THE ANGLICAN PRIMACY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 539, 21 June 1909, Page 5

THE ANGLICAN PRIMACY.

BISHOP JULIUS HAS "NOTHING '. TO.SAY.". '■■■■. A. representative of thoJ>ress approached the Anglican Bishop of Christchurch (Dr; Julius) in connection with the proposals regarding the Primacy, mentioned in The Dominion recently. The Bishop pointed out that he.had not been a member of the commission, which was appointed by tho General Synod to consider and report upon the question. He added that he had seen what had appeared h the press on the subject of the report of the commission, but he had nothing to say on the question of the proposal as to the ■ permanent location of tho Primacy. The report of the commission would be considered by the General Synod in February next. /

SOME PRIOR QUESTIONS.

. (To the Editor.) ' Sir,—The contributor in your issue !'of June 5, dealing with tho question of tho Anglican Primacy, seems to have not made out a'good case why the existing N conditiono should bo changed, except in so ;far as. the method of selecting a Primate mentioned by the Rev. T. H. Sprott is concerned. Your contributor cites tho archbishops of the 'Church in England as an argument'in fay- : our of a chungo, but, ho must know, that j none of. the other bishoprics'is senior to Canterbury; also,, that Armagh—which is, a very, long way behind Dublin in the matter of numbers, and seat of government—has precedence over Dublin. If there is any valid reason (which I doubt) for a change, then Seniority ■ should always bo considered. Yorir contributor did not touch on the financial position, which, I think, should be faced in all these matters first.. It.is all very! well to have these high-sounding titles; but what'use arc they to the Church ■ as a body? There aro a lot of prior questions that the Church should face here in Netf Zealand of ,very .practical/importance, before touching on theso matters, as your con-? tomporary in Christohurch pointed out, in particular to tho Dioccso of" Wellington. There are very few bishops nowadays who have not got a cathedral or a church raised to the status of one, with, a chapter attached, fulfilling,''for .all intents and purposes, the place of a cathedral church. It seems that Wellington should set itself the task; of .providing ,one; indeed, I; think it should have done so long ago.. The Scottish Episcopal-Church, which is comparatively poor, has within the last four years raised two 'of its /churches to : the status of a cathedral - (St. Mary's, Glasgow, ..and St. 1 Paul!sj Dundee); bnt; before anything should be done in these matters, there should be some' scheme of endowment' put on foot not only I for the Diocese of Wellington',- bnt for all tho"Church in -New Zealand. ' '~.' :

; Now, I wish'tosay a fewremarks regarding the election of Primate.' By the method pointed out by_ - the Rev.'- T.' Hi.-. Sp'rot't,', it; seems there: isrsbme very defective . machinery-. in the- Church .government'-.-'of . New 'Zealand: From time to time wo are made awaro of some procedure;in Church government that requires amending/ and I think this is one of them, namely, • the election of.' Primate. It may bo very advisable that'in an election that the senior bishop should'be Primate: Your' contributor states ■ that- the Scottish Episcopal Chhrch :; is~gdv , erried-' by a Primus. That is quite correct, but, ho is not chosen, because of .his seniority. It must bo noted that tho Episcopal Synod (that is, the Bench of Bishops) makes the' appointment, '■ which I think is- preferable to the mode' followed hero 1 ,- namely, election by the General Synod. —I am,'etc.; ; .-. THOS.M. MILLIGAN. Taitville, June 10. ~r; . ; \ 1 [The above .letter has been abridged by the omission of certain parts not directly bearing upon the Primacy.question.] '.....