THE DUNEDIN BISHOPRIC.

Evening Star, Issue 3030, 5 November 1872, Page 2

THE DUNEDIN BISHOPRIC.

We continue Bishop Jenner’s pamphlet In a charge addressed to his Diocesan Synod, held in .September last, the Bishop of Wellington devote six pages to the discussion of the Dunedin Bishopric question. It is needless to »ay that he takes the side of my opponents, and argues with an asperity which betokens a consciousness of the weakness of his case. To the statements of his predecessor, Bishop Abraham, of the Bishop of Lichfield, and of myself, he gives the flattest contradiction. My right reverend brethren may justly themselves, if they think proper; for myself, I shall only deal with Bishop Hadfield’a remarks as far as thev relate to my own words and position. Among the many charges which my adversaries had brought against me, was one of breaking a solemn promise of submission to the General Synod. This charge is apparently endorsed by Bishop Hadfield, who, however, avers that it was founded, not as I had supposed, upon ray assent to the Church Constitution of Kew Zealand, before my consecration, hut upon a sentence at the end of a “statement,'’ presented by m « ™ General Synod in October, 1868. And the Bishop quotes my words, as involving an obligation to act in accordance with the recommendation of the Synod, « being w fact«

promise to do so. But this only shows to •What remarkable expedients my Antipodean ( Opponents have been driven, in their Struggles to get rid of their obligations. For, first of alt, as will be at once po'ccived, there is absolutely nothing resembling a promine in the words quoted. Next, there is no reference whatever in them to any recommendation. Thirdly, Bishop Hadfield finds it convenient to forget what the question xoatt which I left to the Synod to determine. What he has omitted I beg to supply, and I invite attention to the whole passage. It is as follows : “ An engagement of more than ordinary solemnity has been entered into ; the two contracting parties being the church in New Zealand, speaking and ac'ing by her Metropolitan, and Bishop Jeuner. 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 engagement 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.” But as the.Synod would not allow that any engagement at ad had been entered into, this, the on:y * question to which my words could possibly refer, was not even brought before the Synod, much less decided by it. . One thing, however, is made quite clear by this preposterous accusation, viz., that those who bring it aro thereby precluded from impugning tho accuracy of my account of “the question to be decided by the Synod ;” and, which is a still more serious matter, must be regarded as participating in the crime of “repudiating au engagement of more than ordinary solemnity.” Of this crime, moreover, the General Synod itself stands convicted, on the testimony of its own apologists ; the Invercargill Vestry being thus amply justified in representing to the Bishops (in their memorial of last year) “That the refusal of the New Zealand Church to give Bishop Jenner the see for which he had been purposely consecrated, and to which he bad been nominated by the diocese, has disgraced the working of our Ecclesiastical system,” (Jan this be doubted? But the fact is (as Bishop Hadtield knows perfectly well), it teas to the document that I signed before my consecration binding myself to obey the constitution, that refer ence was made by my accusers : only, when it was found that they could not charge me with violating engagements, without conceding to mo the possession of rights, they quietly dropped their awkward double-edged weapon, and looked about for one more suitable for their purpose. In proof of which I need only quote two sentences from the letter of the Rev. J. G. Bagshaw (himself a former member af the General Synod), in a letter to the editor of the Guardian, dated May 29tb, 1871 . “1 am correct, I believe, in saying that both Dr Suter and Dr Jenner signed the constitution. Both have therefore submitted equally to the authority of the General Synod.” [And both, it might be added, are equally entitled to the protection of its laws, which forbid the deposition of an “officebearer” without a fair trial.] Then, lower down “I hope I shall be pardoned for saying that the twice recorded opinion of the General Synod, painful though the result may be, ought to be sufficient for one that has voluntarily promised submission to it as the highest ecclesiastical authority in New Zealand.” (To be continued.)