THE CHURCH AND THE LAW. Proposed Degradation of a Clergyman. An Extraordinary Correspondence. Dunedin, June 7.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 54, 14 June 1884, Page 6

THE CHURCH AND THE LAW. Proposed Degradation of a Clergyman. An Extraordinary Correspondence. Dunedin, June 7.

The following letters have been published :—: — "April 22nd, 1884.— My Dear Mr Stanford, — I am in receipt of yours of the 20th inst., in which you design my license to officiate in this diocese, and request tho removal of your name from the clergy list. Had there been nothing beyond what I stated in your letter, it might have been sufficient for one to accede to your request without further remark ; but the request you make approaches so nearly to a formal intimation of an intention on your part of which I have been definitely informed upon reliable authority, viz., that your purpose is to abrogate your orders, that it is necessary for me to add a few words. lam told that you purpose entering the [profession of the law, and that your name is likely to appear shortly as that of a practising barrister or solicitor. As I hold such a change of pro f ession to be incompatible with your posi-* tion as a priest in the Church of God, and as this is the first occasion, &o far as I am aware, of such renunciation of holy orders in this ecclesiastical province, I think it right to inform you that should you not be able to assure me that I have been misinformed, or should you finally take the step I have indicated, I shall be obliged to proceed m this matter in such a manner as may appear to be advisable for the purpose of effecting your public degradation from the ranks of the clergy. I need not say that this would be most painful to me, and I can only wish that you had consulted me before going so far in this matter as I am informed you have done. — S.T. Dunedin. The Rev. 11. H. Stanford, 8.A." "Right Rev. Sir, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 24th ult., and I need hardly say that its contents both grieve and surprise. They grieve me in that a bishop of the Church I love should have supposed it to be his duty to pen such a letter, and they mark a new departure in the management of the diocese. You have apparently listened to rumours concerning my actions. I have not adopted the same course in making remarks on your performance of the duties of the sacred office of a bishop. lam correct, I think, in saying that hitherto the clergy in this diocese have not been learned by example to consider the following of secular callings incompatible with the office of a priest. Had I continued to be enrolled as a clergyman, and followed the profession of the law, though I might have expected adverse criticism from some, perhaps, in and out of our community, I should certainly not have looked for such from you as a clergyman in your diocese. I have known from time to time of a bishop being a land speculator, mixed up in the conduct of pottery works, and bargaining over an annuity. To your conduct of these numerous speculative enterprises I have heard many bad epithets applied, and have said nothing, feeling that it was your concern, and not mine. You appear to have thought it no inconsistence with the 4>ffice of a biahop, an overseer of the Church

of Christ, to mix yourself up in no small degree with such purely worldly and secular affairs. I, on the contrary, before entering the honourable profession of the law, thought it in better taste to resign my profession as a clergyman. There is therefore this contrast between our actions : You remain a bishop while spending no inconsiderable portion of your time on these secular affairs ; I resign my clerical calling before devoting my attention to the profession of a barrister and solicitor. You will now understand how greatly the qontents of your letter surprise me. I do not know why I might not have expected sympathy and support from you in my en- N deavour to provide for my family and myself. Instead of this, however, a vulgar and childish threat of degradation is hurled at my head. This, on calm reflection, you will, I believe, withdraw. Before therefore giving publicity to your letter and this reply, I give you an opportunity of withdrawing your letter. I for one should regret vory much that the menibors of pur Church should loam that their bishop could act in a manner so opposed to the method of his Master and mine. — I am, etc., R. L. Stanford." " Bishop Grove, May 15, 18S4.— To the Rev. R. L. Stanford : Sir,— l yesterday received yours of the 12th inst. I have read again the letter to which yours is a reply, and find therein a sufficient rofutation of your accusation as to my having listened to rumours. I took no notico of an intimation made to me on the highest authority until I heard from the charge of having, listened to rumours, some of them quite without foundation regarding myself. I have no intention, however, of following you in the comparison you appear to institute between my conduct in tho past and your own. I have only to say that were I conscious of greater culpability in the conduct of my privato affairs than I am, I do not think that 1 should allow such fault in any way to interfere with that which seemed to me to be the path of duty. As a matter of fact, I think you are aware that that portion of the rumour respecting myself to which you refer, which is true, arises from my having had the misfortune some six years ago to entrust my private affairs to designing and dishonest advisors. The point of importance, however, in due course I used the word "degradation" in my last letter in the strict meaning of the word, holding as I do with the Church in all times and countries that it is not right to leave the Church open to any blame which may come from the action of an other priest who chooses to enter upon an entirely new profession, retiring from the active exercise of his priestly functions on the part of the individual, is no adequate defence. His Church character remains, andoughtundersuch circumstances to be removed by the same authority whence it proceeded in as far as it can bo removed, the Church no longer being responsible for the actions of the man. I thought it most kind to tell you of this before it was needful for me to act. — S. T. Dunedin." "Right Roy. Sir,— l am in receipt of yours of May 15th. I do not propose to follow you into all the various matters you have set up in explanation. I trust that you will see your way to withdraw your letter to me of April 24th, and will only add that I shall delay the publication of this correspondence for a week to give you the opportunity of doing so. — R. L. Stanford." " Rev. Sir, — In reply to yours of the 20th, I have only to say that I supposed you would understand by my taking no notice of your threat to publish the correspondence that I left you to act as you might determine in that question. I have still tho same intention as to my action. I have only to say that the matter is so novel, and, to ray mind, so very solemn, and I shall not allow myself either to be hurled into precipitate action or to be turned aside from any course uDon which I may eventually decide. — I am, S/T., Dunedin."