Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 26

3. Bishop Abraham's Letter to the "Guardian."

page 15

3. Bishop Abraham's Letter to the "Guardian."

In the first place, let me say generally, that all the arguments, which Bishop Abraham and others bring forward in support of the assertion that the late Primate of New Zealand was either authorised or encouraged by the General Synod to take steps for the selection of a clergyman for the See of Dunedin, are afterthoughts. "When the fact became known in New Zealand that the appointment had been offered to your Lordship by Archbishop Longley, and that the Archbishop had been led to take this step by a communication from Bishop Selwyn, there was, I venture to say, but one feeling among Churchmen throughout the length and breadth of the Colony, a feeling of silent, regretful astonishment. If it had been any other man but Bishop Selwyn, the feeling would have been one of undisguised indignation. No one was more taken aback, if I may use the expression, than Bishop Selwyn himself, as I know from what he said to myself, when he called at Christchurch on his way to Dunedin in March, 1866. As Bishop Abraham says, when he "wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, requesting to him be on the look-out for a suitable man, he did not expect so immediate an answer as he received, that Dr. Jenner had accepted the bishopric." In writing that letter to the Archbishop, Bishop Selwyn probably intended and expected nothing more than that the Archbishop should select a clergyman, whom he (Bishop Selwyn) might recommend to the Churchmen of Otago for their Bishop, as he had before recommended the present Primate of New Zealand (Bishop Harper) to the Churchmen of Canterbury.

But, be this as it may, the great question is this—"Was the Church of New Zealand, through her General Synod, in any way a party to the step taken by Bishop Selwyn in writing to the Archbishop? In no way at all, I answer, and am prepared to prove. At the risk of being tedious, I will, for the sake of the completeness of the proof, take Bishop Abraham's letter, clause by clause.

page 16

"When the Bishop of Christchurch was appointed to that See," he writes, "there was no Church Constitution at all in New Zealand. The Bishop of Now Zealand, after conference with the clergy and laity of the Canterbury Colony, offered the See to Dr. Harper, and on his acceptance of it presented his name to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he was duly consecrated to the See." This is substantially correct; but let it be clearly perceived what the precedent amounted to; the Bishop of New Zealand acted as a trusted mediator, but the nomination proceeded, according to ancient Catholic principle, from the clergy and laity over whom the new Bishop was to preside.

"In the year 1857," Bishop Abraham proceeds to say, "those two Bishops, a body of representative clergy and of representative laity, met at Auckland, and drew up and signed the Church Constitution, in which provision was made for the election of a Bishop to a vacant See, but none for the formation of a new diocese, or the appointment of a Bishop for a non-existent diocese." It is quite true that no literal provision was made for the appointment of a Bishop to a new diocese; but clause 25 of the original Constitution, and clause 23 of the amended Constitution, agree in laying down the broad principles, that the nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the clergy and representatives of the laity over whom he is to preside, but that the nomination shall not take effect, unless it shall have been sanctioned by the Bishops, and the representatives of the clergy and laity of the Ecclesiastical Province. The original clause (No. 25) stood as follows :—"Saving any rights of the Church and of the Crown, the nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and, if sanctioned by the General Synod, shall be submitted by the General Synod to the authorities in Church and State in England for their favourable consideration." And the amended clause does not materially differ from this with reference to the principles of nomination and confirmation, but only in the omission of all reference to the rights of the Crown, and to the authorities in Church and State. Now I may say page 17 that, to my certain knowledge, it was always understood by many others besides myself—I think I might truly say, by the majority of Churchmen in New Zealand—that the spirit of these provisions would be adhered to in the appointment of Bishops to new dioceses, as we have seen that it actually was in the case of the appointment of Bishop Harper,—that is to say, that the nomination would proceed from the clergy and the representatives of the laity of the new diocese, and be confirmed by the General Synod, as representing the Church of the Province.

But, apart from this, there is the express provision of the 13th Clause of the Constitution, to which Bishop Hadfield has called attention, and which, as he justly says, is "absolutely decisive of the whole question." Clause 13 lays down expressly that "the General Synod shall have power to determine how and by whom all patronage shall be exercised." Your Lordship's answer to this is:—"Very well: then the General Synod was acting strictly within its defined limits, when it authorised Archbishop Longley to 'select a clergyman' for the See of Dunedin." But I have clearly proved, I think, that the General Synod never did authorise the Archbishop to take this step.

I proceed to quote the next paragraphs of the Bishop's letter:—"Accordingly, in 1858, the Bishop of New Zealand proceeded, as before, to confer with the clergy and laity of several (political) Provinces of New Zealand, and having learnt from them that there were funds available for the purpose, and having mentioned the names of the clergymen he intended to propose to the Archbishop, he laid those names before the Archbishop and the Secretary of the State for the Colonics, and Bishop Hobhouse and myself were duly accepted by those authorities, and consecrated in 1858 by Archbishop Sumner. And the Bishop of New Zealand, having further conferred with the Church Missionary Society, presented the name of Bishop Williams to the same authorities, and he was duly consecrated at Wellington." Now the conclusion, which his Lordship draws from the facts here stated, is given by him further on, in the summing up of his letter, thus:—"I hold that Bishop Jenner page 18 was as duly elected and nominated for the See of Dunedin as Bishops Hobhouse, Williams, and myself were for our several Sees." It is strange that the Bishop should overlook the fact, that the circumstances of the Church of New Zealand were completely changed at the time when the appointment was made to the See of Dunedin, from what they were at the time of his own nomination, and those of Bishops Hobhouse and Williams. When these Bishops were nominated, there were no Diocesan Synods, nor Rural Deanery Boards, in existence; in other words, there was no regular organisation of the clergy and laity of any (political) Province or District; and, as the General Synod was not yet constituted, when these appointments were made, there was no authority to determine, "how and by whom Patronage should he exercised." Under these circumstances, Bishop Selwyn could do no otherwise than he did; he conferred, in the best manner he could, with the clergy and laity of the Provinces of Wellington and Nelson, and they gladly concurred in his recommendation; in the case of Bishop Williams, who was to preside over a Missionary Diocese, he conferred with the Church Missionary Society. But when, in 1865, seven years later Bishop Selwyn requested Archbishop Longley to be on the, look-out for a clergyman for the See of Dunedin, circumstances were completely altered; the Synodical System had been in full operation for several years; three sessions of the General Synod had been held; the several Diocesan Synods had met annually; so had, in particular, the Rural Deanery Board of Otago and Southland. Clergy and laity had been roused to a sense of their responsibilities; distinct rights and privileges had been assigned to them; and they had learnt to take an active, intelligent, and regular part in Church legislation, and in the general management of the affairs of the Church.

But, over and above these general changes, there was another essential point of difference between the course which Bishop Selwyn pursued in the appointment of the three Bishops in 1858, and the unfortunate step which he took in writing to Archbishop Longley in 1865. It is a point which I do not remember to page 19 have seen noticed before in the course of this controversy, and to which I beg to invite special attention. When Bishop Selwyn, with his accustomed energy, pushed forward the formation of the new dioceses of Nelson, Wellington, and Waiapu, in 1858, and procured the appointment of Bishops Hobhouse, Abraham, and Williams to preside over them, he was carving out new dioceses out of his own diocese; he was selecting men to preside over portions of the wide-extended territory, which up to that time had owned allegiance to himself. But when he wrote to Archbishop Longley in 1865 to select a clergyman for the Diocese of Dunedin, the Provinces of Otago and Southland, which together constitute that diocese, had for nearly nine years formed part of the Diocese of Christchurch, had been annually visited by Bishop Harper, and all their Church affairs administered by him; he had appointed all their clergy, and had presided in person over their Rural Deanery Board. Here, then, is a marked difference between this case and those preceding ones, with which Bishop Abraham classes it as exactly parallel. Surely, if any individual was entitled to exercise a special influence in the appointment of the First Bishop of Dunedin, it was the Bishop of Christchurch But, in truth, no such right belonged to any individual whatever, however exalted his position, from the time that the Synods of the Church, Diocesan and General, were in full operation.

But, in flat opposition to the assertion just made, the next paragraph in Bishop Abraham's letter contains the strange assumption—strange indeed to the great majority of churchmen in New Zealand—that the General Synod never dreamt of interfering with the first nominations to new Sees, until the claim to do so was devised, as an unauthorised novelty, by those who wished to defeat your Lordship's appointment. Strange indeed, if this assumption were correct, that, when the motion was made in the Synod that met in Auckland in 1868, "that the appointment of Bishop Jenner to the Sec of Dunedin be not confirmed by the Synod,"* neither Bishop Selwyn who presided, nor Bishop

* See Appendix.

page 20 Abraham who was present, nor anybody else, thought of disputing the Synod's right to pass such a resolution. But let me proceed to examine what the Bishop actually says :—"The first General Synod was sitting at "Wellington in March, 1859, when Bishop Hobhouse and I arrived, and had passed the first three statutes organising the General and Diocesan Synods and Rural Deanery Boards, before Bishop Williams was consecrated, but no one ever proposed any reference to the General Synod to confirm our appointments, it being so clearly felt that the Church Constitution had made no provision for the first appointments, and that therfeore the General Synod had nothing to do with them, until it should pass a statute remedying the defect, (which has only just been done in 1871)." I have emphasised by italics the latter portion of this extract, because it is extremely important in its bearing on the main question; for, if the reason here given for the non-interference of the Synod in the appointments of Bishops Hobhouse, Abraham, and "Williams were the true one, then I say again, the controversy would be at an end; the General Synod would have no case. But I must repeat, that this distinction, of which so much has been made in England, is altogether an afterthought, and has scarcely been heard of in New Zealand. I was not a member of the Synod of 1859, and cannot therefore bear personal testimony to what took place there; in the Synod of 1862, of which also I was not a member, no occasion arose, so far as I am aware, for any mention of the subject. But in the Synod of 1865, in which I took part, there was a very full and earnest discussion, as Bishop Abraham will doubtless remember, on the subject of the nomination and confirmation of Bishops, and the clause of the Constitution relating to the matter was materially amended; and I confidently state that during that whole discussion no distinction was drawn by any speaker between first and subsequent appointments. Had the question arisen, I doubt not that it would have been held that the principle, on which the clause was grounded, was wide enough to cover both, and that the clause was intended to govern both. This, however, may be regarded as a petitio page 21 principii: I therefore beg to confine myself to the assertion, of which I challenge contradiction, that, in all the discussions of the subject in the Synod of 1865, the distinction was never drawn. And, as I have stated above, when the very question itself was brought up in the most naked form, in the Synod of 1868, by the motion before-mentioned, "that the appointment of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin be not confirmed by the Synod," neither Bishop Selwyn who presided, nor Bishop Abraham who was present, nor anybody else, took exception to the right of the Synod to give or withhold confirmation in the case of a first appointment. This fact is an indisputable proof that the distinction between first and subsequent appointments, of which so much has been made, is an afterthought, which had its origin, not in New Zealand, but in England.

What reason, then, it may be asked, can be given why the First Synod of 1859 did not claim the exercise of the same right with regard to the appointments of Bishops Hobhouse, Abraham, and Williams? A very good and sufficient reason indeed, I must take leave to say. The original clause of the Constitution relating to the appointment of Bishops, which was then in force, ran thus :—"25. Saving any rights of the Church and of the Crown, the nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and, if sanctioned by the General Synod, shall be submitted by the General Synod to the authorities in Church and State in England for their favourable consideration." But the names of those three Bishops had been already "submitted to the authorities in Church and State in England," and had been accepted by them, and two out of the three had been actually consecrated, not only before the First General Synod had met, but before the Synodical system had been brought into operation at all. How could the First General Synod have any voice whatever in what it found to have been an accomplished fact before it came into existence at all?

At the close of the paragraph last quoted, the Bishop states that the Synod passed a Statute in 1871, "remedying the" (supposed) "defect." But how, let me ask, could a Statute remedy a defect page 22 in the Constitution? As well might we speak of one of the XXXIX Articles remedying a defect in the Scriptures. If there be a defect in the Constitution, it must be supplied in the Constitution; no Statute can supply it. In point of fact, the Statute of 1871—the draft of which, I may remind Bishop Abraham, was before a Select Committee (of which he was himself a member) of the Synod of 1868—is only a development in detail of the principle of the clause of the Constitution, which relates to the appointment of Bishops.

It is an exceedingly unpleasant duty to be compelled, for the truth's sake, to contradict a person for whom one feels a sincere and deep respect, more especially if that person be a Bishop. Such, however, is the obligation, under which I find myself placed with regard to the first half of the next paragraph of the Bishop's letter, which runs thus:—"When the General Synod met at Nelson in 1862, they pressed upon the Metropolitan (the Bishop of New Zealand) the desirableness of his taking steps to find a Bishop for Dunedin. In 1865, when the General Synod met at Christchurch, the matter was taken up again, and a resolution passed to the effect that the Synod should meet at Dunedin in 1868, if there was a Bishop there by that time; and I made the remark that if no more interest was shown in the matter during the next three years than in the three preceding, we had better name another place where the General Synod should meet, in case there was no Bishop, and Auckland was named accordingly. (General Synod Report, 1865, p. 104). I mention this to show that pressure was brought to bear upon the Metropolitan by the General Synod, to make him try and move the churchmen of Dunedin to endow a Bishopric."

Now I have searched the Report of the Proceedings of the Second General Synod, which met at Nelson in 1862, through and through with the greatest care, and fail to find the slightest vestige of proof of the Bishop's statement, that that Synod "pressed upon the Metropolitan the desirableness of his taking steps to find a Bishop for Dunedin." It is a pity that his Lord_ ship does not give any reference hero, as he does in the next page 23 sentence with regard to the Third General Synod. He must have been thinking of something which passed in private, or of something, at any rate, which is not recorded. However that may be, there is absolutely no ground whatever for saying that the General Synod pressed the matter, or took it up oven; for the General Synod does nothing, except by formal, official, and published act. The only reported mention of the subject at all, at that Synod, occurs in the President's Address. After speaking of the organisation of the several Diocesan Synods, he adds, "To complete the system, a Rural Deanery Board has been organised at Otago, which, under the present circumstances of that Province, we hope will soon expand itself into the Synod of a new Diocese."*

With regard to what transpired in the General Synod which met at Christchurch in 1865, I must refer to what I have said at length in the former part of this letter. I have a recollection that reference was often made by individual members of that Synod to that which was the desire of all, namely, that steps should be taken to provide an endowment for the proposed Bishopric of Dunedin as soon as possible. But that is one thing; the selection of a clergyman to fill the office is quite another.

I may pass over the next few lines of the Bishop's letter, in as-much as they have reference to facts which no one disputes, and which have no bearing on the merits of the controversy. The next passage I have to notice is this :—"I should add, that at the General Synod in 1865, a resolution was passed requiring any clergyman before his consecration to a See in New Zealand under the Church Constitution to sign a Declaration of Submission to the General Synod. This Declaration was duly accepted and signed by Bishop Jenner, and laid before the Standing Commission of the said General Synod." I refer to this passage chiefly, my Lord, because in your own pamphlet you lay stress upon the fact of your declaration of adhesion to the Constitution having been laid before the Standing Commission, and accepted by that body, as though it were presumptive evidence of

* See Appendix, p, iii.

page 24 the legitimacy of your appointment. Your Lordship writes as follows (p. 23) :—"And I have argued also, that the fact of my assent having been required and given 'in consideration of being appointed Bishop of Dunedin,' and the statutable declaration to that effect having been accepted by the Standing Commission (the authorised representative of the General Synod when not in Session), and recorded on their minutes without demur or hesitation, is presumptive evidence that no violence had been done to the Constitution, and that my recognition as Bishop Designate was regarded as a matter of course." I will put as briefly as possible what I have to say on this branch of the subject. 1. The Standing Commission is, truly enough, "the authorised representative of the General Synod when not in Session," but only within certain prescribed and clearly defined limits, laid down by statute. This is a point, about which the General Synod has always been very jealous. Therefore, if the Standing Commission should at any time exceed its powers, it would be alone responsible; it could not bind the General Synod. 2. But, in point of fact, the act of the Standing Commission, in the case referred to, was simply an act of registration; nay, it was not even that; it amounted to no more than the listening to the reading of a document. It so happens that I am in a position to give the best possible proof of the correctness of this statement; for I am writing with the original minute-book of the Standing Commission before mo. I will transcribe the minutes referring to the subject, premising that the meeting was held at the Cathedral Library, Auckland, on Wednesday, January 10th 1866, and that there were present, the Bishop of New Zealand in the chair, and only two besides, namely, Sir William Martin, and the Hon. William Swainson:—

"Read letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury reporting the recommendation of the Reverend Henry Lascelles Jenner as Bishop of the new See of Dunedin.

"Read declaration of adhesion of the Reverend Henry Lascelles Jenner to the Constitution of the Church in New Zealand."

This is absolutely all that appears on the minute-book of the page 25 Standing Commission on the subject of the Bishopric of Dunedin until the 22nd May, 1871, when I find this minute:—"The Chairman informed the Commission that the Reverend Samuel Tarratt Nevill, Rector of Shelton, in the County of Stafford, England, had been nominated to the Bishopric of Dunedin by the Synod of the Diocese of Dunedin, and that the nomination had been confirmed by the majority of the Standing Committees of the Ecclesiastical Province. The Chairman further informed the Commission that it is proposed by the Primate to consecrate the Reverend Samuel Tarratt Nevill at Dunedin on Whit-Tuesday next." Then follows the minute of a resolution adopted by the Commission, the preamble of which recites at length the provisions of Statute No. 12 of the Fourth General Synod, 1868, (Statute to provide for the division of the Diocese of Christchurch into two separate Dioceses—certified, by the way, by Bishop Selwyn)—one of which provisions was that "until a day to be fixed in that behalf by the Standing Commission, the said Bishop of Christchurch shall continue to have charge of the said Diocese Dunedin, and, for the purpose of the Statute for the organisation of Diocesan Synods, shall be deemed and taken to be the Bishop of such Diocese." The Resolution, accordingly, of the Standing Commission, omitting the Preamble, is as follows:—"It is Resolved and Declared by the Standing Commission that, on the day on which the said Samuel Tarratt Nevill shall be consecrated to the office of Bishop, the said Bishop of Christchurch shall cease to have charge of the said Diocose of Dunedin, and shall cease to be deemed to be the Bishop of such Diocese for the purposes of the Statute for the Organisation of Diocesan Synods."* So that, if the testimony of the Standing Commission goes for anything, it is manifestly to this effect, namely, that the Bishop of Christchurch did not cease to have charge of the Diocese of Dunedin, though constituted a separate Diocese, until the consecration of Bishop Nevill, and that therefore Bishop Nevill is to be regarded as the First Bishop of Dunedin. I have only to add, with regard to this point, that the members present at

* See Appendix, p. x.

page 26 this meeting of the Standing Commission were the following, the Eight Rev. the Bishop of Auckland in the chair, his Honor Sir George A. Arney, Chief Justice, Sir William Martin, D.C.L., William Swainson Esquire, Frederick Whitaker Esquire.

This letter is extending to a far greater length than I had foreseen, but I am under the necessity of referring to yet another paragraph in the letter of Bishop Abraham. He proceeds to say:—"This point"—i.e., your Lordship's acceptance of the Church Constitution—"has had great stress laid on it by the opponents of Bishop Jenner, and they charge him with having promised to submit to the General Synod, and then, on their expressing a desire that he should resign, refusing to do so. But it should be remembered that one leading principle of the legislation of the General Synod from the beginning was, that It should not exercise its authority over any of its members in the way of removal or suspension from any office except through the intervention of a judicial tribunal, or voluntary court of arbitrators. And to no such tribunal or arbitrator was Bishop Jenner's case ever submitted.* This point," his Lordship adds, "I strove to impress upon the General Synod of 1868, but to no purpose."

And no wonder, since the argument is based on an entirely false assumption. It is based on the assumption that you, my Lord, were ever a member of the General Synod, or an acknowledged officer of the Church of New Zealand, which is the very point that the General Synod has, from first to last, in the Sessions of 1868, 1871, and 1874, felt itself bound most firmly

* I cannot help thinking that the Bishop is confounding two documents entirely different. There are two distinct Declarations referred to in the Constitution, namely, one in Clause 23, which is a declaration of assent to the Constitution, and has to do only with the nomination of Bishops; and the other in Clause 28, which is a declaration of submission to the authority of the General Synod, and is to be signed by persons on their admission to any office under the General Synod. I may add that, if it was the first of these that your Lordship signed, it is an acknowledgement that your nomination was made under the said Clause 23, which makes Confirmation by the General Synod indispensable to the validity of an appointment: but, if it was the second, then the act was altogether a premature and irregular one, and therefore null and void.

page 27 and constantly to deny. The opponents of your Lordship's appointment, on this side of the world, have laid no stress, so far as I am aware, on the point referred to by the Bishop. The General Synod, at any rate—and I am not concerned to defend anything but the acts of that body—has never been guilty of such inconsistency. And I must here take the liberty of saying that the Bishop is wholly mistaken when he speaks of the General Synod "expressing a desire" that you, my Lord, "should resign." It cannot be too distinctly stated and affirmed that the Synod never did anything of the sort. On the contrary, it carefully guarded itself against doing so. Upon the motion being made, which I have referred to before, in the Synod of 1868, "That the appointment of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin be not confirmed by the Synod," an amendment was moved to the effect that the Synod "is unable to find any sufficient ground for withholding its recognition of the appointment of Bishop Jenner; but, while acknowledging the appointment, and declaring that it shall be competent for Dr. Jenner to enter upon the duties of his office, the Synod would urge upon Bishop Jenner the expediency of his resigning the Bishopric, on the ground of the difficulties experienced in obtaining an adequate endowment." This amendment was negatived without a division; and, after another amendment had been lost on division, and an adjournment of half-an-hour had taken place to allow of free conference among the members, the following amendment, moved by Archdeacon Harper, and seconded by myself, was ultimately Adopted Without a Division:—"That, whereas the General Synod is of opinion that it is better for the peace of the Church that Bishop Jenner should not take charge of the Bishopric of Dunedin, this Synod hereby requests him to withdraw his claim to that position."* It is obviously unnecessary to dwell on the importance of the distinction thus emphasised by the Synod, between resigning a position to which one has an acknowledged right, and withdrawing a claim which has never boon acknowledged at all.

* See Appendix, p. vi.