CHURCH FEDERATION.
LTO TRH Emma Or THE “HrsOTATOR.”3 Sia,—My attention has been called to a misleading passage in the Spectator's notice (March 5th) of a paper of mine in the March Contemporary, on "The National Church as a Federal Union." I am said to propose that "the Church," prior to being "set free under its own Synod to live its own life," shall be "deprived of all revenues originally belonging to the nation." Two mistakes are compressed into these nine words,—(1), The paper expressly denies that the revenues in question ever "belonged to the nation ;" (2), it insists on not "depriving the Church of them, though terminating the monopoly of them by the Episcopalian communion."
Allow me also to disclaim once more the wish imputed to me for "a comprehension so wide that vital differences are treated as unimportant." To me, not less than to my critic, a Church based upon a minimum credibile is as unstable as a pyramid poised upon he apes.—I am, Sir, 45LC., JAMES MARTLSEAII. [What is the difference between being deprived of one's income and losing the monopoly of it P—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
