Open Collections

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

Diocesan Synod. Address of the Dean of Christ Church to the Congregation Cridge, Edward, 1817-1913 1874

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcbooks-1.0221691.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcbooks-1.0221691.json
JSON-LD: bcbooks-1.0221691-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcbooks-1.0221691-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcbooks-1.0221691-rdf.json
Turtle: bcbooks-1.0221691-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcbooks-1.0221691-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcbooks-1.0221691-source.json
Full Text
bcbooks-1.0221691-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcbooks-1.0221691.ris

Full Text

Array 
Yours faithfully,
E. CRIDGE.'
Editor Standard,—Sir :—At the requostivince him of what  I conccivod to be its true
of   several  members  of   the congregation   I character.
Av'afl myself of your columns to publish.the
following   address   to  the   congregation   of     March 26th, 1874.
Christ Church. 	
The   obvious  tendency of the Synod, on Deae;Bbbthren
the   principles  proposed,  is  to  establish  a     In addressing you on  the  subject of the
system of centralisation, highly prejudicial, proposed synod I wish-to be plain, inasmuch
in my opinion, to life in the church, and one as it is a  public  question, affecting  church
which, I think, every church person throughout the Province should seriously consider
before consenting to it in any way.
The whole course of events, from the
ritualistic teaching of the Archdeacon at the
consecration   of the   church,  down   to  the
people throughout the Province ; and the
public acts of all concerned are open to
discussion.
But I wish also to address you in the
spirit of candour and charity, as one who
would in all things seek the edification of the
covering of the church doors with electioneer- church, and the advancement of true religion,
ing placards, without my knowledge or con-| And ihastnuch as this is pmely a pastoral
sent, is so illustrative of the danger in which address I do not propose that there should
we stand, that I feel it my duty to raise the be on the present occasion any discussion or
voice of warning. resolutions.   And I am sure, as  this is, in a
For myself, personally, 1 feel little concern sense, a religions meeting, you will also con-
what may  be  said of me.   I may  be mad, cur  in the -desire that there should toe no
or false, or anything else. But when any
attempt is made to defame my ministry, or
intrude upon my office, which I have received
in trust for the church, as well as for myself
I shall not hesitate, if I belitife the interests
of religion require it, to give it to the light
of day. I only hope the congregation will
bear this disquietude in hope of a greater
peace in a brighter day. I have supplied
two or three points accidentally omitted in
the delivery.
I may observe tbat I should not have published the Bishop's  "judgment"  had  I   notloue which
previously used  my best endeavors to  con-'approve.
demonstration, whether of applause, or other-
vise ; for although personal questions must
unavoidably be touched, it will not, I hope,
be in a personal manner.
And here I may offer a word of explanation
as to the course I have pursued in reference
to the movement so far, and my reasons for
not joining iu it. My reason as simply this,
that neither the congregation nor myself have
had a free voice in the matter. We have
been.' expected to move .-in a channel marked
out for ns ; that chauuel, unhappily, being
my own   conscience could   not It was right that the Bishop should have
set forth his views before the congregations.
Bat, that beiug done,''he should, in ray humble judgment, have retired, and left the con-
gregations and ministry free to deliberate on
his proposals.
On this ground I protested three several
times against the evident unfairness ot expect-
iug myself and congregation to be bound by
a movement of the nature and ends of which
the majority, I am persuaded, are still profoundly ignorant. And I must also observe
that this movement, so far as authority is
concerneaj*!? only the act of individuals,
however highly esteemed, and not ef the congregation.
Now I believe that the true business and
end of a synod is that or a voluntary union
of congregations, who have agreed on their
common faith, to combine their strength in
spreading abroad the gospel and, in common
christian works. And had these been purely
the ends of the present movement, I for one I
would not have opposed it. So far from this
being the case it has at the outset been
grounded on principles utterly repudiated by
u large body in the Church of England.
I must put this matter plainly before you,
because 1 declare to you my conviction that
the purity of the reformed faith is in danger
trom those principles.
Had €t not been for the occurrences' which
took place at the consecration of the church,
when, before you all, I protested against
ritualism ; and had it not been for what has
onsuod from that protest ; I, too, might have
been led into the unconscious acceptance of
principles, the nature of which I might have
discovered when too late,
"What has subsequently happened I feel 1
must now briefly put before you. It is a
duty'%hich 1 owe to my ministry and the
cause of truth; to my family; and to you, my
beloved brethren. To you, the congregation,
because ever since that protest thete has been
a something, you scarcely have known what,
disturbing your quiet if not obstructing your
edification; to my ministry, tbat I may not be
supposed to have exercised it unlawfully ; to
ray children, tbat my name may not be a
reproach to them when my lips arc silent.      .
I must therefore put a certain letter before
yon; a letter which, whatever others may
have done, I have never communicated, nor
spoken of, except to some very few members
of the congregation, who have sought of me
an explanation ; and you will bear mo witness, my friends, that, whatever wrong may
have been done to mo, 1 have not gone
whispering among you to 1'omeut dissensions.
What I say, therefore, I say openly.
The letter to which I allude is a judgment
passed upon me by the Bishop, for the protest
which I uttered on the occcasion referred to;
and I produce it bow in order, first, that this
element of disquiet,—so far at least as it is
a hidden one,—may be removed from amongst
you; and also, because it forcibly illustrates
what I wish to say as to- the dangerous nature of the principle on which the projected
synod ie virtually based ; the doctrine, I
mean, of the apostolical succession; the controversy of ages and of all the churches.
And here I wish you to bear in mind, that
I bring this before you as an official act on
the Bishop's part, and not as a personal matter ; the said letter having been sent by him
to the Church Wardens (who did not send it
back)*and therefore virtually published.
What I therefore now say to you is in some
sense my defence, as well as pertinent to my
general argument.
This is the letter :—
Bishop's Close, Victoria,
Decmbeer 14, 1872.
Rev. Sir :—Having .offered you, with no
good result, several opportunities of expressing regret at your conduct on the 5th of December, a regret which should be expressed
to your Bishop, who was unhappily present
an eye and ear witness of the sad scene; to
your brother minister whom, you openly insulted in the House of God, and to the congregation whom you distnrbed and distressed, it now remains for me to discharge a
most painful duty, the more Manful cogsid'er-
ing your position as Dean of the Cathedral
and as senior clergyman of the diocese, from
whom might beexpeoted at least an example
of self-control, propriety and  order.
On the 5th of December, at the evening
service of the Day of Consecration of Christ
Church, immediately after the sermon by the
Archdeacon of Vanoouver, instead of proceeding with the service, you stood up, and in
irritating and chiding language yon de-
nounced your brother clergyman by name,
and amongst other words declared that he had
violated the law of the church, the law of the
land, and the law of God in the Scriptures.
Being evidently under excitement, your
manner and language caused unseemly disturbance in the congregation. There were
vehement expressions such as are only heard
in secular buildings and in drinking saloons,
stamping of feet,  clapping of hands, and otner unseemly  noises.    Much  distress wasl    Witness my hand this 14th day of  Decera-
Bcfeated  amongst all   the  properly disposed ber, 1872, G, COLUMBIA.,
and regular members of the congregation, in     To   theVery   Reverend Edward   Cridgo,
the midst of which several persons hastily
l>*ft the church. The deepest pain was caused
to the B-iahop of Oregon, myself, the clergy,
and the congregation generally.
To the enemy of religion and to the  careless and profane, an occasion has been given
Rector of Christ Church, Victoria, and  Dean
of the Cathedral.
Now, my brethren, the best answer I can
give to this letter, is to repeat now
hefore  you,   all   that  I  did   say,   as  word
to blaspheme and ridicule the sacred cause for word t raay aver r wro,e u dow after
of God, and a stumbling block has been delivery .having spoken with full deliberation,
placed in the way of the weak. Ita   tenor   ig  conflrmed  by others who also
You have committed the grave offence, wrote for me their recollociions ; I am confi-
which is described both in the ecclesiastical dent you will find in it nothing that will con-
law, and in the statute  law of the empire by iradict your own.
the term of brawling, an act of disturbance of] After a pause, and the preacher had left
divine worship punishable in a layman by fine the pulpit, and before giving out the hymn,
or imprisonment, in a clergyman by suspen-st turned myself to the congregation, and
sion. said :—
Moreover you violated the 53rd Canon of My very dear brethren and" ftf efcfd's, it is
the Church of England, which forbids public with feelings of Borrow and humiliation that
opposition between clergymen, and requires1 feel myself compelled to take an unuSfflil
Jjjei clergymen offending to be inhibited, course. Something has been said in your
"becauge upon such public dissenting and ears this evening, upon which 1 feel myself
contradicting, there may give much offence impelled by my conscience as your *$&Sff5r
and disquietness unto the people." |t° have the last word.    (Subdued applause.)
I do entreat you to remember that this is the
house of God. (Perfect quietness to the end )
11 have ministered  among you  on this  spot
No provocation la allowed to lnstify a vio>»i. ,, ,,
t, ,. , JA    ,J. ,   house of God. (Perfectquietness to the end.)
If the   Archdeacon's - '
for nineteen years, and this is the fii^st time,
-that I have heard ritualism  advocated
I  know I am weak, but I trust I can
lation   of these  laws.
sermon had contained error there are means
to be adopted by which he could be called to '
.   r ,.     ' ., ,.~     "—and I hurab y pray to  God it may be the
account.    If, as  was the case, you differed ,    t J
last -
tr-ora the view he took of a similar subject, ,     '
t here
you have abundant opportunities of teaching        ." m»j>„ t. '      < ,,i
?Vt .,      .    ,B say in dependence on God's help, that ritual-
your congregation what you consider  to be . '   .   ,,r    ..  u.  • . » a  „~„„™ ««.,  „..
'. . .     J?   6   ....    , v.-    •     .u   rr ism shall not be introduced  among you, as
right     Your attack upon  him m   the House,       ftS f haye ft voice t0 raiae B    ,*8*lt.     i
fa°f Til       , T'f unJU8tlfiable 8lncf. Hhave three reasons for  this, which I give to
occupied the pulpit at you.-own suggestion,        ,   nQ cotltrover8iftl  BpiW,a-ifirst, thaFit
and he is a member of the Cathedral body,    \i        .        ,„ .,.„ :«,.,..„„     fphQ to_,„i. «_
J      Us contrary to the scriptures,    i ne temple la
Considering all these circumstances, con- referred to in support of ritualism, but it,
■idcring the public scandal you have caused, with all its ceremonies, was according to a
the outrage upon order and prosperity in pattern from heaven, and is therefore no au-
divine worship, and violation of the lawslthority to us. Secondly—it has been de-
expressly framed to prevent such an unhappy Ulared to be contrary to the law in England,
exhibition, I should probably be justified in And thirdly, it is not found in this book—
taking a course much more severe ; consi- the Prayer Book,—which is my only guide
dering, however, also your long and faithful for ministering among you. These are the
service in the church, that you were pro-lr asons why I cannot giVe my consent to its
bably unaware of the WW'S which prohibit introduction in this church.
such actions, and that this is the fii'st grave Now, my friends, it is a. welFlinderstood
offence of any kind in the Diocese which I principle that when a man's office, or his
have been called upon to notice, I take thejrjghts, or his trust, is in danger, he is%.t
most lenient course I can adopt, and I inflict liberty to inter a protest. And even should
upon you only a grave censure. Ihe in   the   sudden   unexpected*'weWerge'i!$y,
As your Bishop then I censure you foryourlsomewhat exceed the accustomed   restfrSims'
conduct on Thursday, the 5th day of Decern- of language or conduct, it is pardoned for tho
ber, 1872, and   I admonish  you to be   more urgency of the occasion.     THefflbst despotic
careful in future. pope would   not  forbid   this liberty ; for he I
CvlfTcTi I
if to am
read from
's date.
might be forbidding a dander.      If the ser-l^hat -
,jftCP in question had,been an attack on
timents held by the Bishop, as it was an   attack on those 'held by the minister  and hie 	
congregation,—the   Bishop    himself   would point of vie
hardly have failed to thank his defender, and
to load him  with   hi3  best   rewards.    How
much more, when I stood up, as I  believed,
for my master, and for my church, in defence
of the ministry which had been  entrusted to
me with the most solemn adjurations.    Still,|gynod is grounded.    And seeing in this case
had I acted in the manner described, I should tae working of these  principles  and  feeling
have been unworthy of the ministry
If,the scr-.
sen- his Pe" in the Standard
Now brethren, T put this casein connection with the  synod  from  a  Christ  Church
2W.
It has, I believe, been impressed upon you
that the synod is to heal this and every otacr
wound of the church.
Now it is not a synod in itself that I object
I to, but the principles on   wb,iph the proposed
 1   :-   . 1 ...J
_..  n   - i -   r —  ■" r»
certain from the very nature of the assumption on which they are based, that they will
still work, though in another form, the question arises, is it safe to go into such a synod ?
Who will suggest a tribunal by which such
a case as this could bo tried ? For I find in
the proposed synod no provision made for
trying the Bishop himsplf, whoever may he
There was no.tribunal in the country which the incumbent of the office. I wisj to speak
could have dealt with the erroueous doctrine wffh all respect. This is a public question
which I believed it to contain. I had no We are constituting, or professing to consti-
hope that the Bishop would rebuke the|tute, the
preacher. He has indeed since
that there was nothing in the sermon which
I have the  consolation  of believing, from
numerous testimonies, that  the step was ap-
-proved by the congregation generally,—some
of whom even on their   dying  beds, have referred to it with tears.
■But in fact there was no other way open to
.me of dealing with  this  offensive  discourse
church   for   our   children.    And
intimated surely we cannot omft   irom   our  cbiwidtitfU
went beyond the liberty of opinions in
the Church of England, and of which any
formal notice could be takeu. I may observe, my brethren, in passing, that the
preacher on that occasiou, was guilty of a
great breach of trust in using my pulpit to
teach doctrines which he kaewwere notoriously adverse  to   my   own.    The  pulpit i
tion-the chief part of that constitution,—the
head. Now, as in the proposed constitution,
the Bishop can say " no " to every proposal
of the rest of the body, it is plain tbat no
tribunal cau try the bishop, except a' revolutionary one,—i e., one which will destroy the
prerogative.
It may be supposed that the convention
will adtefr this. The Bishop does not sup-
under the exclusive control of the uiiuistefBJpose so. He has.'adwpted the resolutions
who, as he must have known, is. agco'untafflelwhichjBioiude,— th©ugii.> tfrey do not express
for the doctrine taught, so far as iu him lies, -^the veto, as the " understanding " on
I say,-then, that in this case,—iu the case.Lwhich 'he convention meets. . See the circu-
of the letter i have read to yga, Jiondemningjlar to the "Clergy and Laity." And ju
me. for my protest,—the Bishop, relyingjlookiug over the programme set forth, I must
doubtless, on the irresponsible, authority ex,pra$ajmy owu feelings that thero is-appar-
wbich I am sure he sincerely believes heJently ,)ifj.le that savors of leligipfttiaoXhe
possesses, combined iu his.own person tin-,movement, but much that respinofes au an-
functions of prosecutor, witness and judge jiprouchiuu political contest. ; At -Least I
functions which, I venture to say, except in,must say that when elections ar.e.dirwited to
the ecclesiastical law, (if this be law) or injbe held in any church,—for the registrar of
Government over infants or slaves, arejtho diocese, it would seem, has,,.kindly ar-
never allowed to meet in one' person. ranged that this proceeding shall take place
I must also  observe,  that on  applying to>|in the sacred   edifice itself; (subject    I be-
the Bishop to  know   what others   witnessedjlieve, to the approval  of a   committee) and
against me; at what council, if any, this,when the communicants and congregation
sentence was decided on ; and what record,lare called to whit may be a party strife
if any, was made in the archives of the dio-| where no sound of discord should bo" heard!
cese; this information was refused,and I wasjit does a little grate on my ideas of the sane-
referred, for redress, to the Archbishop ofuity and devotion which ouc would like % see
Canterbury, which means, I believe, a costiyjpreserved'amongst u?.
lawsuit,    I am quite sure if Archdeacon Gil-     But to revert  to   the   question   from   the
son knew these things, he would write some-[Christ  Church point   of   view.    How is t^e syn°d„tfi heal the wound   which was   oponedjthc most disastrous cfiects upon tho  harm'emy
m the^ftojnsepration, and has been   increasLuglof congregations.
?ifeEi-8A0Cf.i rendeBing my   ministrv a   enntin-     n u„„ v.„ .   ,        , r   .1 •   i   ••.
, ' a    '   tuiuionj a   uomm-     It has been suggested, and I  think   it  not
ual pnotest? ; i      ,   os.  d^js, ..
'™*,,B-   . Jim pro, per to advert to it here,  that   there is-
(Will it foribidlrajs from .BBQtest&fiE against dagger, if I give my consent, to   a  synod,  of
felse doctriajjs, or.compsl.me to admit those the   Christ   Church   Trust being affected.    I
only glance at this, as the land being part of
the support of your minister, you are as much
interesf$4;as my&ajfj.Aud the question lius been
raised how far it may be consistent with the
Bishop'^ office, as trustee, to pursue a course
which may tend to draw toei&jstin qua tru.ttc,
which is myself,   inco   a   proceeding  which
which arftfSabiv.eri9i,V6 of my own ministry! ?
The synod might, I am well aware,—if one
consented to he bound by it,—be taught to
put a ipd in amynB^shop's .(japM, by means of
Sim ecclesiastical tribunal, under his immediate guidance, to keep ministers who taught
contrary to his  will, in a kind of  subordina-
tiou.   iBut what sort of unjly js.  that whichlmight endanger his vesteS'Hghts.
would tie achieved in this matfper ? I want you to see how thiSlbatter stafrdVin
1 It is said, indeed, tb&t a synod will   not be another point   of view.   I exercise niy,minis-
called upon to giveijiuiitgmeut upon doctrines.!try, and hold what may be C%'lred   my  living,
•jiShere is a fallacy bore; for one of the objectslunder a trust deed   which   renders   me ^We
of   a  synod   is   to   frame laws of discipline. I from -til molestation as long as I conform   to
^Whatever   tribunal,    therefore,   the    synod [the Ik Ws of the   Cbrireh   of'England.     That
erects, will judge   doctrines,—whether  thjyltrust'aeed confirmed   and   conveyed   for my
• are, or are not thosejof the . Church of  Eug-!benefit  first the land which was promised (to
land.    The  meaning,   of  course, is that  thejme by express covenant'bfefore I left England
-sysuod will concede to ritb*j Bishop, probably add which I CpfSeVed on S0m'$d5 years   before
with such   assessors   as he-:l3Sg|y jaAjj)ie-bim,fC'H8'Bishop CamQ'to this country,  rflf I  offend
the power to deal with doctrine?. : hVg&i&st these doctfi'd'es I  must  Oe  tuied for
In this waythe   organizing ineefjiBg,—andjWeach of trust by   ordinary   course   of just
-fcaitlfaoHhe cifecuimstance; ab^vje mentioned, IjlSw.      Btft.if I   were to   be   bound   by   a
probably   should   have been   one, and   have synod which shall hare authority   to  decide
1 done as my  brethren  did, without  knowing tekayfleaatBiripon   the infringement of.these
ilwhahllwas doing,—have' virtually  decided,|doc*rioes,    I  come   under  a  different   lfuy;
by   adoption.,   dociclns, viz,,Lthe  doctrine  ofand might one day find that in the estimation
apostolical  succession,—on which alone  theiof a certaimclose tribunal,   I ata  judged   to
veto rests.    Nqw,   in   reference   to ity# doc-pave violated these docufcnes.
trine, which wc have so quietly  accepted, orl    And looking at the syrwid in its constitution
I at least allowed, let me  quote a reply of  thejof voting by orders, what hope might  I hajfe
kpr.esettt B*iphop of ExetfiEBji-Dr,tfljeaiple,— tojinggjjgdy where a majority of one^bjre^h/eii,
jfeame of thegPraGtarian body who vvished.b^tyftS J believ&jis now the case, are dependenton
to dec^anaflhW; this   was .ti9j»djRfttriQe oi^hjellhg Bishop• lor'-nemovaf^n "any   question  iu
»<Jbiii*&.; of   England,   Jje   decltuedefsyiyingifbioh I mjghjajjfive the misfortune of diffe'r-
| rather.felicitously., that wlghJithe church hadji^g from the Bj^iap. I say it with all respect
8|>BOBid»di»#ljat  bejiSUninisters  should   haveif^such ojQmy brethren   audi t(o   the  Bishop
tbat;6ti#cessidn)#ocM., ordination by Bishopsfbimself.    For though   I puj^it as. a personal
iu   the   traditional   sense^-r^Kas a matter of-questign, I doubt not Mja^some of my   rever-
fact   she  had  omitted  from  heSdjniJpXes all end.pijethren, whose positions, like  aiy own,
sm'fntion i«t:  that suoceiision  as a mattar of are settled by law, might find themselves in
doctrine." bothythe above   respeeflL in   ^essentially   the
I must not pass over the evident-.J^tentioqpame altered circumstances as those which   I
tnat the synod shall dejslare the church war-ihave described-^
dens to be the Bishop's officers.    I hope  our|    It may be expected thatTshould  shew my
own church wardens—and I say it  with  the own views with regard to   what  might be  a
most sincere appreciation   of  their valuable desirable constitution for a synod,
and assiduous services—will be able  to ex-     I must first repeat my sense   of the   insu-
plaia at the approaching annual meeting  the perable differences which, to ray mind,   exi;
grounds in which they have, as it  appears to in so reconciling religious
ine, acted for some time past rather as the
Bishop's agents than of those who appointed
them.     Such a canon, if past, ,umst produce
differences as to
render possible an arrangement for dealing
with doctrines which shall be satisfactory 10
all, when  you   call to   mind   (and   I  speak a
been
this without judging who is right and who isj't should bo dpnlt with simply on the grounds-
wrong,) that fundamental differences existjof a breach of trust by the ordinary tribunals
between the Bishop and some of the clergy, I would make one remark in reference to
and be ween some of the clergy and others, statement I have been told has
You en see the difficulty; there are but two made, that I have asserted that Bishops are
ways of gttting over it,both of which are op- not necessary in the Church of England,
posed to all religion and faitb; the first is Why my brethren, 1 am by birth and educa-
submitting questions of doctrine to the will tion an Episcopalian, and by choice, an
of a majority among the opponents; or com-Episcopal minister, I believe the Episcopal
polling all to teach as the Bishop believes; Office when exercised-according to the prin-
w.hich, with the most sincere conviction on ciplesof our church, to be most reverend
the Bishop's side that it is the only means ot and beneficial, and its just authority to be
unity, is, I apprehend, one mam object ol most readily and gladly submitted to by all
the movement. who are under it.    But I ask is the Episcopal
How much better for congregations,   being °ffi«e, that is as in  the Church  of England,
lawfully constituted under Church of England
principles, rather to pray and trust to a
Gracious God to maintain amongst them its
pure faith.
necessary in the Presbyterian, or other
churches? You know tha&this has been one
of my objections to the doctrine of the apostolical succession ; which howevor its conse-
. ,   ,, , ,i(i .qnences  may  be  deprecated  by   charitable
But with this reserve and without knowing^ J  men ft      Archdeacon Gilson
until the time comes what course    I   m.ghtL^      g we b     and  ,.f seo
myself feel it right to adopt, I think that toe        actUed  involve  asb it's ,    ical  Beqllenco
whole body should de.berate together underL£ !oa ^ *   ftre   £ pro.
the presidency of the Bishop; every  question        cburches,at all,
veins decided bv a  majority   ot clergy  and r T .u     1 u r 1 •   j   c
, .. *    .^, "i      .      .1     !>■ u      t     • I thank you very much for your kind  for
mally  with   equal votes, the  Bishop having , i- .    •      . .u-_    _    ■__    t
, J H    . '. .        r>    ^u•   bearance in listening to me this evening,   I
when necessary the casting   vote.     By  this. ,    ...    ... ", •   .  .      ,.  .        ."    .
-i.  j r .._• i    1, • .u        i j      have no doubt omitted points of interest and
method I think all questions,—those ot  doc-       . -. . K    .  r   , .,»
. . .   .   . .  ^ '  .      .  ,. . perhaps of importance; but I.hope you  will
trine being as above excepted, might most r._    r ,.f , : '    '
.• c   .   -i   u   j   i.    -.u give me credit for a stnceri
■satisfactorily be dealt with.
I should deem it jus*, also that questions;
affecting the internal affairs of congregations
should be communicated to all the cougrega
tious beforehand with a view to their being
determined at a subsequent session, and only
congregations to be bound by such decision
as consent to it.
For I see no necessity for the iron band of
uniformity being 80 stringently placed on
congregations as to destroy their independence and freedom of action on their own
internal affairs. And I hope to sea our own
congregation waking up to a more lively
interest in its own affairs.
At the same time 1 consider tbat the Prayer
Book must as it now is be adopted  in its in
give me credit tor a sincere desire and endeavour, however I may come short in the
performance, and however I may differ from
some whom I respect and love to form all
my conduct and sentiments as near as I can
according to the will of God.
I wonld only, inconclnsion,ask you to make
these matters the subject of your earnest
prayers. I will not disguise from you tbat I
view the future with some anxiety, but .not
without hope. God is light and will guide
us it we look to Him. One of oar greatest
evils is indifference. If- wo can but hare
peace—a blessing indeed most to be desired
by a christian people—it seems sometimes to
matter little what, on a point more or less, it
our faith. The chief dauger I should apprehend to the congregations should a synod as
tegrity, subject only to such exceptions asiprOpesed be carried into effedfi, is the settling
are demanded by our own situation outside'down into a dead level of uniformity, wifth
the national church and for the reasons Ijpea-cepurchasedby no little sacrifice of truth,
have above stated, any cases ot violation ofj May <Jod avert the dafe^etds  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcbooks.1-0221691/manifest

Comment

Related Items