can never be exercised by man but only by God. He said that the ancient prayer of absolution as a deprecatory prayer had been retained until the thirteenth century when the Lateran Council of 1215 introduced the formula “I absolve.”
The Evangelical Churchman was very much Sheraton’s paper. Editor since 1876, he expounded the principles of the Reformation and the long struggle in Toronto between the evangelicals and their high church opponents. Over the years the paper had always been true to its principles, which it restated in 1882, pledging anew to “provide for the members of the Church of England in Canada a paper which shall unflinchingly maintain the principles of our Church as they were established at the Reformation.”12 By the time Cody joined the Wycliffe staff, Sheraton was beginning to feel the need of more assistance on the editorial staff. Who could be more suitable than Cody?
While still at Ridley, Cody had written letters on behalf of the Evangelical Churchman inviting likely prospects to contribute articles. Once at Wycliffe, he took a more active role, becoming co-editor with Sheraton in November 1894. After that he probably did a good deal of the writing. His friend F.J. Steen, no great admirer of Sheraton’s, wrote on February 20, 1895: “You are making a vast improvement in many parts of the E.C. Your news items are excellent and so full. The editorial notes are immensely improved in character. I think the subjects of the longer editorials might sometimes be more interesting but no doubt you are pushed.” The paper still reflected Sheraton’s anti–Roman Catholic and anti–high church views. An editorial on August 2, 1894, repudiated the doctrine of the real presence in the Holy Communion.13 In a December 6 editorial, the Churchman asserted: “The ritualists are feeling more and more the incongruities and difficulties of their position. The nearer they approximate to Rome, the more keenly will they realize them.” This sounds more like Sheraton than Cody, who was never much given to religious controversy.
It is not certain how much influence Cody had in editorial policy. In a letter from Steen to Cody on February 20, 1895. Steen expressed his anger that Sheraton had not printed a letter in which Steen had criticized the English hymn book Hymns Ancient and Modern and had praised Moody and Sankey’s hymn book. Steen claimed that since the Churchman was dominated by influential men like S.H. Blake, it would not publish anything even mildly critical of evangelicals, while it was forever belabouring the high church party. He did not think Cody had done enough in modifying that policy: “But I did hope that now things would change, and the paper take a strong stand and mete out justice to all irrespectively of parties or individuals. But it seems that you too are bound down by your environment and in taking up the paper have been obliged to take up its past spirit and traditions which certainly are not congenial to you. Apparently the paper has never been, and cannot be, fair.”
There was some basis for Steen’s criticism of Sheraton. It will be recalled that Sheraton, while critical of premillennialism, had declined to publish Cody’s anti-premillennialism book review because he did not want to offend some of his subscribers. He explained, “I have reportedly incurred the suspicion of these people whom I greatly respect. I feared lest the insertion might draw forth their criticism and provide a controversy which at present I thought very undesirable.”14 Sheraton did not name any of the premillennialists. It is very unlikely that S.H. Blake or Homer Dixon (named by Steen as among the people to whom Sheraton deferred) were among the number. As Steen had admitted, Cody had made quite a change in the news items and the “Editorial Notes.” Editorials on social policy reflected Cody’s influence, although they showed a conservatism Sheraton would have accepted. Thus, on July 26, 1894, in reference to the great strike in the United States, the Churchman condemned lawlessness and advocated the application of the Christian spirit to the relations of capital and labour. On August 9 the “Editorial Notes” carried an item probably written by Cody on “the error of Socialism.” The writer asserted that socialists proceeded in a false estimate of human nature, assuming that man is naturally unselfish, while Christ “proclaimed that man is radically wrong, naturally selfish, and hence the necessity for individual regeneration as the only basis for social reconstruction.” On November 8, 1894 (the issue in which Cody was first listed as co-editor), the paper argued that while the church should be interested in social problems, its main concern should be to proclaim the gospel of “Christ, His atoning death, His abiding fulness, His truth, with all the eternal principles of right thinking and right living.”
In summer 1893 Cody became engaged to Florence Clarke, the organist at St. Paul’s. Florence had been appointed in 1892 at a salary of $200 per year.15 Her father, H.E. Clarke, a prosperous trunk manufacturer and member of the Ontario Legislature for Toronto West, died of a heart attack while speaking in the Legislature in March 1892. The family attended the old Methodist Church on Richmond Street West, so Florence adjusted easily to the evangelical atmosphere of St. Paul’s.
As assistant minister Cody had extensive dealings with Florence in his official capacity. At first there were misunderstandings between them. In a stilted letter, likely written on June 22, 1893, the organist agreed to meet the assistant minister on the next day, Friday, from four to six. Presumably this was supposed to be a purely professional discussion. What happened at the interview is not entirely clear, but it ended in a row, presumably a disagreement over the music program. (Cody had trouble with later organists, notably Healey Willan and Thomas Crawford.) Cody went off in a huff to visit his cousin Elijah in Chicago, and Florence, who was contemplating resignation, put in a miserable weekend. A year later (June 25, 1894) she recalled, “A year ago today you were in Chicago, and I had had my bad, very bad, quarter of an hour, and was preparing to leave St. Paul’s and you.”16
The situation soon improved. Just before Cody left Chicago to return to Toronto, he realized that he was greatly attracted to Florence. Later she recalled, “And do you remember telling me, love, one afternoon last winter, of the good-bye you said to your cousin in Chicago, and of the thought that flashed through your brain at the time? And I had so little thought that you could care for me.” After that the relationship developed quickly. Florence traced its course in a series of letters to Cody. On Sunday, July 2, Cody visited her at the Clarke house on Jarvis Street “and we talked first on the verandah and then in the library. Happy memories.” Florence talked while Cody listened, striding excitedly up and down the room. Cody returned to the Clarkes two days later and Florence began to realize that he was deeply in love. By July 21 he had taken to quoting the more romantic passages from Tennyson’s Guinevere (possibly “We needs must love the highest when we see it”). For a time Cody and Florence told no one of their mutual affection. Later in July, having attended a function at Wycliffe, they elected to see two lady friends back to their lodgings and Florence commented, “How little they imagine how far matters had progressed with us.”17 Finally, on August 12, 1893, Cody and Florence became engaged.
Judged by modern standards, Cody and Florence’s engagement was fairly long (a year). In June 1894 they were discussing the time of their wedding. They were also confronted with the prospect of a brief separation. Florence and her elder sister, Ellen, had gone to England and were staying at lodgings in London, in Cavendish Square. The people of St. Paul’s helped to solve the problem of their separation by undertaking to finance a European trip for Cody. The gift did involve a further problem: it involved good deal of travel on the continent of Europe, but Florence and Ellen wanted to stay in the British Isles. Still, it did reduce the time of her separation from Cody.
Apparently, before his arrival in Britain, Cody had made some suggestion about the date of their wedding, but Florence was still uncertain and responded on June 2: “I have promised and it is the direct wish of my heart to be your wife – and I am ready to carry out that promise with all joy whenever it shall be best for us to consummate our happiness. Until I see you and talk with you, I cannot tell whether the way is now open for us.”
Cody arrived in England on June 5 and took up lodgings near Florence and Ellen. Florence recalled how she and Cody walked about London on “that never-to-be-forgotten Saturday” (June 9). Probably on that day they agreed on August 15 as the date of their wedding in England. Cody left the next day for the Continent. Florence wrote to the senior warden of St. Paul’s, resigning from her position as organist. She also wrote to Cody about “the arrangements for the great event in August.”18