BISHOP JENNER.

Southland Times, Issue 1121, 10 March 1869, Page 3

BISHOP JENNER.

We have bepn requested to publish the following correspondence : — Dunedin, 24th Feb., 1869. My dear Mr Edwards — The correspondence between the Archdeacon ol Winchester and the late Archbishop of Canterbury, inserted in. the Lytteltou Times of the 18tb hist, at the request of the Very Key. Dean Jacob, and republiahed in the Otiigo Daily Times of this date, has forced my mind to the painful conclusion ihat if, hs I have no reason to doubt the statements therein made respecting Bishop Jenner are true, it is impossible to reconcile satisfactorily his app.vjutiy deliberate assumption of the chief part in a teligious service of a peculiarly Rjinanisin^ tendency, with the emphatic denial which I, in comnion with many others, clearly understood his Lordship to give at tlie ate meeting, of his having ever ass: a ted in extreme Ritu jistic Seivici'S on such oc asion, or in such a raanner } as to warrant thf inference that hi* pa» - ticpation ther. in was ex onimo, or that he could fairly be hel Ito hive thereby sanctioned such practices. In view of the possibility oi my being placed in the very responsible position of a member of the Bynod of the diocese, I think it ouLy due to Bishop Jen»er to apprise him, at the ea<liest moment as I would wish to do with the Utmost delicacy, through your in.trumetitality , th.ufc unless he were abl« [ to contradict, in express terms, the statements | above reierred to, I should fe.-l bound to withhold 1 the support which, but for the revelation in question, I was prepared to give him as the rightful claimant of the -See of Dunedin. You are of course at liberty to forward this letter, or a copy of it, for the perusal of Bishop Jenner, if you think proper to do so. — I remain, &c, James Smith. March 3, 1869. My dear Mr Smith — Mr Edwards bye sent me your letter of the 24th February. I cannot be surprised that you should write as you have done If it were true that I had a.ted, or rather spoken, of a nameless informer, I should in iced be unworthy of your support apd confidence, or of the support and confidence ol any faithful English churchman. Here is my answer, which refers to two matters only — my sermon, and the hymn stated to have been sung before the service. For the Archdeacjn expressly acquits the incumbent of the Church of any " Ritualistic excesses," for the absence of which, indeed, I stipulated before 1 consented to preach The banners and candles would, no doubt, be thou :ht '' excesses" in this colony ; in England they are so comm 'nly seen ! that few people are offended at them. I ou ht perhaps to say here that I do not agree with Archieacon Jacob — that th Black Letter days have no authority from the English Church ior their observance. They w^re deliberately replace;! in the Reformed Kal-uider after having been once omitted. Several of them are religiously observed at several of the Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. Indeed nothing is more common throughout England than to hold the annual commemoration of the building or restoration of a Church on the festival, whether black ob red, of the saint whose name the. Church bears. In " Hymns Ancient and Modern," you will find hymnd assigned to Black Letter Saints' Days, under the general healing of " iMartyrs," &c. Bat to proceed with my answer to the representations in Archdeacon's Jacob's letter : — 1. The account given of my sermon is false and calumnious. No ingenuity Bave that of malice could have distO'ted the few words I uttered respecting the BY.M. into the remotest semblance of mariolafcrous teaching. Against this form of error, I expressly warned my hearers. It is indeed one which I have ever considered, and still consider, the worst of Roman corruptions ; one which would alone prevent roe from having anything to do with that communion. But thi3 is surely no reason why I should mention our . Lord's Mother otherwise than with respect and reverence. And this is all I I claimed for her in my sermon, which indeed only mentioned her incidentally at all, be ; n^ mainly an exhortation to Christians to consider their own hearts the throne of the true Solomon, to preserve that pura and white as" ivory, and to overlay it with the gold of charity. I am grieved that you should have so easily taken for .granted the tenth* of the Archdeacou's allegations. Had you known that dignitary as woll as he is known ia England, you would have hesitated, I think. As to the Archbishop's letter, it did nor. surprise me. ICver since his interview with Mr Young he showed himself ruadv to b lieve every tale to my disadvantage. His ■ leoease seals ray lipa, ofc lerwise I could say much of the outrageous pr judging of the case, .implied in the words : — " I shall certainly censure," &c. I have to add that the present Bishop of London, being a friei d of the Whitwell clergyman, wrote to me on the subject of my sermon. When he had read the Archdeacon's letter, I was to meet him at. the re-opening of a church in his diocese (Lincoln), and he wishes me, he sail, to explain anything that required explanation before hand, that there might be no want of cordiality when we met. I replied by sending him the notes of my sermon. When I saw him a week afterwards h3 expressed himself entirely satisfied, declared that what I had snid was no more than had been preached by himself, again and asain, and asked and obtained my spermission to write to Archdeacon Jacob and the Bishop of Winchester on the subject.' (His letter will' of course not be published.) The misrepresentation of my sermon was exposed with the utmost explicitnesa aud with indignation,, in the local papers, immediately after the appearance of the Archdeacon's letter. So completely had this been done, both by myself and by those who had heard the sermon, that I dismissed the mutter from my mind as one of. no great importance (being prettywell used to Blandera), never dreaming that it would be 'raked up. without the contradictions. 2. As to thehjmii Vaid b haTe-beeit aung on the occasion, I can only say that I utterly object 'to it (except the fouKteit linei, which are very beautiful), tad tb»» n»y di»lik« U WellkoWi in'

Kngland, nna was expressed to tl: >■ cuergv and every one els*Sa«&st mS-^fh ; »• \ ice. " The worJs quoted seeru -te meachiMish paying "at Romanism, going as uear }t^as people daiv in a manner I heaitily object to. It; is a grievous injustice to make me answerable for such language. The Bishop of London himself, on the occasion mentioned above, tvas present [at and took part in a service, in hi 3 own dioc<>-e (Lificoln), when tbis very hymn Was 'sung I walked by his siiie' in the procession, mid .we exchanged remavks,- the reverse of complimentary, on the hymn, its writer, and composer. . Is it necessary to say more abou this matter? The service of which Arch leacon Jacob conplains w is. one of the/samt? ejife^ory as those of which I spoke at thvi Duiie iin'mbetinir. I liai nothing to do wifcli fixinij tlie ilayi I -tinul (t.'d ■that there should be no escesses. I wa^ respo'isible for wha*t-I said in my s'ennoii, but io- no other part of the proceklm _rs. Vly 'Un.U'i<;e was misrcpr sented most oiitr i^eously Inm mado io advocate a doutrine or pr.ictiu'e which I ivprob.ite. I ,cure liule for all this; l>ut I d-> aro ?i>r t-he prospect' of alit;n>itin£ suuli fi-ica is us you. The truth is, ray dear Mr Smith, I >m\ icarh weariel out witii this business. The isolation, the liumiliat.pu. of ioy position — vrinch ulminate.f last Sutf iay in my having to "sit under" u< layreader-z-huve well ni^h broken me down. I fe-1 inclined to let maters tike ihtiir chance, and give myself no lurther rou e, and ask mv frien is toleay'm.to my fate. L shall see you no doubt in adayw tw'b Pray brgive me foe leaving off abruptly. 'I am writing uuder difficulties in the coach on my way td Duie .iii I only got your letter' last n'ght, ; an.l I urn anxious to. lose uo time in- coming in.—^l am, &c. H. L. JXSSBR.

Dune .lin, 4th March, 1869. My Dear Lord Bishop — 1 beg to ackuowl age the receipt of your Lordship's letter of yesterday, which, I am glad to say, conveys, in my opinion, a satisfactory explanation, so far as your ■ Lordship is concerned, of the circumstances referred to in my letter of the 24th ult., addressed to Mr Edwards. May I suggest to your Lordship the expediency of your sanctioning the publication of those two, and this letter, with the view of. making -known your real sentiments upon the important questions involved. — I am, &c, . James .iitrrH. The Right Rev. Bishop Tenner. My denr Mr Smith — You are at liberty to publish the letter I-sentyou on Wednesday — although it was, not written with a view to publication. omitted to refer to one sentence in the letter of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, in which, his Grace states that he "censured ray conduei in a somewhat similar instance in such, terms that I never- ventured to reply." The instance in question was a, jseriricij ut "it. Kthelburga's, Bishopij.ite-atreet, LnJ^!, ar. which 1 w.is not even< prose it. 1 rep'iei to l)ia Grace's letler, which e»i:-'io3e 1 pn« t'r-» n an anonymous aitouscr, by st-n lin^ him l£r Ho :we;l's (the rector ot tlie Church) denial oi t:w truth of j the allegations wiuub had a.rojtdy been made public by Mr Young, and by deolmiug to notice any anonymous charge whaterer. — -I urn, &c., H. \,. 5 »NKR.