Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 416, 4 October 1876, Page 2

Sir, —Reluctantly, indeed, I take up my pen in order to condemn the action of one of our clergymen, who was recently requested by a bereaved husband to perform the funeral rites over the grave of his deceased wife. The clergyman expressed his willingness to do so,but, attheeleventh hour, he cooly sent word to the effect that he had another matter to attend to, which necessitated his non-fulfilment of promise. What will every right minded or Christian man think when he hears that the errand upon which he found excuse for absenting himself was one of recreation. It’s useless to beat about the bush, or to hide the name of the Clergyman in question. The Rev. W. H. Root I refer to, and would much like him to satisfy the public by giving a straightforward explanation of his conduct. Look at a different specimen of a minister of religion, who by accident, and with considerable inconvenience to himself (so far as prior engagements are concerned) without hesitation, consented to conduct the burial service, in the face of the fact that his presence was required at Makauri, and knowing well that he would have to hurry from the cemetery to keep his very pressing engagement. To say nothing of the wounded feelings of friends of the bereaved, it is simply cruel treatment to the husband, who feels the pang more bitterly than words can express, in his trying time of affliction. Friendship, Love, and Truth, is the motto of the fraternity to which deceased belonged ; but can any of these terms be applied to one who has failed to perform thej duty of a Christian minister with a worse than trivial excuse.—Yours, Ac., R.S.V.G. [Wo give insertion to the above at the urgent request (we may almost say, appeal) of the writer; but not without much pain and regret; and we sincerely trust that the rev. gentleman mentioned, will be able satisfactorily to remove the charge of which he is accused. —Ed. P.B.S.]