BISHOP JENNER AND THE BISHOPRIC OF DUNEDIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 825, 20 September 1867, Page 15

BISHOP JENNER AND THE BISHOPRIC OF DUNEDIN.

MEETING OF THIS 1 RtrRAIi 1 DEANERY board: ' ,; /

The special meeting of the Rtiral Deanery ] Board of Otago and Southland; for 'theTcon•sitleration of letters, from Mr W.'Cl Young, Jand from Bishop Jenner,. tp the Rev* ,E* G. JSdwards, wag held onl Wednesday evening, in St. Paul's Church School-room, Stuart street. . " ' The Rev. E. G. Edwards, Rural Dean, presided ; and there were, also present the folio wing' clergymen and lay representatives : — Rev. E. Granger, All Saints, Dunedin ; Rev. F. C. "Simmons, punedin ; Rev. A. ■Gifford, Oamaru;' Rev. A. Dasent, Wai'kouaiti; Rev. R.L. Stanford, Tokomairiroj Rev. W. P. Tanner, Invercargill ; Rev. W. Oldham", Riv'erton.— Lay Representatives : Messrs R. B. Martin, F: J. Moss, J. Rattray, and W. Mason, Dunedin; J. Deweand B. Hibbard, Tokomairiro ; Black and Rowley Oamaru ; H. Howorth, Butterworth, And Pantlin, Southland ; James Smith, The Lakes ; and F. Wayne.

The lltoal Dean (after laying on. the table some reports) said that he recently •received a letter from Mr W. C. Young, in England, enclosing copies of , other letters. •He brought the subject before the Standing Committee, and they thought it advisable that a meeting of the Board should be summoned as quickly as possible. .The^ present .meeting was the result. ■ The Standing Committee? approved of what he had undertaken to do. namely, to send' a telegram to the Archbishop of Canterbury,- recommending His Grace urgently to' advise Bishop Jenner not to leave England 'before he had received any resolutions that might be passed by the Board. He had received a -letter from Bishop Jenner, stating that it was his intention to leave England in October. If the Bishop did that, he would be here before any resolutions of 1 the Board could reach him ; but the Board would no doubt agree that it was only right that everything possible should be done to inform the Bishop I of the intention to summon this special meeting. ' There were in the hands of members ■of the Board printed copies of Mr Young's letter and its enclosures ; and also ■ of a letter from Bishop Jenner to himself (the Rural Dean) directly referring to the subject -of Mr Young's letter. It was -agreed that ,the letters should be taken as read. We published all of them in our last. Mr R. B. Martin asked under what Rule the representatives of Invercargill had been ■ chosen. ' Action might be taken at this meeting which might be called in question * hereafter ;- and he was anxious that there - should be no irregularity. He had no objection to any one 6f the nominees for* Southland. • i The Rev. W. P. Tanner Baid that it had been usual to elect representatives in a Vestry meeting ; and the Bishop of the Diocese,_ on his last visit, presided at such a meeting. -He (Mr Tanner) had to leave in a hurry to attend the present meeting. The representatives of Invercargill had resigned ; but after he left there was a .Vestry' meeting by which he was appointed nominator of three representatives. , • >

The Rural. Dean read from one of the .'Rules, " Any objection to the validity of an ■election shall be decided by tbc Rural Deanery Board." , After some discussion, the question that the three representatives of rilnvercargill be accepted as members of the, Board, was put, and was affirmed.

Mr Martin .believed that theTe was no Rule under which what had' been- done as to Southland Representatives could be held -valid. He requested that a record of ' his objection might be made. ,Mr James Smite (after a pause) said that as no other member appeared to intend to .move a resolution, he would move —

" That the Secretary befinstructed to -writs to Mr- William Carr Young, conveying the thanks of this Board for bis letter to the Rural Dean, dated 26th July last ; but informing him that, while f lilly concurring in "his opinion that any attempt on the part of the Bishop of Dunedin to introduce, against the will of the members of the Church, in this diocese, such practices as those described in Mr Young's letter, or any change of ritual, or obsolete observance distasteful to the laity, would meet with general opposition, and, if persisted in, would lead to most unhappy results, yet, having read the Bi«h,op of Dunedin's letter to his Rural Dean, dated Ist July last, which, in effect, emphatically • disavows any such intention, this Board does not feel justified, "in J the f a<je of that assurance, in endeavoring to dissuade the Bishop from undertaking the charge of his see." Confessedly, the subject was a very delicate one ; and anything calculated to elicit . anything like an intemperate expression of opinion had better be avoided. Mr Young, in his letter to the Rural Dean, detailed & ceremony, of ,wh,ich he was an eye-witness, at St. Matthias's, Stoke and which' he, stigmatised as "Popish." Mr Young had taken upon, himself to address a letter to the Bishop of Dunedin, couched in. language, which he (Mr Smith) regretted should have been used— ("Hear, hear," and No, no") ; and Mr Young had addressed another letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, couched in almost equally strong language, in which Mr Young assumed, the position (which did not of right belong to .him) ,pf representing the ■riewa of the whole bqdy; of the Church of England in • New Zealand, He gave Mr Young credit for being animated by a very

earnest ieal for'what Mr Youirg-thoughi tobe the interests of' the* Church of England in If ew Zealand ; bttt he'thotight thatMr Y6ung exhibited a zeal- that was very much' without' discretion. The' substance of Mr Young's letter to the Bishop" >was this :— That having seen at St Matthias's the practices which he (described, and having heard there doctrines enunciated which he considered not in accordance with those of the Church of England— although such doctrineswere not heard from the lips of' the Bishop, and although Mr Young did not state the 'ground's of ' his opinion that the doctrines w ere not in accor-dance-with those of the Church of England — rMr Young assumed 'that the Bishop would be bound by 'his principles to reproduce in this diocese the same kind of ceremonial 'as that-^at St. Matthias's ; and, therefore, Mr Young called upon the Bishop to resign his see. In his letter to the ■ Archbishop' of Canterbury, Mr Young proposed that the Primate should, if possible, cancel Dr Jenner's appointment as Bishop of this see. Having had an interview with the Archbishop, Mr Young, in his letter to the Rural Dean, detailed some particulars of that interview. He (Mr Smith) must hope that Mr Young was under some mistake on that matter — he was loth to think that the Archbishop could be bo blind as to what was due, as a matter of justice, to the Bishop of Dunedin, as to concur, behind the Bishop's back, in a proposal which was to have the effect of " forcing his resignation." He (Mr Smith) though: it was evident, although the letters were written with some degree ■of deliberation, that Mr Young, when he wrote them, was not free from the excitement which the scenes at St. Matthias's, which appeared to have been so abhorrent to him, had created in his mind.' Therefore, very considerable allowance must bo made for any unconscious distortion which the Archbishop's remarks might have undergone in their reproduction by Mr Young. He did not charge Mr Young with an intention to do anything but relate exactly what occurred ; 'but' it appeared to him that Mr Young must have,- 1 unwittingly, been an unfaithful narrator, when he made the Archbishop counsel a course which would assuredly meet will condemnation throughout'England. Wag there anything in Mr Young's letter to the B.ural Dean, to cause the Board to do anything with the view of deterring the Bishop from taking | charge of this see ? He (Mr Smith) submitted, with great confidence, that the Bishop's letter was atiomplete answer to Mr Young's fears and apprehensions. >Mr Young said that, in his ■opinion, the Bishop would be bound, by his principles, to reproduce ' some sort of ceremonial here : the Bishop said that he felt himself bound to do no such- thing. the contrary, he said, 1 '^ I should undoubtedly discourage .the most obvious improvements in Divine worship, unless they were introduced with the most tender and considerate regard to the feelings and even prejudices of the devout laity." It . obviously followed, that the Bishop would be still more careful jiot to introduce practices known as Ritualistic, which no doubt would be distasteful to the general body of the Church. At any rate, the Bishop pledged himself not to make any such attempt : and the Bishop only asked for fair play, which he would no doubt receive at the hands of all those who had .not come to a foregone conclusion on the subject. The Board at present had nothing to do with matters of doctrine. r There was no reason to suppose that ths Bishop was not perfectly sound in the doctrines he was prepared to enunciate here, or that his doctrines were not> in Accordance i with the teachings of the Church of England. The only charge — if such a word might be permitted — made by Mr> Young, was that the' Bishop favored Ritualistic practices. There ,was a Royal. Commission to inquire how far those practices were in accordance with the Church of England ; and, if within the law, how far it might be expedient, for the purpose of quieting dissension, to regulate the ceremoaiesi of the Church. All the Board had now, to deal with was whether any ground was shown for trying to prevent the Bishop coming here ; and he apprehended that the Bishop's letter, written in ao frank, candid, and manly a tone, 'would be accepted &3 a sufficient answer in the negative. ' ' The Rev., A. GiFf ord seconded the motion: He' thought that^ in all probability, if -the letter of Bishop Jenner had been received before the special meeting oi the Board 'had been summoned, such a meeting would not have been summoned at all. He w?s not going to say that Bishop Jenner's sympathy with an extreme party in the Church had not caused to himself and others, including many of the laity , very great uneasiness. They had, in their various ways, taken steps to make that uneasiness known to the Bishop. We now 'knew, from the Bishop himself, that he had been present at one Church — and there was no reason to dpubt that he had' been at others— where High Ritual obtained ; and that he had so been present, without wounding' his conscience ; which was very much his own matter. But the Bishop reminded us that befo^se his consecration he "signedt the Constitution of the New Zealand Church ;" and that, being prepared to resign his office '' on being called upon so ,to . do by .the - General Synftd," he would stand or fall by the decision' of .that authority alone. He "(Mr Gifford) thought it would be to misunderstand the r man altogether, if we supposed that anything ,we could do would* induce him' to resign his office into the hands of the Archbishop. To. attempt to foroe such a. .course would be saying, 1 "We boast to belong,. to -what is called the ' Low Church ;' Bishop Jenner has views too extreme for us : therefore, we will not have him ;" while the Bishop had' declared tha>t his principles would not allow him to 'at-

f tempt -to* forcd''anytldpg,iih doctrine or in I practice, upon an ' wyjfpliHg laity ; 'So was' satisfied 'that "Mr, Young had been moved by extraordiii^y-'idal WWW W Church, in what heiConsidereri it^'moto simple and 'beautiful ministration as we' practised it here, and^ that he had' acted' entirely for the best in-" terestsof the Church';- still; Mr Young had shown want of discretion in his zeal, land had addressed tfr' the Bishop such language aa it' must, 'be' admitted the' Bishop, had received mfeekly, when he replied to it' only as he had done in the letter to the : Rural Dean. He' (Mr Gifford)' thought ( that Mr Smith's motion fully met the various points to wHich it was necessary the Board should refer. ' The Rev. R. L. Stafford said that Mr Smith's language and resolutionimplied that, in some way, wd had accepted Bishop Jenner as Bishop of Dtmed'in/ana that, though -how sorry for what we had done, we must abide by ■ our" acceptance. From the first, the Board had placed itself 'in a position very different from that— had, indeed, taken a very. high position with regard tp Bishop Jenner. Originally, there was a vague wish expressed to have a Bishop ; but there was never given any direction that a Bishop should be appointed. Early in 1566, there was a letter from Dr Jenner,' to the effect that he was willing to' come out,- on understanding from the people here that they were ready to'receive him, Did the'BoaTd say, ''We Will have you" ? ISTo. In February, 1886, it was' resblved to this effect :—: — " That this Board desires to record, their extreme regret that throtigh a misconception, Dr Jenner should have been led to suppose that the 'time has arrived for the appointment of a Bishop of Dunedin, there having been., up to the present time, no endowment raised, and this Board continuing to be decidedly opposed to fench an appointment without a sufficient endowment fund having been raised. That the Secretary be requested to forward a copy of this resolution, and of the minutes of this meeting, to Dr Jenner." - ' He' knew that some' members would say, "It is true,, that .was carried by. a'tnarrow majority ; but we have since sanctioned the appeintment.'* Did this resolution bear out such a statement ?— " That the Rev. H. L. Jenner having been nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, consecrated under Royal Mandate, Bishop of the See of Dunedin, this -Board recognis-s the duty of making preparations for his reception, by providing a suitable residence, and completing the requisite endowment.",,, > If that was not saying, in polished, but sufficiently explicit, language, ' ' You have been forced uponus,.butif we cannot escape you we will take you/ he did not know what could sot say dt. • Bishop Jenner appealed ' to the Generil Synod. Was he 'amenable to the Synod? The 23rd Article, which was the only one bearing on the question, said — 1 ' ' The nomination of a Bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and i$ such nomination be sanctioned by the' General Synod — or, if the General Synod be not in session, t>y the majority of the Standing Committees of the several dioceses — the senior Bishop shall take the necessary steps for giving effect to the nomination." Had that been done ? ' No. He had asked the Bishop of Christchurch whether the Synod had had the matter before them ; and the Bishop replied, "No." The appointment was irregular, .and we were not in any way bound by it. There was a point that touched us nearly, and would touch our descendants still more nearly. We might differ as to whether we' wanted a' Bishop or not : we might discuss whether we could pay a Bishop, or whether there was work for one here : but we must all agree, that if a Bishop came here, he should have some power. Bishop Jenner, if he came, would be power-less—i-morally,- because he 1 was not elected according to our Constitution ; physically, because no Court of Law -would ever carry out any decrees he might be pleased to fulminate against officers of the Church. Mr Smith : Nor those of any other Bishop in New Zealand: ' * Ji Mr Stanford understood that a Court of Law would enforce a contract, if there was shown to be one r but there were -two' parties necessary to. a contract, and we had been no party to the appointment of Bishop i Jenner.— '(Cries of "Yes,"'and;' No.")' We had been no party tc* his nomination, or to i anything else connected with the matter. He (Mr Stanford) very much hoped that the Board would > not adopt Mr Smith's resolution. It met none of our wants ;it would be . useless for the purpose for which it was i designed; and. it "was calculated to wound i Mr Young's feelings in a way which he had i not deserved, seeing that he had doao a -work' i for which we ought to 1 be very thankful to him.. ■ ; The Rev. T. Oldham thought that the i matter before the Board was one of such i 'really awful ■- importance, that it waa not ■ to be' settled- by five minutes' speeches, . or by references to what was considered l gentlemanly or consonant with etiquette I merely. He^ residing, in- 'the remotest porl> tionof the district of the Board, had acted | |with Mr Stanford, as best they could act, ■ ,in drawing up, hastily and- roughly, perhaps, ■ a- memorial on the'subject of Bishop Jenner's > appointment. That memorit.l had been j handed ' round, and had received between i 200 and 300 signatures. It had bythis time, s no doubt, been received by the Archbishop 5 of Canterbury, and been shown' to Dr Jenner. > That memorial showed very plainly what was i the opinion of the members of the Church on b Dr Jenner's appointment. ' Dr Jenner had ■ not been eleotsdi according 'to the Constitu- ,

tion of the Church, ; and w^en it became known throughout ,the' %vro Provxnce^nrhafc ■were the circumstances under ,wbiphu Dr ttenner became our Bishop,' the.' result u wpuld be very liitle dreditabja to the Cfltmrch. \He was not present when what was c»lled>the election took glace ; but ,My S|ta,nf,or<)L had stated T^at, then occurred... [{- At whose instigation Dr, Jenner was ijele^ted for ',the Bishopric, he did , not, knpw, and he presumed .the "Board did not ;know. Bishop t Selwyn seeded to have written Home, that as there were bus,,Bix, Bishops for a population, off .Jw), 000 souls r Jihers -was a need and,' a .atpping .desire for a seventh : though in Victoria, with a population of half la million, anil only one _ Bishop, the Church worked most excellently well. The resolutions of the Board, jn 1866, .gave no encouragement whatever for the appoutt ment;', and, jit, was astonishing .that .Dr Jenner— supposing, those repolutions ,to have been compnunieated to him — should have allowed himself to be consecrated, .until he had' some better reason to believe" that ,'he^ would be welcome, or that he was, wanted, here. Not alone the consequences to-dajr of this appointment, ought we now to consider : we ware responsible for the results of our action ; anil terrible would those results be, if we allowed a bastard Popery to be established in our midst.'--(Crie3 of " Question.") He would ihow that it would be a bastard Pppery, that would ■ be established. Did Dr, Jenner want to come here simply to make our Church, services" as grand as possible, ,in the matters of candles, ancl crucifixes, and processions,' and "bowings, and scrapings? No: t>r Jenner said, in, his letter that he did nqt ; and he (Mr Oldham) saw' four months ago, a letter to the 1 3auie effect, addressed by Dr Jenner to Mr C. yR. Martin, of Southland. But to realise the terrible significance of what was now being discussed, it must be'understood'hoy very small a thing mere ritual' was td men J of,Dr Jenner's party. In all their writings; it was laid down,' that externals were of no' consequence whatever : ritual was only valned. by them as the exponent of principle. 1 Dr Jenner could very well promise that he would not, for years' to come,' try to force' the external trappings of Ritualism — the chasubles, the dalmatics, the surcingles, and other nonsensical things. "Well might he promise to give them up, if he could the better insinuate the poison of his doctrines. If Dr. Jenner came here, he, had no right to rob Vis of the only innocent and attractive part of his system : he should carry it out fully and honestly. But we could not afford to trust these men. Twentyfire years had they been working up to their present point in, the development of Catholic ritual and grandeur : their schemea were cut and, dried ,; and they were persisted in. He believed Dr; , Jenner to^be as conscientious, honest, . and spiritual-minded a man — (hear, hear)— as any .other man of the party. He believed Dr.. Jenuer,,to" be as honorable as any man of the party — but not more so. But as with the Jesuits, so with these Ritualists : they believed. that r in working to 'restore Catholic grandeur — with Catholic doctrine behind it — and a glorious unity of Christendom, as they called it, tlia end justified the means. He was not at a,]i speaking of Dr. 'Jenner personally in thip matter : he regarded' Dr. Jenner'but as one member of a terrific party— a party which had great unscru'pulousness, and which ,for zeal, energy, and cleverness, certainly put to shame other parties in the Church.', tfDr. Jenner belonged to that party called Ritualists — and -who doubted that he did so belong?— it was utterly impossible that he could give up any principle involved in the great work of his party, eveu if he had. to wait as long as 26 years before he could hope to bring aboUt a recognition of his practices and his principles in New Zealand. He (Mr Oldham) had' considered, this matter, day and night, for the last six ' months ; and he wanted to convince, as to the principles of theparty of Dr Jenner, all those who had not come to a foregone conclusion that we wanted a B.shop so much that we must have onei no matter what his views. In his letter, Dr Jenner said, "My share in the St. Matthias's service was confined to giving the •Absolution and the Benediction." He re-; gretted to have to say it ; but that was unworthy of Dr Jenner, as a defence. All that he did at St. Matthias's, were those parts of, the service allotted to the Bishop as the most exalted and honorable parts — the very parts which would be assigned to the Bishop in the Church of Rome. If such was necessarily the ' ' firstly" in Dr Jenner'a excuse, it was a pitiable position for him. But, Dr Jenner added that he gave the Absolution and Benediction, " at the request of the incumbent, . who is a very dear friend" of! mine, and whose house is always my London, abode." The incumbent was the Rev. MrLcggatt, who promoted the wonderful, exhi-. bition of ecclesiastical art at the last Convo-, cation at York : but Mr Leggati; was a friend, and gave the doctor a shake-down, which was supposed to be reason enough, apparently, for what had beeji done. Mr Young was said tohave shown zeal without discretion in this matter. But Mr Young was an earnest l'man;'hestoodalone,asrepresentingtheChurch^ of England in this part of. the polony ; he was in a difficult position ;,and like anhpnest, man, he went straight to the mark, in his , endeavor to save the Church from tlie contentions that ' would come, if Dr, , Jenner came. There was 1 evidence of contention already; for there had "never been so much division at a previous meeting of the Board.. If Dr Jenner came, and strove to spread the doctrines of the Church, as his party held them — though he did not strive to force adoption of the externals— there would be more contention ; there might he r defectionn j and even schism. If tho laity lost their con«

we should see here," as . in .many r 7chu'rcnes ii^'Ehglantl, •'clergymen leift with • old'ladjf supporter and a ; few, •very poor 11 people to-be 1 eclifieahy' "their antics. ' W,asit ' not a matter of terrible importaiiee,' whether • ■ thd. l T laity were • to have no confidence ,in clergy men as' they were fcranight into the diocese, "confidence, ' dying sts, suspicion grew - tha^tTtoseclergym'enweredeeply miected with the' doctrinal views of Dr. . Seuner. . and the > school to .which ,'he belonged'? The ßoard ' had nbw^ to some extent,' an opportunity of ' doing that which might indoce Dr. Jenner not to'come out : ; and he niust'leolemnly impress' upon the Board the importance of doing that to the utmost extent, Because he felt sure that 'Dr. Jenner's coming would,' hereafter, be productive of the greatest harm to the Church:' Th« Rev. W. P. TatsTnkr said that he should move an amendment. ' What did "' Bishop Jenner's letter amount to? The Bishop had been told- ihat extreme views Would not be acceptable here' 1 ; and he re- °' plied that he would not force any extreme ' views on the Church — a course with which wo could have credited the Bishop, without having recaived his letter. Churchmen in Southland would not be content with having a Bishop who was under a promise not to < force extreme views upon them : they " wanted a man who could sympathise with ' them in their views of what the Church of England was, and who would lead them in the direction in which they wished to progress. He did not want to condemn Bishop Jenner as a man of extreme views ; • but he and the churchmen of Southland ' said, " "We <think it 'not advisable that a 1 Bishop should come here whose views are different to ours, and with whose views we could not sympathise." As expressing the ■ • views of those whom he represented, he would move as an amendment :—: — "That this Board desires to express its . thanks to Mr Young for the zeal he has shown in the interests of the Church, and for . the information contained in his letter. That, although, the formation of the new see, to the extent of the appointment of a Bishop, was carried on against the wishes of many members of the Church and without the sanction of the Board, still, the Board does not consider that it would be an honorable thing for it to ask Bishop Jenner to resign an appointment which he has already received, but is anxious .to "welcome him, if he is ready to have an active sympathy with those who are working in the Church as it has already been established." ■ The reports as to Bishop Jenner which had "been published, caused fear that he might entertain extreme views ; and it was simply •right that he should, as early as possible, be made acquainted with the feeling here. So 1 informed, let Bishop Jenner judge for him - self whe-lier it was' desirable that he should ' come here as Bishop of Dunedin.

The Rev. F. C. Simmons believed that Mr ' Tanner was right in the views he had put forward ; and, therefore, he (Mr Simmons) gladly seconded the amendment. He was Bure'that nobody present had a stronger feeling against Ritualism, in its puerility and absurdity, than he had. But the party of

"which the Ritualists formed the extreme ■wing had always had a place within the pale "of the Church of England, The Church of 'England as it was, might not be the Church as he should like it ; but the Church of England, like the British Constitution, -was the result of compromise. We had no right to say that ' Bishop Jenner was not an honest and a conscientious member of the Church of 'England. It had been said in that Board, of a gentleman of whom we knew no more than that he bore a high and honorable character. at Home, that he was one who was

capable of dissembling his views. — (Hear, hear.) Did any of those who said that, Tinow of a case in which Bishop Jenner had so dissembled? If such a case could be proved, Bishop Jenner was a most unfit man to be Bishop, here or anywhere else. He (Mr Simmons) regretted that terms should have been used which

were calculated to change calm and .temperate debate into platform controversy. He aid not like to hear such terms as ' ' bastard Popery." — (Hear, hear.) He felt convinced. that Bishop Jenner was occupying a place within the pale of the Church of England, ■which Bishop Jenner had a perfect right to occupy. The condemners" of * Bishop Jenner seemed to have a great want of faith in truth. Did they think, that the appointment of a Bishop, could alter the course of a Church in generations to' come? He thought it could

not :' he thought that no one man could .liter or stop the development of truth. Did the gentleman who' had spoken so strongly think that his views as to the Church could be

altered by Bishop Jenner ; and that those of his brethren could be similarly affected ? Were we not sufficiently guarded by the Constitution of our Church ? Could any Bishop in New Zealand force his doctrine upon any clergyman or body of men whatever? Could any Bishop occupy the pulpit of any one of the clergy in his diocese, if the clergyman did not choose to allow him to j occupy it?— (Cries of "Yes," and '.' No.' ! ) ,', Mr Stanford : For episcopal duties, he can.

' Mr Simmons : Which would happen about one Sunday a year. Surely, a clergyman must have very .little faith in himself, if during 51 Sundays a year he coald not effectually guard his congregation, against any error they might .possibly hear on the fifty-second Sunday. No man more grudgingly accepted, 'at the last meeting of the Board, the nomination of Bishop Jenner. than did he (Mr Simmons) ; but now that the Bishop was nominated, let us accept him on his merits. There had been a reference to Jesuits and their principles ; but Bishop

Jenner, whatever his views as to ( I;be Church, "was'undouWe'ai^anEitigtish gentleman! ' Why, then,, ahbuld.the Bishop beeupposeitobe'less , honorable 'than- ostierr English,' ,'gentlemen? x Bidhop'-Jenher ( was\no"w elected. — (No, no ) He 5 would rather not have 'seen a Bishop , "elected at all ; and if one, was to be elected, , he would greatly ' have , pref er/ed .having ont free from any _ tendency to Ritualism. But ■■ 'the wisest plan now would be to accept that which^was a fact; auct ..to',, take Bishop, Jennet's word that he would not attempt to introduce anything like Ritualistic practices into the Church in Otago and Southland. , He thoughtthat law should,, strictly regulate the procee iings of the Board ; and though his opinions were opposed to those of Bishop Jenner, as far as he could judge of the Bishop's opinions, he would now do what he could to stand between the Bishop and those by whom he thought, the, Bishop was being unfairly attacked.

. Mr Dewe said that Mr Young was known here to. be a man of high honor and Christian principle. We might make allowance for some exaggeration in the language used when writing on the subject under discussion ; but any one who had known Mr Young in this Province, knew him to be a man who would not willingly deceive the Board on any point. The Archbishop of Canterbury had been represented as writing of Dr Jenner as a man "holding his own opinions without obtruding them upon others 5". but now we had Mr Young's authority that the Archbishop said that Bishop Jenuer's appointment " caused him more grief and anxiety than he could express." It was to "be regretted that the word "forcing" should have been used in connection with Bishop Jcnner's resignation ; but there stood ( , explicitly in Mr Young's letter, the statement that the Primate now disapproved of the man whom it was wished to make the head of our Church in Otago and Southland. It might be said that the Bishop would have no real power. If so, what did we want with a Bishop ? But there were certain offices, which a Bishop alone could perform. Amongst those was that of Confirmation ; and this was what Bishop Jenner was reported to have said at a Confirmation at rft. Matthias's, in England :—: —

14 The Bishop told them. ' that as surely as the Holy Ghosfe descended upon the Apostles it would now descend . upon them, whether they willed it or no, and asked them to think, before they received that gift, whether they were prepared to become the recipients of so great and unspeakable a blessing.' He then laid his hands upon them, and said :—: — ' You have now received the gift of "which I spoke to you just before: You have received all that will help you on the road to salvation, or, in other words, done His part, and has given you all that is required to enable you to obtain salvation. The question you have to consider, now that you have received the unspeakable gift of all that i you require to take you to heaven is, how are you to live in the future ? T cannot know anything with certainty as to whether you ■ have partaken of the Holy Sacrament of the holy body and blood of Christ. When I tell you that God has~given you all that is necessary for your salvation now that you have been confirmed, h am not forgetting that other gift — the gift of the Holy Communion. He has put you in the way and made you capable of obtaining mercy. You haye now to consider how yon may use that grace.' " Those were the doctrines of the man whom the amendment proposed we should welcome as the head of our Church! He (Mr Dewe) had always maintained that the appointment of Bishop Jenner was irregular,; and that the Board had to the utmost 6f its power vetoed that appointment. If he understood rightly the decisions at Home as to the Colonial Churches, the Archbishop could consecrate a Bishop as of a Colony, but could not appoint him to a see— that Dr Jenner was a Bishop of New Zealand (coadjutor of the Bishop of Christchurch, he had been told),- but not Bishop of Dunedin. If that was so, he did not see that we were in any way bound to accept Bishop Jenner, if we approved neither of his doctrines nor of the way in which he was appointed. Mr William Black confessed that he came to the meeting with a ' ' foregone conclusion ;" and he could not conceive how any honorable man could do otherwise. He believed that Bishop Jeuner would not be dictated to by the clergyman and laity of Invercargill ; but he had no doubt the Bishop would forgive all the unmanly, 'ungentlemanly, and unchristian language that had been used towaids him.

The Rev. R. L. Stafford called the speaker to order, and moyed that the words jus 1 : used be taken down.

Mr Black explained. He was content to say, only, that he considered the attacks upon the Bishop, in his absence, to have been minianly. He could not see that a discussion upon Eitualisrn could be productive of good ; and he thought that the notion of the Bishop's opponents was calculated to 1 produce 'the contentions they deprecated, and to make a martyr of the Bishop. He (Mr Black) thought that the course <to be taken by the Board should be to inform, the Bishop, in a stoaightforward way, what were the feelings entertained here, and then, -if the Bishop went against those feelings, he must take the consequences

The Liev. ~R. L. Stanford (speaking on the amendment) said that we were told joyfully to accept Dr. Jenuer as our Bishop, because he could do us no harm and might do ua good. That was not understandable. We were told that Dr. Jenner was to have an active sympathy with the .Church here, and that he would not attempt to intruduce his own views as to the Church. But, as a commonsense question — Was it conceivable that a man could come amongst us, holding opinions

m.thej, enthusiastic jW&y ia "which, to do -them justices, 'members of Dr. Jenner's party. hfcld , their opinions,, and not show? and. try toV.give effect Uir- those opinions? .Could a man entertaining suph. views as to. Confirmation as ■ were set put in ,the extract rdad ,by Mr Dewe, fail ,'jto .use .the powers there claimed^, for the; salvation of -the ..peopj.6, amongst whom he lived? An. honest man must preach such doctrines, if .he, held' them. , If a man,- held) such doctrines and did riot .practise them, he was a hypocrite ; if he did npt hold them and yet* practised them, he was a fool. These symbols did mean something to Ritualists : the Ritualists- said that the symbols they - used implied a truth, and tended towards one great central doctrine, that of the act of Christian Union. If Bishop Jenner came out, he would practise. Ritualistic doctrines ; and there would be a large' and important secession from the Church of our forefathers : some of our best and. most earnest men would leave it. He did not accept the terms, "truth" and "the Church," as co-relative in the sense in which they had been used by Mr Simmons. He held that the cause of truth would progress, although there were goings-back from time to time ; and he believed that we should experience one of these back currents directly Bishop Jenner entered upon his duties in this Province. He appealed to the members of the Board — if they had a desire that their children should be brought up in the Church in which they themselves had been trained to worship — to vote against both the motion and the amendment.

Mr Smith thought that the amendment evaded the real question, while the original motion raised it fairly. That question was, " Shall we do anything to dissuade the Bishop from coming here ? " He was not prepared to thank Mr Young for zeal which he (Mr Smith) thought to have been misdirected ; and he • apprehended that the statement that the appointment of a Bishop was "without the sanction of the Board," was not true, in point of fact. Although the appointment of the Bishop was somewhat premature, the steps ,for the formation of a Bishopric distinct from that of Chrißtchurch, wjre taken with the express sanction of the Board. He (Mr- Smith) knew that the opinion of a majority of the Board was declared, that the Bishopshould not be actually appointed until a sufficient pecuniary provision had been made for his support ; out he (Mr' Smith) could not pledge himself to a resolution which said, in effect, that the formation, of the Bishopric had been altogether without the sanction o£ the Board, when he knew that just the contrary was the fact. The last resolution of the Board on the subject accepted the appointment, and stated that it ' was the duty of the Board to provide for his : reception. What, then, was the good of V harking back" to the 'reluctance 'with which the appointment was originally as- ■ i sented to ? He could not understand the logic of the amendment, which proposed by- a J side wind to express dissatisfaction with the I formation of the Bishopric, and went on to say that, still, it would not be honorable to ask Bishop Jenner to resign hia appointment. Let the members of the Board refuse to entertain any other question than this :—"ls: — "Is there anything in the information conveyed in Mr Young s letter which, when placed side by side with the letter of the B shop of Dunedin, should induce us to ask him not to come amongst us ? or anything which can induce us to say that, if he comes, he will come to disseminate doctrines not in accordance with those of the Church . of England, or wh eh would be distasteful to the members of that Church, and therefore calculated to produce dissension?" However the motion' might be treated, he hoped 'that the amendment would be negatived, so as to clear the way for another amendment, if the motion was not satisfactory to the majority of the members.

Mr Rattray strongly disapproved of Bishop Jenner's appointment. He thought we knew enough of Bishop Jenner, from Mr Young's letter, and in other ways, to make us sure that he would,- in time — not at once, of course— seek to carry out his own views. He did not think that the Bishop's own human nature would allow him to carry out the promise made in his letter to the Rural Dean. An earnest man, such as Bishop Jenner was, according to all accounts, could not, on entering Otago, throw off his feeling in favor of Ritualism, just as one would throw off a great coat, on getting into a warmer climate. He felt the difficulty as to its being dishonorable for us to endeavor to get rid of Bishop Jenner ; and he saw no practical course open but to make Bishop Jenner at once fully aware of the circumstances of the position which he must assume when he came here. He (Mr Rattray) had sketched two resolutions which would naturally follow the amendment, if that was adopted, und which Avould most plainly inform Bishop Jenner- that we had a very strong opinion, against Ritualism, and that there was no endowment fund provided. Mr Smith : He knows that already, well. .Mr B. • Hibbard said that, personally^ ' he' did not know much about Ritualism : but he was sent to the Board to represent a large parish in Tokomairiro ; and those who elected him would so much object to see anything! 'like Ritualism, introduced, that they would cease to be connected with the Church, if there was a Bishop who was s» strong a favorer of Ritualistic practices as Dr Jenner undoubtedly seemed to be. That was what the men who hud elected him had sent him to the Board to say. Apart fromthe members of the Church ■ in the parish from which he came, there Ay ere two large' districts which he believed would soon have the benefit of the ministrations of a clergyman for themselves, but which were at pre- ,

'seal; under Mr Slaifo'&ftch&geU '-^Ua gentleman preachcd-^t.Tokpinajr^oi^sthe morning of each Sunday, and afterwards he rodeto,WMtahuna ajul ; to Tuapeka,>nd preached there]. The sunple^minded men in those districts would, he was convinced, not attend 1 the Church, under such a Bißhop as Dr Jenner, if fche.extracts read as tp Dr Jenner's doptriues correctly set forth those doctrines. When the petition with respect io Bishop. Jenner was beings circulated, he refused to•sign it, .because he would not' sign upon, only newspaper reports, what was disparaging to any man ; but he must believe statements made by one whom, he had seen solong'holding the highest positions in connection with the Church which "could be occupied by a' layman, as Mr Young had done, when, those statements 'were made by onewho said that he had seen what he described. Mr Young wrote as to, what he saw at St! Matthias's— -

"A procession, composed of clergy, choristers, and the Bishop, all more or less gorgeously arrayed, was formed outside the church, and was. met by other officials at .the porch. It proceeded down the middle aisle in the following order : — Boy carrying on high a large gold cross— choir chanting—boy carrying scarlet and white banner, which was afterwards affixed to the pulpit.; remainder of choir — boys carrying blue, scarlet, and white banners— two boys, each waving censers of burning incense. The clergy, I think eight in number— then the Bishop— lastly a boy, bearing a large purple banner,, with medallion on gold ground." That last boy must have borne hia banner over the head of our Bishop. Could he (Mr Hibbard), brought up as he had been, with respect to the Church, go and listen to suik a man ? Those simple-minded men to whom he had referred would not be content unless he did all he could to oppose Bishop Jenner's coming here : they would say to him, " You should have said aud done all that was possible to prevent that Bishop coming ont here." He (Mr Hibbard) must give his. utmost opposition, in order that, on going back, he might be able to say, "I have done the duty you sent me to do." At the last meeting of the Board, he thoroughly agreed with the remarks of Mr Smith as to the°f ol]y of a Bishop coming out on so small a stipend j and he was thoroughly convinced that the attempt to raise anything like a, proper endowment fund for Bishop Jenner would be a miserable failure. The Rev. A. Giffobd objected to the amendment, because there was abundant evidence on record th,at for the last five years there had been unanimity as to the formation of a Bishopric of 'Dunedin. The Rev. T. Oldham (on the amendment) said that he did not consider that he had uttered anything which called for an apology. He had spoken from his heart ; and if he had not pleased those who had come to the meeting with a "foregone conclusion, 5 ' he could not help it. The principles of Dr. Jenner's party were such as to require equivocation, dissimulation, and evasion, that they might advance in the Church. TJiey said, speaking of the most advanced, Churches Mr Simmons : I 'don't see what other people's opinions have to do with the opinions of Bishop Jennet. Mr Oldham : The party to which Dr Jenner belonged were, -and must be, unworthy of trust. Their views were, that in the churches where full ritual was established, the posts should be established and strengthened. As to other churches, they held that there was none in which some little advance might not be made. Where the black gown, was used, it might be discarded for the snrplice ; where the surplice was used and the prayers were read, a choral service on one evening of the week might be begun — the codgregation would soon come to like it, it was said ; when a choral service on Sunday ! morning came to be tolerated, candles might be placed on the altar ; then, in, the evening, those candles might be lighted : and so on! Was it not to deceive congregations to act out such principles? especially when we knew that the Ritualists remained in their present position, only until the storm wasblown over ; and, that, trusting to the easy nature of the English temper, they trusted to see that storm blown over very easily. All that we" prized in connection with our Church was to be gradually got rid of ; and those who remained in the Church would have nothing left to them but the essentialsof Poper y. Mr Simmons : I understand the reverend gentleman to say that he is not describing Bishop Jenner's principles ? Mr Oldh.iM was describing the theological principles of Dr. Jenner and all his party ; and those principles were not of light consequence, and to be laughed at. When the laity here knew how the tbinghadbeencarried out at Home, andfthat such was the principles of thafc party — that the advancement of thoseprinciples must b6 the life-object and aim of every earnest man of the party — the laity would not be content that such' a system, should be established here.

The Rev. E. GRANGE%eouId hot but feel that there was an element altogether left out of the discussion— what he would call the real Church element. If the Board were to act towards Bishop Jenner as some of its members advised it to act, the effect would, be little other than to excommunicate him. He (Mir Granger) could not' but recognise that the appointment of the Bishop had received the sanction of the Board. At the last meeting, when a great deal was known about Dr. Jenner — when he believed Dr. Jenner to be just where he now believed him to be, as to Ritualism, namely, at the top of ' the tree — the resolution was passed that as Dr. Jenner had been consecrated,' the Board recognised, the duty of making preparations

for his reception. He (Mr Grander) was aniious for delay ; but the resolution was carried, and — although much had been made 1 of the words, " without the concurrence of : the Board," as in the amendment now under j discussion — that resolution was adopted by 11 to 5. He believed, therefore, that the irregularity of the appointment had been altogether waived ; and those who believed that, could hardly now ask the Bishop to resign. There was, however, this difficulty :— lf the Bishop said, " I do not intend to carry out extreme ( views amongst you," a suspicion must be raised that he held such views, and would carry them out if he had the power. He (Mr Granger) was in no way ashamed of the term "Catholic Church;" and he held that Bishop Jenner was within the pale of the Church of England until there had been some legal decision against him. The Common Prayer Book would admit of the Bishop's doing and saying all that had bden charged against him. — (No, no.) There was nothing in the extract as to Confirmation •whick, upon the broad basis of the Prayer Book of the Church of England, could not be said by the Bishop as an ordained Priest. The Prayer Book was designed to embrace a large number of people who might somewhat differ in their opinions ; and because Bishop Jenner might not agree with him on some points, was that a reason why he (Mr Granger)* should not continue to work hi that section of the Church with which he was connected? He thought that Bishop Jenner's letter was a fair one ; but he felt that when Bishop Jenner came, ■we must look with some degree of suspicion upon what he said and did. He {Mr Granger) acknowledged the difficulty that the Bishop might come to his church some Sunday, and preach different doctrines to those he ( Mr Granger) had been preaching throughout the rest of the year ; but he was not quite sure that it would not be well for the laity to listen to the Bishop, nevertheless, and to feel that difference of opinion did not necessitate exclusion from the Church. It would not be a bad thing for congregations to hear a little difference of opinion ; for clergymen were apt to get into a groove, and difference, occasionally stated, would stir a congregation to thought. Mr Hibbard : The congregation will be off to another Church. Mr Granger was not at all afraid of that. At Home, it was clear, from the accounts published, that the Ritualists attracted a large number of people who would not otherwise attend any place of worship. They appealed to the educated classes by their refinement ; and the lower classes, who would not attend church otherwise, were appealed to through their senses. As far as he knew of the matter, there was a great deal more of devotion in Ritualistic churches than was the rule in other churches. Yet, he felt that Ritualism bordered very much on superstition. While, therefore, he did not like the amendment, as not being strong enough in expressing dislike to Ritualism, he would not join in asking Bishop Jenner not to come here, for that would be taking a part in what was very like excommunication. Mr Wayne moved the adjournment of the meeting until Thursday. The subject was far too important to be disposed of iv one sitting ; and there were many members who would wish to speak. Mr Martin seconded the motion. The motion was negatived, after discussion; as were several others for adjournments for a short period. Mr Howorth said that he must confess to having come to the meeting with, to a great measure, a " foregone conclusion ;" for prior to consenting to act as one of the lay representatives of the Church at Invercargill, he had felt bound, from conscientious motives, to state what his views were. Although he had not before taken any active part in connection with the proceedings of the Board, lie had taken an active part in the Church to which he belonged ; and he had carefully lead all the proceedings of the Board as to the Bishop. He concluded that we had now consented to the election of Bishop Jenner. — (A Voice : Never.) He thought so. giuce j the sanction to his appointment, Bishop Jenner had taken part in certain proceedings in churches in England : thence, Mr Young's letter, and the letter of the Bishop. The question now was, Were we to repent over what we had done, and ask the Bishop not to come out ? or, Were we to accept acts by which we were bound, and to welcome the Bishop, should he determine to come ? He thought that Mr Smith's motion exactly met the case. The amendment would only open the way to a great deal of unnecessary discussion ; and as it and the motion went together to some extent, he would suggest to the R,ev. Mr Tanner to withdraw the amendment. The resolutions read by Mr Rattray ■were not pertinent to the present question, •which was simply as totheproj ri^ty of inviting Bishop Jenner to come, or asking him to stay away. He regretted that the Bishop had taken so prominent a part in connection with Ritualism ; but he was inclined to give the Bishop a fair trial. In his view, so long as the laity took an active part in church management, a Bishop would have very little control over its rites and ceremonies.

The Key. R. L. Stanford proposed an adjournment for half an hour ; and the motion was seconded.

Mr Moss hoped that the motion would not be pressed. He, for one, would like to have a little further information before there was any interruption of the debate. Much had been said about the great importance, to the Church of Englaad here, of the appointment of the Bishop ; but he could not at present see what very great influence a Bishop could exercise, beyond that which he might earn

by his personal character. He did not think that the Bishop would come armed with despotic power over all the churches ; he did not think that the Bishop would be able to dictate either to the Ministers or to the congregations in the diocese. Certainly, he would not receive his opinions from the Bishop. Supposing that the congregation at lliverton, for instance, dcci' e£ that it was desirable to use banners, with medallions on them, would the Bishop hdve the power, even if he had the desire, to cut off that congregation from the Church ? He (Mr Moss) thought that the fears of several reverend gentlemen were much exaggerated : the Bishop had said that he wouM resign when called upon so to do by the General Synod, and that seemed to him (Mr Moss) to settle the whole question, if the General Syßod had any such power, which he believed did not exist anywhere in England.

Mr Gifford : It is due to the Bishop's acquiescence in the Constitution of the Church in New Zealand. Under the Constitution, a Court can be appointed to try ecclesiastical offences, and there can be a dismissal. Bishop Selwyn said recently, that he believed that such a case as that of Bishop Colenso could not arise in New Zealand. The Bishop of Dunedin's submission to the Constitution here, does settle the question.

MrM\RTIN thought the question before the Board was as to an adjournment.

Mr Moss hoped ho might be allowed to refer to another point. He utterly refused to believe but that one part of Mr Young's letter was based upon a misunderstanding, someAvhere. If he did not entertain that opinion, he should be sorry to have to state what he thought of the Archbishop of Canterbury's conduct. He had the greatest faith in Mr Young, personally ; but he had no faith in conversations reported in the way the conversation between the Primate and Mr Young was reported in Mr Young's letter. He could not for a moment believe that, if the Archbishop of Canterbury desired to communicate his views to the Rural Deanery Board, his Grace would do it without giving Bishop Jenner knowledge that he had done so. He (Mr Moss) thought that the Church of Eugland was large and wide enough to hold men differing somewhat in their views. We had Bishop Jenner appointed to this diocese. Could we not now meet him face to face? Would the Bishop have such despotic powers as to render useless any opposition on .the part of the churches here ? Nothing which he (Mr Moss) had heard, induced him to believe such a thing ; and, therefore, he should vote for the motion of Mr Smith.

An adjournment for half an hour, for the purpose of consultation, was again moved, and was agreed to. When the Board resumed,

Mr Martin said he thought that the real cause of the unfortunate position in which the Board was placed had been altogether overlooked. He held that the appointment of the Bishop was not legal. It was true that, at the last meeting, it was resolved that steps should be taken to raise funds for the Bishop's stipend ; but it did not follow that, at any previous meeting, the appointment had been sanctioned by the Board. There had been all along an objection to the Bishop's coming until a stipend was raised ; and a second objection, the existence of which it was useless to attempt to deny, was based on personal grounds.

Mr Smith : Such grounds were never referred to.

Mr Martin : The resolutions proposed tonight did not seem to him to put the cap on the right head. The forcing, of a Bishop upon us, he attributed to the mismanagement ot the Bishop of New Zealand. — (A. Voice : That is true.) He was never authorised to indent a Bishop to us. — (Laughter.) He (Mr Martin) looked upon it as indenting a Bishop. It was certainly suggested that a Bishop would be useful here ; and the Bishop of New Zealand was requested to inform the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was considered desirable to look out for, not only a Bishop, but one who possessed some private income. The first thing we heard after that, was that Bishop Jenner was forced upon us There could be no denying that His hop Jenner had, at Home, identified himself with a party which, was decidedly objectionable to us. He (Mr Martin) wanted to throw the responsibility of the present complication upon the right persons ; and he thought that would be clone by adopting the following :—: —

" That this Board, after considering the correspondence of Mr W. C. Young relative to Dr. Jenner, views with considerable alarm the possibility of Ritualistic practices being introduced into the Church in Otago and Southland, since the introduction of such practices could not but result in the most unhappy divisions. " That, seeing that as far as the Church here is concerned, the entire responsibility of causing the appointment rests with the Bishop of New Zualand, copies of Mr Young's correspondence be forwarded by the next mail to the Bishop of New Zealand, with a request to him to consult "with the Bishop of Christchurch, and with the Archbishop of Canterbury — on whom the responsibility of the present appointment directly rests — and urging such steps as they may think fit to be taken to prevent the deplorable results which this Board thinks likely to ensue from the appointment of a Bishop of extreme views." The Bishop of New Zealand and the Archbishop of Canterbury, being at Home, would have a better opportunity than we could have of ascertaining whether Dr. Jenner did hold such views as we feared he held. He (Mr Martin) was almost inclined to go further : to lay before the Board a letter he had received from Mr Murison, and to recommend that the fund subscribed as for a

Bishop's stipend, should be applied to the payment of the clergymen already in Otago and Southland, some of wham had. not been paid LlO for the last year. He felt sure that, with the consent of the subscribers, the fund could be so applied. He would move the proposals he had read, as an amendment on Mr Smith's motion.

Mr Dewe seconded the amendment. He ' wished to call the attention of the Board to the resolutions passed in February, 1866. On the 21st February, last year, there was, he believed, a meeting, but he was not present. On the 22nd, certain resolutions were passed, upon a letter which had been received, notifying the appointment of Bishop Jenner as Bishop of Dunedin. At that time, a letter was read from Bishop Selwyn, in which he said that he was taken by surprise by the prompt action of the Archbishop, upon a letter which had only requested His Grace to look round for two or three clergymen whom he could recommend as fit and proper for the Bishopric of Dunedin. The letter from the Archbishop stated that he had asked Dr Jenner if he would accept- the office ; and that Dr Jenner said he would be willing to take it, on condition that the people of the Rural Deanery would accept him. The people, in very strong terms, stated their disapproval of the appointment ; they said that they were not in a position to raise funds to provide for a Bishop as he should be provided for. The Board, at the meeting in February. 18(3G, resolved that, as a sufficient provision for a Bishop had not been made, it was not expedient to take any present action with a view of confirming the conditional appointment of the Rev. H. L. Jenner, ' ' more especially as that appointment has been made without the sanction or concurrence of the Board." Afterwards, it was resolved, that the Board desired to record its extreme regret that through a misconception, Dr Jenner should have been led to suppose that the time had arrived for the appointment of a Bishop of Dunedin, there having been, up to the present time, no endowment raised, and the Board continuing to be decidedly opposed to such an appointment, without a sufficient endowment fund having been raised. It was ordered that copies of those resolutions should be forwarded at once to Dr Jenner. No more was heard on the matter ; and Dr Jenner having requested an answer, it was assumed that the resolutions had been sent to him as such answer. When the Board met, on the 21st February this year, and the question was raised that the minutes of the meeting of 1866 be confirmed, the Bishop of Christchurch, who presided, vetoed them.

Mr Granger : They were vetoed before that.

Mr Dewe : Then why were we not called together and told of it, before the meeting in February, 1887 ? The resolutions which he had quoted were adopted at an adjourned meeting ; he very well recollected that there was an adjournment with a view of enabling the Bishop of New Zealand to be present.

Mr Smith : Those resolutions were really of no effect, be. iuse the Board was found not to have been iv existence at the time they were adopte l. The term for which the Board was elected had expired ; and any resolutions passed by it were nugatory. Mr Dewe would not attempt to gainsay Mr Smith's as a legal opinion ; but if the resolutions were known to be nugatory, because the Board was not legally in existence, why should the Bishop of Christchurch say, " I veto them ?" Still greater blame seemed to rest upon some one, if things were as now stated. Dr Jenner had requested an answer from a constituted authority in the Rural Deanery. Was he treated so discourteously that no answer was sent, although resolutions meant as an answer were passed by the Board ? If the Board was not a regularly constituted one, why was there not such a Board in existence ? And how could the Bishop veto resolutions that were null and void ?

The Rural De vn : There is no doubt that everything done at the meeting in February, 180(5, was null and void.

Mr Dewe : Then, there could be no veto.

The Rural Dean : The Bishop had put his veto upon the resolutions before the irregularity was ascertained.

Mr Dewe : Then was there a Standing Committee existing at the time, if there was no Board ; and was the Committee liable ? As there was reason to believe that Bishop Jenner had not yet left England, but was waiting for the decision of a regularly-consti-tuted Board ; as we still thought he should not come out ; as he had not received his appointment as Bishop of Dunedin, but only as a Bishop in New Zealand — if we still objected to his Ritualistic doctrines, his holding of which was conclusively proved — we should adopt Mr Martin's amendment.

Mr Black opposed this amendment. Bishop Jenner could only reply to the Bishop of New Zealand and the Archbishop of Canterbury, "If the people of the Rural Deanery do not believe my letter, they will not believe what I may say to you." If the Board did not believe the letter, they had better plainly ask the Bishop to stop in England. Mr Dewe said that he supposed that he had seconded only the first of Mr Martin's proposals. Mr Martin would divide his motion. The first paragraph only was now before the Board.

Mr Smith : Don't you think it would be well to define what "Ritualistic" means?

Mr Martin: I think that "buffoonery" would define it.

The Rev. A. Gifford hoped that a clause would be added to the amendment, referring to Bishop Jenner's letter. Mr Martin had no objection to add 1 — that a copy of the Bishop's letter he sent Home at the same time.

The Rev. R. L. Stanford must insist upon trying to hammer it into the heads of some gentlemen, that the Board had not approved of the formation^of a Bishopric. He did not think that Mr Martin had used. too strong language on that pomt — we had been disgracefully tricked into having this Bishop here. Bishop Selwyn -was never asked to do more than select some one who might become a Bishop ; the selection lay with the Diocesan Synod, and it had never selected Dr. Jenner or anybody else. If the Board had, in February, 1866, ceased legally to exist, by the lapse of time, its members, nevertheless, and not the less, represented the opinions of the people of the Rural Deanery. Though the resolution then adopted was vetoed, it was Bent Home ; and he knew that that resolution delayed Bishop Jenner in England. The whole thing resolved itself into two points : — "Do we approve^ of Eitualism?' "Is Dr Jenner a Ritualist?" As a definition had been suggested, he would say that by "Ritualists," he meant those men who belonged to the school now disturbing the Church of England — who by symbols, and doctrines, and gyrations, and abominable antics in Church, were distressing the common sense of the ordinary public in England. If a man said, ' ' I like a service in which incense, and dresses, and banners are used," that was understandable. But when men said, "We objtct to Ritualism," and yet wanted what they were quite certain was a Ritualist Bishop, that was not understandab'e — it was not common sense. Nobody would propose to pay a Bishop for doing nothing. So Bishop Jenner. if he came here, would do something. If he had influence, he must endeavor to enforce his doctrines ; a Bishop without influence would be as useful to us if he stopped in England as if he came here. It had been said, "The Church is wide enough to contain persons of different doctrines." But the Church of England in a Colony was in a certain sense but a sect — what was, in polite language, called "a denomination." We had to make rules for our own guidance ; we had to exclude those whom we considered to differ from what we believed to be the Church of England ; we were a Free Church, in a word. When Lord Carnarvon said that the Colonial Churches could owe nothing to the Church of England — could derive no prestige from her — he made us a sect. Every man who now voted in favor of Dr. Jenner coming here, would by his vote say, ' ' 1 wish to see Ritualistic doctrines, as they are commonly understood, introduced here." — (No, no.) He did not see how any man could escape from that common-sense conclusion. Fire and water were not more opposed than were Protestantism and Dr. Jenner. — (The speaker commented at some length upon Bishop Jenner's letter.) The Rev. F. C. Simmons said that the last speaker had omitted to condemn as f\lse, one part of Bishop Jenner's letter. "Most faithfully yours," the Bishop wrote in conclusion. Could not Mr Stanford bring his critical acumen to bear on those words, so as to show their falsity ? He (Mr Simmons) had never read a more earnest, honorable, open letter, than that of the Bishop. — ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) A discussion on doctrine was now entirely beside the point. He was very sorry that a Ritualist had been appointed Bishop of Dunedin ; but as he had been appointed, we were bound to give him fair play. Bishop Jenner had been nominated by the person whom we authorised to nominate. We might say that we had been jockeyed, or that tlie appointment was an error ; but we were bound to stand by it. Mr Stanford : When did we appoint a nominator ? Mr Simmons : The Bishop of Christchurch, as chairman of the Board, declared that we j did appoint a nominator. However that might be, Bishop Jenner was coming here — nobody could doubt that he meant that ; he asked but for fair play, so let us resolve to give it to him. He (Mr Simmons) lived for five years in Scotland, under the Bishop, of Brechin, who was acknowledged to be the very head of the High Church party, The laity in Scotland were Low Church, to an extent that was not known in England ; yet the Bishop of Brechiu, by the sheer goodness of his life, lived amongst his flock upon perfectly good terms. It was a miserable notion, that goodness depended upon doctrine. If Bishop Jenner came amongst us, and could inform us by his goodness of life, he would be doing a good work ; and he might do that work though we differed from him on every point of technical theology, for, from all that he (Mr Simmons) had heard, the Bishop was what must be called a most excellent good man. The Rev. W. P. Tanner proposed an adjotirument until Thursday evening. Mr Mason hoped that the evident intention to postpone a division until the next clay, when several members now present could not attend, would be resisted. The Rev. R. L. Stanford seconded the motion for adjournment. The motion was negatived ; as was another for adjournment until ten o'clock on Thursday morning. Mr Martin's amendment was put ; and there voted — For, 9 : Rev. Messrs Oldham, Stanford, and Tanner; Messrs Wayne, Orbell, Rattray, Hibbard, Dewe, and Martin. Noes, 12 : Rev. Messrs Gifford, Simmons, Dasent, and Granger; Messrs Black, Mason, Moss, Snrth, Butterworth, B' vorth, Pantlin, and Rowley. / This amendment was, therefore, negatived. The Rev. Mr Tanner's amendment .was put, and was also negatived, five voting for it, viz — Revs. Messrs Simmons, Oldham, and Tanner] Messrs Rattray and Wayne,

Mr Martin moved, as an amendment, the second paragraph of his amendment as originally, proposed, but which paragraph, as before stated, he withdrew at the request of Mr Dewe. The paragraph commences, " That, seeing that so far as the Church here is concerned," &c. The Rev. R. L. Stanford seconded this amendment. A wail as to the deplorable results of Dr Jenner's coming here might well be allowed to go Home. Mr Smith strongly opposed the amendment; and he appealed to the opposing members to have charity enough to believe what Bishop ' Jenner had written, and forbearance enough, to give the Bishop fair play, which was all he asked. This amendment was negatived by 11 votes against 9 ; but the names were not taken, the only difference, as compared with the division on Mr Martin's firs' amendment, we believe, being that Mr Simmons did not now vote. Mr Smith's original motion was put, and was adopted by 12 votes to 9 ; the division j list being the same as on Mr Martin's first i amendment. Mr Smith moved — "That copies of the foregoing resolution, and of the correspondence therein referred to, be at once forwarded to the Bishop of Dunedin." Mr Black seconded the motion. Mr Rattray thought that the Bishop should be informed exactly of what he would be coming out to. The resolution already adopted did not with sufficient clearness let the Bishop understand that the Rural Deanery Board had no means of maintaining him. He (Mr Rattray) would therefore move as an amendment to the present motion :—: — "That since the proper Endowment Fund ■ for the Bishopric of Dunedin has not been, and is not likely to be, raised in these Provinces, the Bishops of New Zealand and of Christchurch be requested to endeavor to complete it in England, so that when the | new Bishop arrives he may have a sufficient maintenance. That copies of this resolution, and of the correspondence referred to in the first resolution, be sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the Bishops of New Zealand and of Christchurch." The Rev. R. L. Stanford seconded the amendment. Mr Martin would like to have it recorded, that the original motion had been carried by the votes of the (as he considered irregularly) nominated representatives of Southland ; without whose votes the decision would, at least, have been left to the casting vote of the Rural Dean. Mr Black feared that the amendment now proposed would stop the efforts to increase the Endowment Fund here. The Rev. E. Granger would go still farther with the amendment, and word it as to dissuade the Bishop from coming out until a proper fund had been raised. After some conversation, Mr Smith, by the leave of the Board, withdrew his motion in favor of Mr Martin's amendment, which was then adopted without a dissentient. TheßuralDeanproHOuncedtheßenediction. The meeting was commenced shortly after seven o'clock on Wednesday evening, and it was concluded at a quarter after one o'clock i on Thursday morning. J

An interesting description of the great glacier which is formed on the west side of Mount Cook, and which approaches within & few miles of the sea-coast in the neighborhood of the township of Okarita, appealed in the Westland Observer of 30th August. A party of gentlemen, consisting of Mr Price, the "Warden, Mr Mueller, the District Surveyor, and Mr Hacket, of the Geological Department, lately visited the glacier. They describe the glacier as follows : — The foot of the glacier is situate thirteen miles from the sea, at an elevation (measured by the barometer) of 640 ft above high water mark. Its width at the foot measures 1900 ft. The angle of inclination for the lower one and a half miles is lOdeg to lldeg ; going upwards, where the glacier contracts, it presents a steeper gradient, and has an apparent incline of 26deg, as taken by the clinometer. The immense field of snow which feeds the glacier, and which is so prominent a feature when seen from the coast, was not visible from the foot. In fact, the glacier itself is not seen from any part of the river bed, until arriving within a quarter of a mile of it, when the stupendous mass of snow and ice at once breaks on the view. Below the glacier, a recent moraine extends for Beveral hundred yards, consisting of debris of the rock, 20ft deep, underlaid by ice and snow, through "which considerable streams of water run, which are rendered visible in round holes, caused by the giving way of the ice, and by cracks in the surface. This part, where the water now runs subterraneously, is in the summer time entirely covered by the greater ■quantity of water from the melting of the enow. On the southern side of the glacier there has recently been a great fracture of the ice, accompanied by a Dreach of the rock, which had fallen in immense masses, After taking the preliminary observations and measurements, the party aßcended the glacier itself on its northern side, where the snow or ice formed rounded hills, undisturbed by any cracks or fissures. The glacial matter is porous, and presents tolerable •footing ; it is of a grey color, full of small dirt, with occasional stones, which had evidently fallen from the surrounding hills. The great peculiarity of this glacier is not ■•only its immense size, but the consequent .fact of its descending to so low a level, viz., . 640 ft. above the sea level, instead of ending,

as is usually the case, at an altitude of some 3000 or 4000 feet, close to the limit of perpetual snow, amongst Alpine vegetation. Here the green bush extends some thousands of feet above the glacier, on the steep sides of the range in which the glacier has cut the deep narrow gorge. Not a single Alpine plant rewarded the research of the party, and the temperature on the glacier was scarcely below that on the flat below." With some ceremony, the party named it the Victoria Glacier. A somewhat singular instance of the recovery of lost or stolen property is noticed by the West Coast Times. A strange advertisement appeared in that paper in June last, , requesting the conscientious individual who borrowed a pair of field glasses from the steamer Yarra, to call upon the Captain, and stating that the case belonging to the glasses would be presented to him. The party in question did not present himself, Tnit the advertisement caught the eye of Detective Browne, who remembered that whilst searching a number of outward passengers for gold, on board the steamer Yarra, a few days previously, he remarked that one of them had a hard substance (which felt like a pair of glasses) concealed under his coat. He mechanically noticed the man's appearance, although hia suspicions were not excited at the time, but on reading the advertisement he felt certain he held a clue to the missing articles. The passengers searched on board the Yarra were proceeding to Melbourne- by the steamer Gothenburg, and amongst them was a member of the Victorian detective foi'ce for head quarters, after transacting a little professional business in Westland. By the next steamer which sailed for Melbourne, Detective Browne forwarded a communication to the party, describing the appearance of the man whom he searched, and stating his suspicions. The letter reached its destination in due course, and some few weeks afterwards an answer was returned, containing the satisfactory intelligence of the recovery of the field glasses. The suspected party had, it appears, been traced to Ballarat, there discovered, and taxed with the theft, which he stoutly denied, but admitted having found a pair of glasses on the Yarra's deck, and thinking they lacked an owner, had quietly appropriated them. As it would have been very difficult to convict him on a criminal charge, and, moreover, as he appeared quite willing to restore the glasses, the detective contented himself with their recovery, and let the man go. The glasses were retnrned by steamer to Hokitika.