation of the fi of Christchurch were traced by IP rv l§ Bishop, Dr. W. C. Sadiier, in a sew | mon in the Nelson cathedral on Saa* R day. The Bishop was preaching »If a special service held to mark th« ft seventy-fifth anniversary of the diocest $ "So far as we know," said If Bishop, "the Rev. Gctavius |K was the first Church of England cler, K gyrnan to visit the area, which mww IS the British settler became the proving fil of Nelson. Unfortunately all that $£ know of these visits from ill and Otaki is that between 1839 aag 1842 they formed part of Mr HaSgei<j f ("I work in the evangelisation of the iff Maori, who, as Mr Alexander Mackay '« records, had a very chequered carets: fi'l owing to the depredations of their countrymen from the North With the arrival of Bishop Selwyn and the Rev. C. L. Reay, on Aueus 21, 1842, came the first effort at regu. lar organisation." First Bishop of Christchurch. ||| After mentioning the difficulties 'of ti Bishop Selwyn concerning the future organisatin of his unwieldy diocese • 11 Bishop Sadiier said: "In the forma! 11 tion of new dioceses, Christchurch was jlj the first place to be chosen, lie Re v - r: Dr. Jackson was nominated as first !U bishop, but after a visit to New 2ea» If land he decided to withdraw. The Rev, ff| H. J. C. Harper was then nominated If but certain difficulties arose which 11 compelled him to ask to be relieved. Iff Then the Rev. Edmund Hobhouse was if nominated, but on his learning that the II difficulties which led to Mr Harper's is withdrawal had been solved, he re- «1 tired in his favour; and thus Christ. H church received its first bishop, .and 'III Dr. Harper was consecrated on August If! 10, 1856. 11l "In a letter dated November ;2L ffl 1856, which we have in our archives, i'isf and which is of primary historical im. f| portance, Bishop Selwyn states his 11 views to the Rev. Edmund Hobhouse $ regarding the foundation of the aio i,i cese of Nelson, and suggesting to hia a that he should be the first bishop. He had thought of creating a diocese which Li would include both Wellington and B| Nelson, but he had changed his mind. 1 His friend, the Rev. Charles Abraham, pi had accepted the bishopric of Welling- -J ton. He discusses his plans and difficulties regarding Nelson. In a very $1 realistic way he describes the proposed fit diocese as 'the most mountainous and I most broken district in New Zealand.": || An Archdeaconry Board. . || The transition period from the making of the constitution in 1857 to the If first general synod in 1859 was one of 1 absorbing interest, said the Bishop. 1 There was no properly constituted fa synod in those places which could Si elect a bishop, but in Nelson the work 1| of the church had been carried on for i some years by what was called the 1 archdeaconry board. Bishop Selwyn || was the chairman, but his place was 1 frequently taken by Archdeacon PauL I There were five other clergy: The || Revs. H. F. Butt, J. C. Bagshaw, T. A. f| Bowden, Samuel Poole, and T. L. || Tudor. The laymen were Major Mat* 8 thew Richmond, Drs. John Danforth a Greenwood, and Stephen Lunn Muller, , I Captain Francis Horniblow BlundeU,. H ,?it|,| and Messrs Alfred Fell, Francis Salt, S Donald Sinclair, Edward Baigent, I I William Dickenson, Nathaniel George 1 i Morse, John William Saxton, Maxwell 1 | Bury, Herbert Evelyn Curtis, and John Wallis Barnicoat. "In this remarkable I list of churchmen we have the names | of gentlemen who were prominent in magisterial office, in the Provincial and Legislative Councils, in the House of Representatives, and in the educational life of the country," said the Bishop. "There are the names of a headmaster of Wellington College, and of the * first and fourth headmasters of Nelson , College. Boundaries Defined. | "The boundaries of the diocese were defined by letters patent," said the g Bishop, "and were described as: 'All that portion of the Middle Island other' I wise called New Munster and the 1 islands adjacent thereto as lies to the I northward of a geographical line across j the said island at the parallel of | forty-three degrees five seconds of | south latitude being the northern J boundary of the diocese of Christ- | church.' This reference to the north- I ern boundary of the diocese of Christ- 1 church has a peculiar interest for us | in Nelson. The territory set apart I for the Canterbury Settlement was de- I fined by a special act passed for that 6 purpose. In the letters patent creat- | ing the diocese of Christchurch the j same northern boundary is given, but | it is more particularly described as 'being about the latitude of Double Corner mentioned in the said act Double Corner w.as a sheep-station, and the proprietor was . Mr Charles Hunter-Brown, whose name figures in almost every department of our church's work between 1867 and his death in 1898. Incidentally it may be well to remember that in 1868 the | agreement between Bishop Harper and | Bishop Suter that the boundary should | be the river Hurunui flowing east and f the Teremakau flowing west was ratified by the General Synod. | "The first properly constituted Dio- | cesan Synod held in New Zealand met j in the Freemason's Hall, Nelson, on | Tuesday, August 9, 1859, under the | presidency of Bishop Hobhouse. The i task that lay before the Bishop and j Synod was bristling with difficulties. I Practically there was no precedent fw j such organisations as were required; ! and under the circumstances, it was 1 only natural that in the adjustment i to the new order of church govern- f ment there should be very divergent j opinions. These facts must be remem- j bered with sympathy by anyone who j desires to form a just estimate of tne 1 course of events during the enduing I years. It is not possible, at present, | to trace through the 75 years how the | principles adopted have worked intne | successive episcopates of Bishop Hod- j house. Bishop Suter, Bishop Mules, | and the present Bishop. Far more OT- I portant for us is the consideration oi I our present relation to them." I