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

4. The Importance of the Question at Issue

page 28

4. The Importance of the Question at Issue.

I have now done with Bishop Abraham's letter, the remainder of which consists of a summary of its foregone mistakes. And now, my Lord, I would fain believe that, on the fuller information which I have endeavoured to lay before you, and which will be found, on examination, to be unquestionable as to accuracy, your Lordship will be induced to withdraw your claim to "the historical position of first Bishop of Dunedin." This, if I may presume to say so, your Lordship may do with honour, whereas it is obvious that the General Synod could not allow that claim without the deepest dishonour. It is natural for those who have not considered the question, and are ignorant of the facts, to say, what actually was said by one member of the General Synod which recently sat at Wellington, "Why stand upon the point at all? If Bishop Jenner is willing to acknowledge Bishop Nevill as Bishop de facto, why should not the General Synod acknowledge Bishop Jenner as First Bishop?' The simple answer to this is, that the General Synod cannot do so without telling a lie. The General Synod cannot declare that to be the case which it knows not to be the case. To many, no doubt, the whole controversy in its present stage appears effete and futile. But any one who has read your Lordship's pamphlet, and especially any one who is aware of the impression produced by it in many quarters in England, will recognise the necessity which exists for clearing away, if possible, the grave misapprehensions which have arisen. For the character of the Church in New Zealand is at stake, her character, not only for adherence to ecclesiastical right and order, but for very truth and honesty itself. The motto from St. Augustine, which your Lordship has prefixed to your pamphlet, accuses us by implication of Cœcitas, Furor, Dolus, Tumultus; but the pamphlet itself accuses us, no longer by implication, but in very plain and direct terms, of "grievous injustice" and "inconceivable perversity." You say that our conduct "has already fatally discredited a much vaunted Synodical system in the estimation of all who prefer Truth and, page 29 Justice to Falsehood and Wrong." You call Bishop Nevill "the schismatical intruder into my as yet unvacated See," and you say that, while "the Diocese of Dunedin remains in charge of an intruder, the whole Ecclesiastical Province of New Zealand is implicated in the scandal of a permitted and encouraged violation of ecclesiastical right and order." This language and these charges must be my apology to you, my Lord, for thus addressing you, and to the Church for the publication of my Letter. And these charges assume a grave importance indeed, when we find it asserted by your Lordship that you "are supported "in your claim" by the deliberate opinion of the whole Episcopate of England and Wales at least, and by a large majority of Churchmen, clerical and lay, including the best authorities on questions relating to episcopal mission and jurisdiction." If anything can add to their importance, it is the anticipation, which appears to be growing more and more into a certainty, of the assembling, within a very few years, of another Lambeth Conference, before which august tribunal the Church of New Zealand will be arraigned by your Lordship on these charges, if you still insist on maintaining them. It is manifestly therefore the duty of any one who believes that these charges are wholly founded on a series of misapprehensions, and who thinks that he is able to clear these away, to endeavour to do so.