PAIR PLAY FOR THE BISHOP OF DUNEDIN.

Southland Times, Issue 894, 5 February 1868, Page 3

PAIR PLAY FOR THE BISHOP OF DUNEDIN.

■ igjp « Fair play's a jewel," and it seems to be as rare as most jewels of pure water. Yet^ among " conscientiousearnest-minded," "zealous" religionista, of whateTer " persuasion," one coald even hope it might be found. "Protestantism, however, seems at present time compelled to own "it is not in me." If there be any one thing more than another in the tactics of the opponents of which so-called " Kitualists" feel they may justly complain, it is want of a straightforward, honest, English spirit; an utter absence of fair play. "Downwith Bitualism!" seems to be the motto, "in fair and open fight if you can, but if not, yet by all means, a bos /" A good many of us probably, could furnish some little illustrations of' the practical application of this kind of polie, j but a notable instance is, I think, to be found in the treatment which the Bishop of Danedin is experiencing, on account of his friendship and supposed sympathy with Ritualists, at the hands of some who, one would think, should have known better. Something of this has already come to light through the columns of the " Guardian" and other papers, but a great deal has, for a considerable time, been going on, which has excited the indignation of theßishop'B many personal and warmly attached-frienda. I,

, for one, have with considerable difficulty refrained hitherto from raising a voice against the unfairness to which he has been exposed ; but as it • would appear from the leport of a recent meeting at St. Lawrence Jewry, that to be a friend of " such a man as" myself is ground sufficient for impeachment of orthodoxy, I have feared rather to injure the Bishop's cause, even by venturing to claim for him " fair play." The letter in the " Guardian of October 30th, however, from Mr William Carr Young, who, from his own account, may be taken to represent the opposition to the Bishop at Dunedin, in which he makes especial reference to the Church of St. Matthias, induces me to call attention to the character of these vexatious proceedings against the Bishop. Mr Young tells us that when, " with the news of the appointment, we received" at Dunedin, "public and private reports of Bishop Jenner's High Church vi^ws and ritualistic practices," had it not been for the expectation of his lordship's early arrival, thare would have been even upon the strength of these va«me rumors, a unanimous protest against the appointment, and measures would have been taken to °et it rescinded, if possible. This is the first specimen of tho kind of " fair play" which the Bishop has experienced. As your readers are aware, a " memorial" against the Bishop subsequently arrived in England ; its character has already been exposed in your columns, in a letter from Dunedin, and Mr Young himself has to accept the possibility that it is "not altogether genuine !" Thus, before the Bishop can speak or act for himself, he is condemned, and this, by Mr Young's own showing, "even upon the strength of the vague rumors" which reached Dunedin, with the news of the appointment, of the Bishop's High Church views. Now, here is one specimen of "fair-play! But, happily, next is a pefutatioa.r.also of one charge which has been most unfairly laid against' the Bishop— namely, that of developing his views' and practices, subsequent to his consecration.! one can readily perceive the drift of such a charge, but it is most disingenuous and unfair. A distinct denial of its truth has appeared in a letter to the Guardian of, I think, 9th October, from one well qualified to speak upon the point ; but Mr Young's letter indirectly proves the falsity of the charge : for it sets forth that " with the news of the appointment came the public and private reports oi the Bishop's High Church views and ritualistic practices." It was perfectly well known, both before and at the time of his appointment that the Bishop was a High Churchman. And it is not that since his appointment he has manifested his true views ; but that he has not felt himself able since, and because of his aDpointment, to disguise his views, to adopt a " trimming" policy, and to turn his back upon his old friends and fellow-workers in the Church's cause, lhia is, in truth, the head and front of his offending : had he, during his stay in England, scrupulously abstained from associating with those old friends, and from seeking help from them for hia future work, giving them at the same time his support and " God-speed " in theirs at home, the opposition at Dunedin might perhaps have been calmed down, and Mr Young, at all events, would not have "seen enough to convince" him that he "may -Hell be alarmed for the safety of the Colonial Church. But is it fair, "I ask, to expect such a policy of any true-hearted and honest man? Such conduct has not been required of other High Church Colonial Bishops while in England, several of whom have taken a more "conspicuous part " in similar services and have adopted more ritualistic practices than the Bishop of Dunedin. I have reason to know this, and further, that he haß been especially scrupulous on this head, fully realising the difficulties and responsibilities of his position in the present condition of the Church of England. I feel most strongly that in this respect the Bishop has not had " fair play." But to return to Mr Young. In the part which he has thought fit to take in this oppositon to the Bishop, he appears to me to have " outheroded Herod " in the matter of " fair," or " unfair play". He came to England, he tells us, "disinclined to believe the rumors" which had reached Dunedin j but, soon after his arrival, he was unfortunately invited to accompany some Iriends to the Dedication Festival of St Matthias's, Stoke Newington, at which, he says, the Bishop " took a most conspicuous part;" that is, he preached and gave the Benediction : and had Mr Young been present a few weeks earlier, he might have seen the Bishop administering Confirmation in the same church, by express sanction and authority of the Bishop of London, as he had also done in various other dioceses. Here was an opportunity for Mr Young, and it was not lost. Mr Young had ample means for plumbing the depths of the " un-Proteatantism " of both the Bishop and the principal members of the congregation of St Matthias's, for he spent a considerable portion of the day with them, partaking of hospitality, chatting with the Bishop, and otherwise so demeaning himself as to be counted among us as a friend, and not as he has since proved to be, one of the worst of enemies — a spy. This may seem strong speaking, but I shall presently, I think, justify my words. Forthwith, Mr Young tells us, he forwarded to Dunedin " full report of the proceedings " which he witnessed at St Matthias's, the only omission being probably some of his " sayings and doings," which I will presenly supply. Not content with this — which, considering the position he occupied on the occasion, was pretty strong — he hastened, as he informs us, to the Archbishop of Canterbury with his tale ; and then Mr Young conveys to us the astounding intelligence that "bis Grace expressed his entire disapproval of Bishop Jenner's practices since the appointment was made, and sanctioned the course which I proposed to adopt with a view to the Bishop's resignation — viz., to obtain a decided expression of opinion from Church-members in the diocese in regard to that appointment." His Grace, will it is to be hoped, correct any error tkat there may be it this statement ; but now, again I ask, is this " fair play."? For myself, I must consider that Mr Young violated all ordinary laws of hospitality and fair dealing, and that his subsequent letter of warning to the Bishop by no means clears him, as he seems to think, from the imputation of unfairness. Mr Potter, one of the churchwardens and Mr Young's host on that day, is wholly of my mind upon this matter. But, once more— and this more particularly concerns myself— Mr Young has omitted to state that he seized the opportunity, when chancing to be seated at luncheon next to a young member of the congregation, of eliciting from her, in the most pleasant way, valuable information not, indeed, about the Bishop of Duuedinin particular, but concerning sundry manners and customs at St. Matthias's, and further regarding the private spiritual practices of the young lady herself! especially in regard of the appropriate subject of "confession." Now, once more, I ask is this " fair play ?" There were other ways open to Mr Young of obtaining information regarding the Bishop of Dunedin; there were other wayß open to him of obtaining information regarding the practices of St. Matthias's. Had he had the manliness to ask any questions of the clergy, he would have received the fullest satisfaction, and, moreover, I can assure him, he would have received a reply to the jocose and genial expression of his sense of the privilege of a young lady's confessor, which I am afraid she had not the presence of mind to give him. Now, it may be said that Mr Young's peculiar mode of obtaining his information is not to the point, and that he was impelled by conscientious motives to act upon what he saw and heard ; but it is very much to my present point ; for what I maintain is this, that such tactics as these are in the highest degree discreditable, and the very reverse of "fair play," to which even High Churchmen and " Ritualists" have as good a right as any other people. Truly, Sir, &b things go now-a-days, the class of the " aggrieved is likely to grow to a formidable extent; the "aggrieved parishioner speedily expanded into the " aggrieved non-parishioner ;" immediately from the development of this twofold creation arose the " aggrieved priest,* albeit with some differentia in hi» grievance 5 and meanwhile was maturing, and now ba»

come to light, an "asgrievod Bishop, for, assuredly, the friends of the Bishop of Dunedin consider him to have been most grievously aggrieved " CHA.BLE3 J. LB GBTT. St. Matthiea's, Stoke Newington, November 11th, 1867. .