THE BISHOP OF DUNEDIN. T0 THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF

Otago Witness, Issue 853, 4 April 1868, Page 3

THE BISHOP OF DUNEDIN. T0 THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF

ENGLAND IN OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND. Fellow- Colonists — When I sent out

my " Report and Correspondence" to the Chairman of the R. D. Board, my expressed intention was that the opinion and feeling of every Church member in the diocese, respecting Bishop Jenner as our diocesan, should be faithfully ascertained. But the Board appears to have considered themselves entitled to hold the conscience of the people in their own hands, and while affecting to be your representatives, have come to a decision -on the most vital question that has ever agitated our Church, without offering to consult your wishes ,on the subject. That I do not judge the Board harshly is sufficiently proved by the facts officially announced to me, that the Goldfields were not represented at all. and that Invercargill's supposed representatives voted in direct opposition to the wishes of their constituents. There is also another significant fact — that congregational meetings, to discuss the very same question,

were held after the meeting of the Board. Would this have been necessary, if the Board had previously consulted your wishes as they ought to have done ? And • does not the result of these congregational meetings prove also that the majority of the Board did not possess the confidence of the people upon the question at issue ? To you, then, who sympathise with me in deep love for our Church, as the Protestant Reformed Church, and in abhorrence ,of ultra- ritualism, with the fatal . doctrines which it represents, I address myself, and jntreat you not to relax your efforts to prevent the introduction of such innovations into our Diocese, or into any portion of our Colony. The first fatal step would be your acceptance of Bishop Jenner -as our Diocesan. That he

is an advanoed Ritualist tnere cannot be the shadow of a doubt. He admits that he has a " tasie for the aesthetics of Divine Worship," which m plain terms means the " Ritualism." of the present day. But he is prepared to supply Ritual or no Ritual, just as it may suit you. Now, 1 as£, can we have any confidence in a cMef Pastor, who can be so accommodating in matters which involve, as I will presently explain, most serious considerations ? And can we so deceive ourselves as to fancy that his avowed "taste for aesthetics," though dormant for a time from motives of expediency, will not by-and-bye develop itself with any I favoring change of circumstance ? Jf Bishop Jenner is the honest man I believe him to be, if he is trne to his own convictions and to his dearest friends of the Ritualistic School, it cannot be otherwise. Only very recently he has again rendered himself conspicuous at some extreme services in the Church of " St Ethelburga," a report of which from one 6f the public papers accompanies this letter. Beware, then, of the first fatal stej* in accepting an avowed Episcopal Ritualist .'

I have done all in my power to prevent his going among you. I have represented fa Bishop Harper the facts— (l) That the resolutions of the Board were not a faithful reflex of the opinion of tbe Church in our Diocese ; (2) that the decisions of the congregational meetings referred to afforded the very best proof of general opposition to Bishop. Jenner; (3) that a second memorial, expressing that view, had been forwarded to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I therefore earnestly begged Bishop Harpsr to confer again with the Bishop of New Zealand and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the hope that a reconsideration of the important question involved would induce their Lordships to dissuade Bishop Jenner from, going out until at least he is constitutionally appointed to the Diocese.

Bishop Harper states in reply that the resolutions of the Board must be taken, as expressing the mind of the Church in j Otago and Southland ; that he cannot do anything to dissuade Bishop Jenner from going out ; that this question must be decided by Bishop Jenner himself. At a subsequent interview with Bishop Harper, he confirmed the previous statement, but added that he would direct Bishop Jenner's attention to all the objections which had been urged against him. In order that there should be no misunderstanding, and that the true position of affairs might be generally known here, I wrote to the Guardian on the 14th December, but my letter was not published until the Bbh January, when a full report of the Rurideeanal meeting i also appeared, together with a letter from i Bishop Jenner, dated 28th December. I ! transmit a copy of the Guardian herewith, and beg to direct your attention to the few editorial remarks upon the question in the summary of the week. From Bishop Jenner's letter you will find that he "hopes to be at work in his distant dicc?se long before the arrival of Bishops Selwyn and Harper. " Whether he will persist in this determination, now that it is so publicly known that he will go out " to an unwilling, and to a great extent, hostile diocese," remains to be seen ; butif heshould do so, I earnestly hope that no mistaken sympathy for his position, because he is actually in New Zealand, | will induce you to compromise your principles, and to accept Mm. Remember that hft is fully aware of our vigorous opposition before he leaves England, and that he can have no possible excuse for forcing himself upon us, whether we like it or no. This is, indeed, ruling the Laity with a rod of iron, and carrying out with a vengeance the " principle of obedience" which he demands in Ms letter. It remains with yourselves whether you will submit to such injus+ice. If not, and you unite with me in a determined stand against Ritualism, be careful not to accept Bishop Jenner as our Diocesan ; and if the battle has to be fought at the General Synod, which body alone can secure to him the appointment, I sincerly trust you will take care to have a full and faithful representation there, not a repetition of the imperfect and mis-representation at the meeting of theß. D. Board.

If you are firm and united in this, we may safely reckon on a favorable result ; and Bishop Jenner, if he should go out, will wish that he had not disregarded the warning of those whom he now calls his enemies.

And now a word about " Ritualism," which involves, as I stated, most serious considerations. Goi'geous ceremonials and vestments are in themselves harmless ; and some of us may be inclined to pass them by as unworthy the attention of rational beings, or even for the sake of peace, to admit them into our chui-ch.es. But beware in time ! Harmless as the gaudy vestment, the soothing -incense, and decorated " altar " may appear, bear in mind that these are all valued by disciples c-f that school as symbols of

doctrine,' "whicU'iTO believe to be unscriptural and contrary to the teaching of our Church. Do not take my word for this, but read and judge for yourselves. Do they not regard the "Altar" as something more ' than' a simple table for Communion, for which alone it was intended ?

Does not the ambiguous term which they delight in, "real or spiritual presence," imply something * ( more in the consecrated elements than ah outward part or sign ? Doe's it not rather mean a belief in the change which consecration produces in the elements 1 And does not this mysticism explain the use -of lights, vestments, incense, and crosses, as necessary auxiliaries in their celebration of holy Communion, or as they term it, the Eucha- ■ rist ? Pray remember also the important bearing which this mysticism has upon the I priests who consecrate. In proportion to the belief in the change worked in the elements by their instrumentality is the sacerdotal office magnified. Hence result priestly dominion, infallibility of the Church, confessions, penances. Fellow Colonists — I am not advocating a" No Popery" cry. The Protestant and Roman Catholic religions are quite distinct and antagonistic. Nevertheless, let all denominations worship according to the dictates of their own consciences. But the Ritualism of the present day 1 ia no denomination. It is a poisonous fungus growing upon and sapping the good old tree of the true Protestant faith, causing family alienations, and division of house against house. It has done so in England, and will inevitably produce the same lamentable results in New Zealand, if we once favor its growth in any part of our Colony.

Above all things, let it never' be said that the hurtful seed was first sown in the Province of Otago !

' • Wm. Carr Young. London, 17th January, 1868.

CTo the Editor of the Otago Wjtnrss.'

Sir — Permit me to mention, in the Witness, that I have received a letter, from the Bishop of Christen urch, in which' his lordship informs me that he has advised Dr Jenner to remain until the General Synod has decided the question of assigning to him (Dr. J.) territorial jurisdiction. The General Synod will be held in Auckland, probably next October.

As several members of the Church of England have asked me whether the Bishop of New Zealand (now Bishop of Lichfield) has expressed any opinion relative to Dr Jenner's appointment to the see of Dunedin, I give an extract from the last letter I received from Bishop Selwyn, dated Jan. 1, 1868 :—: —

" I have seen Dr Jenner, and have no reason to think that you have any cause to feor to receive him a3 your Bishop. Bishop Harper agrees with me that it will be right for Bishop Jenner to go out at once. By proving himself to be a man of zeal and energy, which 1 believe him to be, and by working among those who need him most, he will soon win his way." I &c E. G. E

— j am, . dwards. The Parsonage, Dunedin, March 31. 1868.

The Guardian, a London Journal, publishes the following :

Sir — I have to request the favor of your inserting these few lines in reference to a statement at the close of a letter signed " Wm. Uarr Young," which appears in your last impression.

Bishop Jenaer's " participation in the recent service at St. Ethelburga's," Bishopsgate street, was neither more nor less than this — that at the 1.15 p.m. service, which consists merely of a hymn, the Te Deum, and sermon, his Lordship kindly preached the sermon. This second service had been preceded by a celebration of the Blessed Sacrament, at which bis Lordship was not preaent ; and, in fact, only arrived at the church just as the first congregation were departing. i c-Minot, therefore, but regard Mr Young's attempt to connect Bishop Jenner with the observances (whatever they may have been) at the celebration of the Sacrament, with "violation of rubrics" and with "glaring idolatry," as about as gross a violation of truth and of Christian charity, to say nothing of the respect due to the office of a Bishop, as it has ever fallen to my lot,' in a thirty years' experience of a public life, to have met with.

Surely it was Mr Young's duty t> have ascertained the facts of the case before be gave a world- wide ourrency to reports which I solemnly declare to be utterly and wholly false.

With regard to the Bishop of Dunedin's sermon, I may perhap3 be allowed to 'state that it was a simple, plain, and earnest exhortation to Christian duty and patience, and that he pressed upon the attention of his hearers some of those "signs of the times" to which they would do well to, take heed. In fact, .the sermon, which had not the slightest reference to ritual or doctrine, was wholly practical throughout. J. M. Rod well, M.A., Rector of St. Ethelburga's. 70, Highbury New Park, N., January 14, 18u8.

The Bishop of Dunedin sends to Johm. Jtyß&Hew, words , of/ explanation of hia present ..position, which may servo t<* rectify certain misconceptions prevalent in many quarters. ' The Bishop says —

1. That some in my diocese are anxious, that I should- remain in England is unfortunately true. But it is also true that the= Kural Deanery Board of Otago and Southland' (the body by which, until my Diocesan. Synod is formed, the affairs of the Church ia that part of New Zealand are administered^ decided, at a special meeting, .held on I ltk of this year»'that they did "not I 'feel justified in dissuading me from undertaking the charge of my see." 2. There is, no, doubt, some truth in your remark, that it was a mistake my noS goingout months ago. But it must be borne ia mind that, hai I gone, it must have been ia. the face of assurances that there was no chance, in the then financially depressed state of the Colony, of raising anything like aa adequate endowment, a consideration which. I could not afford to disregard.

Then came the Pan- Anglican Synod, and* about the same time repeated entreaties (including two telegrams) that I would not leave England until I had heard the result of the efforts w^re to be made at the Rural Deanery Board to keep me at Home. So that I was not without inducements toremain I am happy to say that all obstacles are now rapidly disappearing.. The endowment is now all but complete ; the general opposition to myself, though by no means at an end,' is deprived .of much of its strength by the resolution, above referred to, of the Rural Deanery Board ; and finally^ I hope there is no doubt that I shall (if it pleases God to give me a prosperous voyage) be at work in my distant diocese long before the arrival of Bishops Selwya and Harper, who are now in England. 3. One word as to my "ultra- ritualism.'* It is not (if 1 know myself) on account ef my love of music, or' my too easy yielding to tha wishes of my friends, that I have so often appeared at "ultra high churches." In point of fact, I have accepted invitations to preach, in all kinds of churches, without troubling myself about the opinions of their clergy, and, if numbers go for anything in such, a matter, ray ministrations ia churches where a •' moderate" ceremonial prevails, have outnumbered,' by at least tw< nty to one, those occasions on which. I have officiated in what are called " ritualistic" churches. But in. truth there is one thing which, since my r consecration, has prevented me ifrom rejecting invitations- from ,' ' ritualistic" cergymen as-a matter of course, lest I should compromise •' the dignity of the Episcopate :" and th ; at is, that I hu,ve not yet been ableto acquire the art of turnins my back on my old friends, or my old principles. What those principles are, and have been fpr >• years past, may be gathered (by those "who have had no opportunities of watching my career) from the following extract from a letter written by me in the ye ir 1851, inweply to inquiries by one near and dear to me, respecting my views on various points of Church ceremonial : —

" On the whole, then, my theory is this — I consider none of these things [certain details of ritual] e«sent'al in themselves, but the principle of obedience, and of doing one's best that tbe English ritual should lose none

of its Catholic character, I do consider essential. jßuc whereas my own taste lies to a great extent in the aesthetics of divine worship, I think I am bound to be very watchful, lest, by indulging this taste to thie disregard of the prejudices of others, I should. fatally offend those among whom I might be appointed to minister. On this principle F should feel it my duty to to abstain from. many things which I should otherwise consider it desirable to introduce, so that no vital doctrine were involved. "

These words show what my principles were seventeen years ago. I have not changed them sinee — I do not see any reason for changing now. They have kept me, on the one hand, from " dissembling my views," to quote the accusation of some of my Dunedro. friends ; and, on the other, from forcing them upon people. And they have, moreover, made it impossible for me to withhold sympathy, still more to stand aloof — as from men. infected with leprosy or plague — from those who, in spite of occasional excesses, are doing the true work of the Church as few have everdone it, at least in modern times. Tiiereis a danger, surely, against which we shall all do well to guard, lest, in opposing the efforts, of those who are are giving up all for Christ and His poor, we be found in the ranks of the " fighters against Grod. " — I remain, Sir, yours faithfully, H. L. DraEDnr. Preston Vicarage^ Sandwich, December 28.

Antftrophotoscope. — This name has been, given by Messrs Rowell and Mills, of Sao. .Francisco, to their invention tor mounting photographs. The new device consists, according to the A r eit! York Tribune, in carefully divesting the likeness of all those portions of the card, paper, or other opaque substances representing the background, anct not essential to the image which it is desirecL to preserve, and substituting therefor a background landscape on another plate, divergingupward from the plane to the likeness, and. intersecting the latter at the feet. The effect of this arrangement is, that when viewed, with both eyes through, a magnifying lens, the receding Landscape, the approaching foreground, and the double image, corresponding^ to the view of natural objects, are obtained, consequently giving a most vivid impression, of life. By means of gearing, the figures may be collected in groups, or the scenery of that i background may be varied at the pleasure, a the beholder.