THE FIRST ANGLICAN BISHOP OF DUNEDIN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18456, 18 January 1922, Page 8

THE FIRST ANGLICAN BISHOP OF DUNEDIN.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —With reference to the Jenner controversy, I have been asked if I oould not explain the matter sufficiently clearly for everybody to understand, without any technicalities. I have been reading over the proofs of the late Primate’s diary, and I see that what to him was quite clear would appear to those unversed in Church Law in. New Zealand anything but clear. I shall therefore try to give the gist of the late Primate’s account as clearly as I can. The See of Dunedin was constituted at the General Synod of 1868, attid was to be under the care of the Bishop of Christchurch “ until his successor should bo lawfully appointed.” Bishop Jenner had been consecrated two years before this for a diocese which did not exist till 1868. That was Bishop Sehvyn’s mistake. The Rural Deanery Board of Otago and Squtiiland added another mistake to his. At its meeting in 1866 it passed the following resolution: That the Rev. H. L. Jenner, having been nominated and consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury under Royal mandate “ Bishop of the See of Dunedin,” it must find him salary and residence. All that the Royal mandate said was “ to be a bishop in our colony of New Zealand.” In 1869 Jenner visited New Zealand just after the General Synod of 1868 had asked him to withdraw his claim. Bishop Jenner refused to withdraw his claim or to obey the rule of the General Synod In 1869 the first .Synod of the Diocese of Dunedin was bold under the Bishop of Christchurch. The bishop explained that by its constitution “ the nomination- of a bishop must proceed from tho Diocesan Synod, and such nomination must be confirmed by the General Synod or by the majority of the Standing Qommittee of the several dioceses should the General Synod r.ot be in session.” Ihis had not been, and could not be, dene in Jenner’s case, as no Diocesan Synod existed when he was consecrated. Two Diocesan Synods met —one in 1869 and one in 1870. The first tried to solve the question and failed. The second left it alone for the General Synod of 1871 to handle. At tho General Synod of 1871 the Primate (Bishop Harper) laid upon the table two documents of considerable importance. Tho first was a copy of a' “judgment” given by Archbishop Tait upon the claim of Bishop Jenner to be regarded as Bishop of Dunedin, In which tho Archbishop, with. the evidence before him, concluded in favour of that claim. The other was a letter from Bishop Jenner himself, in which he “protested against tho invasion of his diocesan rights” by' the Bishop of Christchurch, and declared that ho treated the action of the General Synod of 1868 as null and void. This letter also recorded that a number of ’the English Bishops had signified their concurrence with tho judgment of tho Archbishop, and also stated that he (Bishop Jenner) had issued a pastoral letter to the clergy and laity of tho Dioccso of Dunedin in which he declared that he was their Bishop and demanded all tho rights and privileges belonging to that positioiv On February 8, 1871; a motion was brought before the General Synod by Mr E. C. Quick, and seconded by- Air R. B. Alartin, which, after reciting the fact that the Synod of 1868 took into consideration all the circumstances of the nomination and consecration of Bishop Jenner, an j did thereupon formally reejuest that he should formally withdraw his claim to the position of Bishop of Dunedin—-to which request Bishop Jenner 1)!M declined to accede —and that tho law of the church required tho sanction of tho General Synod to, the nomination of a Bishop to anv see in New Zealand, affirmed “that this Synod docs hereby refuse to sanction the nomination of Bishop Jenner to the See of Dunedin, whether that nomination was in duo course or otherwise, " and further, it expressed its sympathy with Bishop .Tenner in his painful situation. That is tho course of events stripped of all comment. _ Tho la-to Primate’s diary contains his estimate of the whole situation and his account of what preceded it, , but is too long for insertion, and may bo read by those interested when it comes into publication.—l am, etc., E. R. Nevill.