The Globe. TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1876.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 577, 25 April 1876, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1876.

The annual meeting of the parishioners of St. Michael’s, held last evening, must have been a most unpleasant gathering of the members of the Church. After the usual financial business had been transacted, came the elections of churchwardens and vestry. The chairman (the Incumbent) and the parishioners in attendance were evidently at cross purposes, and from the speeches made at the meeting it may be readily conceived that matters have been progressing adversely to the interests of the Church for some time past in consequence of the want of harmony in the actions of the Incumbent and the vestry. We have no doubt that both the one and the other have acted throughout in a conscientious manner ; but this fact remains, that the conscience of the one is not the conscience of the other, and that the Christianity of both as the result shows is a bitterness ot feeling sufficient to induce the m eting to elect a vestry, some of the members of which, the Incumbent stated, he could not work harmoniously with, and the meeting also carried a resolution which concludes with the words—- “ This meeting is of opinion that the “ peace and well being of the parish “ can only be secured by the resigna- “ tion of the Incumbent.” The chairman said he did not consider the voice of the meeting the voice of the parish, and unhesitatingly stated that “ The “ meeting had been very considerably “ packed.” What can the public know of the differences which exist amongst those who are entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Church, but experience demonstrates that when once disunion creeps into religious business, neither side knows when nor where to stop, the feud grows rapidly, fed with such tales as repetition swells into black enormities. That the spirit of conciliation and Christian humility could intercede successfully between two parties in a disputed Church matter is not generally believed, bat we do think that there is a fine opportunity at the present time to illustrate by example what the one preaches and the others profess to uphold. We do not believe that a Christian gentleman and a clergyman of the Church of England would publicly state at the annual meeting of his parishioners, “ That he “ had for a considerable time past “ been subject to persecution,” unless he had some grounds for such an assertion, neither do we credit that the vestry could be without reasons for their actions. Quarrels in connection with Church interests are always objectionable, as tending to lower the Church itself in the estimation of the people; whilst any acrimony which may be displayed by one of its members towards another only widens the breach, and subjects the offender to a loss of public respect and self-deprecation not easily to be recovered, We are not advocates for extreme measures, and after the Incumbent having stated that there were two members of the late vestry with whom he could not work in harmony, it would probably have been a more conciliatory course had those two gentlemen have retired from their position for a time, and thus have given the Incumbent an opportunity to make concessions which the re-election of those gentlemen possibly precludes him from being enabled to comply with.