The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-05-23
BISHOP WANTS
 DIVISION OF
 CONN. DIOCESE
Rev. J. H. George Re- plies to Articles in
 Newspapers
Proposal to Elect Episcopal Suf- fFsgan Is NOt Widely FaVOT-
 ed, He Says

Rev J- H. George of Newtown, one Of the best known members of the Episcopal clergy ip the diocese of Con- necticut, today issued a statement to The Farmer through which he seeks to refute recently published articles in
 which he says the position of Rt. Rev Chauncey B. Brewster is grossly mis- stated.
 Mir. George asserts that the prepon-| derance of sentiment in the diocese is for the division of the diocese rather than the election of suffragan bish- op- He adds that there Is no uncer- tainty among those in touch with Bishop Brewster as to Episcopal mind on the matter. He hints that there Is a purpose of deceit in the articles so far published
 Following is Rev. MT. Georges state ment:
 .sAn article has appeared in several papers in regard to this subject so full of inaccuracies and so calculated to misIead that it becomes necessary to state the facts as they stand at the present time
 .-T7his article referred to says that Bishop Brewster has addressed a cir -cular appeal to the clergy and laity urging them to vote for a suffragan bishop and against division of the dio- cese at the coming convention A let ter was written by the bishop to the Connecticut Churchnaan early in April In this letter he speaks of adequate provision for Episcopal services, and gives his Judgment on each of the plans proposed First, as to a bishop coadjutor he says he cannot now feel himself justified in asking for co- adjutor on account of age; and thinks it unadvtsable to ask for one on the ground of extent of diocesan work In regard to division. he says that his own mind has before this been plainly expressed It will be remembered that he urged division as the best so- 1ution of the difficulty three years ago; but the diocese did not grant 1t. He l r4pfes the growing sentiment in favor of it. and says that ultimately 1t Is in | evftabla If tNk matter night Sbe l agreed upon and definitely made ready | for preEentation to the general con-1 Der. well and good.,- He feels,, how ever. that 1t would be difficult to set tie the matter before that, and so re CUTS to the election of a Sumragan, by whose assistance the present work Of the diocese could adequately be done He closes his letter with these words: We are not, however committed to anything The question in all it's bearings is before the diocese for de cisfon, and present the entire matter for your thoughtful earnest and pray erfu1 considerat1on.'
 .On April 14th the Fairfield County | Clerical Association meeting in Bridge rort and considering this question is- I
 
 conviction a paper prepared by one of | their number advocating division of l the diocese, and a financial statement | prepared by a well known laymaT1I showing its practicability. This pa- per bears the names of forty-four c1ergymen- They also took action to 1 print this statement of their convic- i ton, to circulate it through the dio- | cese, to bring the subject before meet ings of the clergy and in other parts 1 of the State. and to present it for ac- &fon at the convention in June.
 sIt is to be noted that the bishops | letter was written before this definite action. though 1t did not appear until 1 Ehurchnan was published. Since that time a committee of this clerical asso- i ciatior1 has presented the matter \be- fore three other archdeaconries, and two clerical associations, and has found that the sentiment, if not as unanimous as that of the Fairfield association, is elsewhere overwhelm- ingiy in favor of division, and there are now at least one hundred clergy of the diocese who have expressed themselves In favor Of division. Gt has also been found that the senti- 1 ment against having a suffragan is | even more pronounced
 .-In view Of these facts, to quote the | bishop as against division of the dio- 1 ceSe Is absurd may say that in l addition to his plain statement in his letter that his opinion this matter Is well known, the present writer, as 1 well as others, has since had his as Eurznce that it was not his wish to khvEart division.
 'sThe alleged canvass of the clergy l mentioned in the article referred to | which claims a preponderance of sen @inent in favor of a suffragan is in | view of the facts, absurd, and seems | 10 be made of whole cloth. It should | be spelled canvas instead Of can Rzss'."
 nWA MmnAF ThRaRR