THE LATE DR PARKER.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11483, 16 January 1903, Page 2

THE LATE DR PARKER.

TO THE ED-TOB OF THE FBKSS. Sir, —Life is all too short for attempting to answer the many ro-srepresei-tations, and, one is even tempted to add, the deliberate falsehoods, that somehow or other find their way into our newspapers; but I feel that such statements as you thirdit worth your while to copy from the Melbourne "Argus" regarding the late Dr. Parker ought not to pass unnoticed and uncontrovefted. None who know any■Uhing of w_a~ the late preacher was can read such statement* without feeling something »k_a to indignation that tihe memory of such a man should bo so maligned. A critic, whose readiness to criticise and slander is (probably in inverse proportion to bis knowledge and capacity for true criticism, makes reference to what he calla Dr. Parker's "mercenary side." Never was such a side more conspicuously absent than in him. He believed that it was better that services rendered to other churches than his own, by preaching and lecturing, should be remunerated, as thus any spirit and tendency like pauperising wag avoided. But those Who know the services thus rendered know, too, Ihow frequently preaching and lecturing fees were returned. He believed that work of any sort was worth paying for, but he never sought payment merely for its own sake, or for his own sake. The whole story of his career gives the lie lo such statements as this regarding a "mercenary side." When, as a lad of twenty-one, lie left (home for London to take up work under Dr. John Campbell, he received from his father what he himself called "three ttardearned sovereigns," but before the train had started he returned half of it in giving 'his father a final handshake. When he entered upon his first pastorate (at Banbury) he received the very moderate salary of £130 a year, of that he sent £50 to his parents in grateful acknowledgment of the help they had given him. Nor was that tihe only £50 so contributed out of a slender income during the Banbury ministry. And never was a man slower to listen to calls to larger and more remunerative pastorates. The calls to Manchester and to London had -both to be made twice, and, supported by influential deputations, before he came to feel it his duty to accept them. What t)he critio in tbe Argus" says regarding the testimonial of £700 made to turn before leaving 'Manchester is absolute fiction. To say that the Manchester people "never forgave him" for accepting it is nonsense. The truth more likely is that they would never nave forgiven him if he had not accepted it. It was a spontaneous and generous acknowledgment on tfiieir part of the won : derful success that had- attended his ministry there, and in accepting it he was careful to point out that ho could only accept it on condition that it was in no way regarded as binding hian to remain in that church should he feel it his duty ti take up work elsewhere. On this dttSnite unders'tandiirg the gift was made and accepted. One of his own deacons in the City Temple, London, has said that he never appealed on behalf of any object without first making his own contribution, and he further says that he believes that it always exceeded that made by any other. Whatever came to him in the way of financial remuneration certainly came to him along tihe line of hard work. He himself 'has said that he never had a sixpence that he did not work for—every book on his shelf and every loaf in his cupboard hard work had (bought. Since his wife's death _c returned every penny of his salary each year to this church, and never did man. give more generously and lovingly to those who needed his help, and <w_iom he knew his help would benefit. To some this apology may seem superfluous, but there are always those wiho are ready to catch at such statements as you have copied from the "Argus," and it is only fair tfoa!- these should have an opportunity of knowing • what the truth really is.—l am, etc., DAVID HIRD. Trinity Congregational Church, January 15th, 1903.