LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE COLONIAL CHURCH.

[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR:]

Sis.,—As many of your readers, doubtless, take an interest in watching the working of the Synodical system in the Church of England in the colonies, perhaps you will allow me to describe to them, as clearly as I can, the first real strain upon that system which has occurred in New Zealand. That Church members generally have taken very little interest in the proceedings of the Synods, either general or diocesan, is shown by the fact that parish meetings called for the purpose of electing Synodsmen have usually consisted of five or six parishioners, seldom of a dozen ; and in many instances, no elections have taken place at all. The case of Bishop Jenner will, I think, have the effect of arous- ing Churchmen to a sense of their duty, and we shall probably find in future that they will take more pains to learn the opinions of those who represent them, and to elect members to advocate their views.

The main facts of the case of Bishop Jenner, so far as I can learn them, are as follows. The Bishop of Christchurch, and others, being desirous that the provinces of Otago and Southland, a portion of his diocese, should be formed into a separate See, steps were taken for this object, and an endowment fund for the new Bishopric commenced. The scheme met the warm approval of Bishop Selwyn, who, without waiting either for the completion of the endowment fund, or for authorization from the Otago Rural Deanery Board, wrote to England for a Bishop, and in consequence of this the Rev. II. L. Jenner, of Preston, Kent, was chosen for the office. Taken rather by surprise, the Rural Deanery Board, at its next meeting, February 22, 1866, passed the following resolutions :— 1. "That as a sufficient provision has not yet been made for the support of a Bishop, it is not expedient to take any action at present with a view to confirm the conditional appointment of the Rev. H. L. Jenner, more especially as that appointment has been made without the authority or concurrence of the Board." 2. "That this Board is desirous to record its extreme regret that, through misconception, the Rev. H. L. Jenner should have been led to suppose that the time has arrived for the appointment of a Bishop for Otago and Southland, there being at present no sufficient endowment raised ; and that this Board continues to be decidedly opposed to the appointment of a Bishop without a sufficient endowment having been provided," &c,

These resolutions were vetoed by the Bishop of Christchurch, but they show the feelings of the Board. In August, 1866, Dr. Jenner was consecrated by Archbishop Langley as the first bishop for the proposed diocese of Dunedin. No authority was given for this act by the Board, which, as it has been said, did no more than express to Bishop Selwyn "a vague opinion that it would be well to have a bishop, and a request that some names of clergymen might be submitted to it, from whom it might, or might not, elect a bishop." Indeed, Bishop Selwyn seems boldly to take the chief blame upon himself, for in the Southern Cross of October 19, 1868, he is reported to have said in the General Synod :— " Having himself been chiefly instrumental in having Dr. Jenner appointed and consecrated, he felt that it would be his duty to see that fair play was done to Dr. Jenner, and that be would not be treated in such a manner as to leave him ground for saying that he had, as it were, been victimized without any fault of his own. He claimed for Bishop Jenner the benefit of that clause of the constitution which gave Bishop Jenner the right of inquiry as to his own conduct."

But how Bishop Selwyn explains his own neglect of the 23rd Clause of the Constitution of this branch of the Church I cannot tell. The clause runs :—

" The nomination of a bishop shall proceed from the Diocesan Synod, and if such nomination be sanctioned by the General Synod, or, if the General Synod he not in session, by the majority of the standing com- mittees of the several dioceses, the senior bishop shall take the neces- sary steps for giving effect to the nomination."

Certainly Bishop Jenner's nomination did not proceed from the Diocesan Synod of Dunedin, and the Rural Deanery Board affirms that it was made without its "authority or concurrence."

However, the Board at its next meeting, February 21, 1867, at which the Bishop of Christchurch presided, passed this resolu- tion :— " 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 recognize the duty of making preparations for his reception by providing a suitable residence and completing the requisite endowment."

—thus condoning Bishop Selwyn's unconstitutional action. From clause 7 of statute iii., which is—" Until other provision be made in that behalf by the Diocesan Synod, every Archdeaconry or Rural Deanery Board shall have and exercise such of the powers of the Diocesan Synod, as the Bishop of the Diocese shall from time to time prescribe," it may be supposed that, as there was no Diocesan Synod, the action of the Rural Deanery Board should have been binding upon the diocese. Probably Church members generally would have accepted the decision of the Board, but news soon afterwards reached the colony that Bishop Jenner was taking an active part in Ritualistic services in England, and the consequence was, that a party was formed with the avowed object of rejecting him on account of his Ritualistic proclivities. To allay the excitement, a meeting of the Rural Deanery Board was held on July 18th, 1868, at which the following resolutions were passed : 1. "That this Board refers the question of the formation of the See of Dunedin and the appointment of its first Bishop to the General Synod for its final decision, and also appends for its information the proceedings of the Rural Deanery Board and other published documents in connection with this subject."

2. "That this Board is desirous, for the further information of the General Synod, to add to the statement of the bishopric question, an abstract of the present unsatisfactory state of the Endowment Fund."

In October, 1868, the General Synod of the Church met in Auckland, Bishop Selwyn presiding for the last time. Bishop Jenner, in a small pamphlet, had thus stated his claims- " In conclusion, the Bishop respectfully submits that it is a matter of good faith and common justice, that the New Zealand Church is bound to recognize his claim to the See of Dunedin, to confirm his election, and to assign him spiritual jurisdiction over the territory to be separated from the Diocese of Christchurch. An engagement of more than ordinary solemnity has been entered into; the two contracting parties being the Church in New Zealand, speaking and acting by her Metro- politan, and Bishop Jenner. The question to be decided by the Synod is simply this : Do the interests of the New Zealand Church demand, and will justice and honesty admit of, the repudiation of that engage- ment by either of the parties, without the concurrence of the other? Such a question may safely be left to the judgment of any assembly of fair-dealing Englishmen ; and the Bishop leaves it with perfect confidence in the hands of the General Synod of the New Zealand Church."

Bishop Jenner's confidence was misplaced. A committee was appointed by the General Synod, which brought up a report to the following effect :—

"They have ascertained that the Endowment Fund for the proposed diocese is, in its present state, insufficient for the support of a bishop." "They have further ascertained that the objections entertained in the contemplated diocese to the alleged opinions and practices of

Bishop Jenner preclude the possibility of the speedy completion of this fund."

"At the same time, they are led to believe that the pecuniary circum- stances of Bishop Jenner, so tar as they aro able to form an opinion upon them, are such as would cause him to be wholly dependent upon that fund."

"In coming to a decision, they have not thought themselves called upon to take into consideration the alleged Ritualistic practices of Bishop Jonner, but they consider that the state and prospects of the Endowment Fund, and the circumstances above referred to, constitute sufficient reasons for the following decision, namely :— "That they are not prepared to recommend the Synod to confirm the appointment of Bishop Jenner."

"They recommend that, so soon as the necessary endowment be com- pleted, the proper steps be taken for the nomination, confirmation, and consecration of a bishop for the proposed See."

This report caused much discussion, and after considerable oppo- sition, this resolution was passed :—‘"That whereas the General Synod is of opinion that it is better for the peace of the Church that Bishop Jenner should not take charge of the Bishopric of Dunedin, this Synod hereby requests him to withdraw his claim to that position." 'The Bishop of Wellington, in opposing this resolution, said :—

"If this resolution went home in its present bare form, it would be the greatest blow that could possibly be given to the Synodical system, as it would undermine all confidence in its fairness. Thus the system by which they trusted to regenerate the whole Church would be brought into disrepute by doing what would be considered unjust. It would thus encourage those very practices which it most condemned. If they called upon Bishop Jenner to resign without giving him a fair trial, all quiet, right-thinking Englishmen would condemn the Synod The Synod should act as a deliberative assembly, but not as a judicial body ; and, as they desired to uphold the Synodical system, he hoped they would not attempt to condemn Bishop Jenner without a fair, careful, and impartial hearing."

And Bishop Selwyn's own view of the action of the General Synod may be learnt from the following paragraphs of his letter to the Otago Rural Deanery Board, dated October 22, 1868, a few days after the conclusion of the Synod :—

" I feel, therefore, that nothing has been proved by any opponent of Bishop Jenner, which ought to debar him from entering upon the duties of his office, whenever a sufficient income, clear of all incumbrances, can be supplied. In consideration of being appointed Bishop of Dune- din, be has signed a general declaration of obedience to the laws of the General Synod. He has further stated his willingness to be bound by that promise, as applicable to the question of Ritual, on which objec- tions have been raised against him. . . . The Constitution to which he thus submits himself was framed to protect as well as to restrain the office- bearers of the Church. The Constitution requires that all grave charges against any office-bearer shall be referred to a tribunal. In this case there have been no tribunal, no charges, no evidence, no respondent, and no opportunity of defence. All the objections alleged in the Report of the Committee relate to pecuniary difficulties, which may be removed at any tune by the united action of Bishop Jounces friends in England and in New Zealand."

"In the absence of any definite charge or insuperable difficulty, such as ought to exclude Dr. Jenner from the Bishopric of Dunedin, we all concurred in the request that for the sake of the peace of the Church he would resign his claim. But this argument of peace has a double aspect. Bishop Jenner may claim of his opponents with greater justice that, for the sake of the peace of the Church, they should withdraw their opposition. If he has done anpthing unlawful according to the law of the Church of England, let it be proved. That he will do no- thing against the laws of the Church in New Zealand, we have his own solemn promise, which we are bound to believe. . . . For his sake, then, and for the sake of the Synod, and for the sake of the peace of the Church. I do most earnestly entreat my dear friends and brethren in the Royal Deanery of Otago and Southland to withdraw their opposi- tion, and to accept Bishop Jenner as their Bishop."

With these weighty reasons in his favour, Bishop Jenner might well decline to comply with the request of the General Synod, which he accordingly did. At last, to obtain if possible a final settlement of the case, a Synod of the new diocese was called into existence, and summoned to meet at Dunedin. Before it sat Bishop Jenner sent a letter to the Bishop of Christchurch, saying:—

" April 5, 1809. My Lord,—I beg leave to address your lordship in your two-fold capacity,—as Metropolitan of the New Zealand Church, and Bishop, for the present, of the Diocese of Dunedin.

"1. Referring, first, to the resolution passed by the General Synod last October, in which I am requested, for the sake of the peace of the Church, to resign my claim to the position of Bishop of Dunedin, I beg to state that, having by careful inquiry and by experience, gained during a tour through the diocese, satisfied myself that the peace of the Church will in nowise be secured by such resignation, I respectfully decline to comply with the request.

"3. In conclusion, I beg leave to remind your lordship, and through you the Church in New Zealand, of a circumstance which I cannot but think has unjustifiably been kept out of sight—the existence, namely, of an engagement of the strongest moral, if not legal, obligation between this branch of the Church and myself, in virtue of which alone I am in possession of the Episcopal character. Thus, my Lord, I present myself, not for the first time, before the New Zealand Church as a party to this solemn contract, the fulfilment of which I claim as due to me on the commonest principles of justice, honour, and morality. And unless it can be shown that the contract has been nullified by any act of mine, I respectfully call upon your Lordship, as head of the New Zealand Church, to take such measures as the law of the Church prescribes for its fulfilment, i.e., for placing me in actual and formal possession of the See, for the occupation of which, and for no other purpose, I was conse- crated a bishop."

The Diocesan Synod met at Dunedin on April 7, there being 8 clergy and 26 lay synodsmen present. The Bishop of Christchurch presided. In his opening address the Bishop said :—

" The duty before you is to select a chief spiritual pastor and ruler. . . . . He is bound, indeed, to be your servant for Christ's sake, and he can only be so to you for good by being a true and faithful servant of the Church . . . . and by teaching under her guidance, both by word and deed, the doctrine of Christ, which is according to godli- ness. What that doctrine is has been laid down with sufficient fullness and distinctness in the creeds, articles, and formularies of the Church, and as no member of the Church may teach more than the Church has authorized him to teach, so he may not teach less. But whether the teaching be that of the Church or not, the Church herself must decide ; and though this at times may be a very difficult office, yet there is nothing in the New Zealand Church which can hinder a member in bringing any question fully before her and seeking her judgment upon it. This liberty has been fully secured to us by our Church constitution, and, as you are aware, ever office-bearer, however high his office, has pledged himself to submit to the decision of the Church. This is a valid security, as far as can be gained by human regulations against unsound teaching, whether by word or deed ; but remember also, it entails upon every member of the Church, and especially upon those who take part in her Synods, the reciprocal obligation of trust- ing the Church and abiding by her decisions."

Bishop Jenner's claims were very ably urged in the Synod by Mr. Smith, a barrister, by the Rev. Mr. Gifford, and others, his prin- cipal opponents being Mr. Carr Young and the Hon. Major Richardson. After an animated discussion continued through the night, a division was taken at 64- a.m., the result being—against, clergy, 3, laity, 15; for, clergy, 4, laity, 10. An attempt after- wards made to refer the decision to the Archbishop of Canterbury was also lost.

I have endeavoured to state what I believe to be facts, your readers may draw their own conclusions. It is evident that our Synodical system has had a severe trial, and the result, to my mind, is not altogether satisfactory. Government by Synods means government by majorities, and if they press their powers in matters of religious convictions, the minorities will be forced con- tinually to secede. The system also works oppressively for the clergy, restraining them most effectually by their pledges, but affording them no legal security in return against the effects of popular prejudice or opposition. Tribunals and Courts of Appeal may be appointed, but in a Free Church, where the clergy are dependent upon the volunthry contributions of their people, such courts have no power to give effect to their decisions, except in the way of restraint. Let, for instance, a clergyman be accused of some offence by which the popular feeling of his parishioners is excited against him ; even though acquitted by the court, he can- not be restored to his former position ; his parishioners would simply stop their subscriptions, and ignore the court's decision. Indeed, the laity will not go to the trouble of proceeding against a clergyman in ecclesiastical courts when they can deprive him more easily and expeditiously in the synods and vestries. Bishop Jenner's case is an example ; and, therefore, I fear that these bodies will more and more assume the functions of judicial tribunals, without their care and impartiality ; and that clergymen will be rejected from office, not for a breach of doctrine or discipline, proved after a "fair, careful, and impartial hearing," but on account of the whim or prejudice of the majority, or for other and very insufficient reasons. In a word, that our Church constitution here will be found in its working most rigorously to restrain, but most inefficiently to protect, the office-bearers of the Church. Bishop Selwyn very justly claims for Bishop Jenner the benefit of that clause of the Constitution which gives the right of inquiry into his conduct, but there seems no chance of his getting it. If those clergymen in England who are calling out for a separation of Church and State, because of what they are pleased to term "the bondage and fetters of the law," will ponder over Bishop Jenner's case, they will, I think, see reasons to change their minds. I can assure Mr. Mackonochie that the bondage he endures in England is liberty itself compared to that which he would endure out here.—I am,