Norwich bulletin., 1913-04-30
DIVISION OF THIS
 DIOCESE IS INEVITABLE. Is View Expressed by Bishop Brewster
 of Connecticut.


 The current number of the Con- necticut Churchman contains an in teresting letter written by Bishop Chauncey B. Brewster, which consld- CTS at length the two principal mat ters of business to be taken up at the coming diocesan convention, namely. the division of the diocese and the election of a suffragan bishop. The letter is as follows:
 My Brethren of the Clergy and Laity
 of the Diocese of Connecticut:
 The question of adequate provision for Episcopal services is of course still before us. Some persons. l have req son to believe, are of the opinion that the solution of the problem lies in the election of a bishop coadjutor. l cannot feel myself justified in now asking for coadjutor on the ground ''of age. or other permanent cause of infir1nity." The other reason allowed in the canon is extent of diocesan work" The election of a coadjutor. however. on this latter ground would according to canon require the con majority of the bishops and of the several standing committees. The election of a bishop coadJutor would also require such definite and irrevoc- able assignment of duties as would seem to me at this time unadvisable. Nor do I deem 1t wise for the diocese at this time to commit itself to the choice of its next bishop.
 From some of the clergy I learn that there is an increase of sentiment in favor of division of the diocese. Regarding division, my own mind has been before this plainly expressed and is, 1 trust. sufficiently understood. The division of this diocese ultimately is. l am convinced, inevitable. If the matter might be agreed upon and definitely made ready for present tation to the general convention which is to meet next October, well and good. Let mt j- hood that so important matter, in volving so radical 8 decision and SC many details as te lines of division, etc., could be settled at single con Vention and made ready fer preseHta- tien to the coming general convention. It would probably have to wait for the following general convention. and then for the diocesan convention. which would mean a delay of four years be- fore any adequate relief. Meanwhile the needs of the work would be con- fronting us.
 We may recur to method of re- general convention which offers a SO luton of the problem The diocese may proceed to elect suffragan bishop. This is in the line we entered upon at the last convention. As l said at that time. the position of suffra gan or assisting bishop should not lack any proper dignity. The true dignity of the episcopate lies in its mission to serve In the tnuFcn OI FnBianO SuCh men as the Bishop of London. the Archbishop of York. the Bishop of Salisbury were consecrated as suffra- gans. In our American church other dioceses have elected suffra gans and have found no difficulty in securing for the position able and efficient men. At our last convention men of recognized ability and character were nominated. If it be decided to elect a sufragan. there should be sought the very best fn ho off
 It is my conviction that for the present the work of the diocese could be done by the diocesan with the assistance of suffragan bishop This comments itself to my judgmen as a method at once con servative and flexible. We are not, however, committed to anything. The question in all it's behring's is before the diocese for decision, and I present the entire matter for your thoughtful, earnest and prayerful consideration.
 l am faithfully your bishop
 CHAUNCEY B. BREWSTER.