PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Kumara Times, Issue 2652, 7 March 1885, Page 2

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

[to the editor.] Sir himself “Rosy God” it would have been more appropriate, as the rosy god is foremost in his mind and belly. His production is too thin.—Yours, John White. Dillmau’s, March 6, 1885. THE CONGREGATIONAL MEETING. [to the editor] Sir —At the present crisis in the affairs of the Presbyterian congregation here, it may not be unintersting to give a short sketch of its history for the past eighteen months. The Rev. Mr Hay’s fame bad preceded him, his printed testimonials from home were first class, and through the local press his presumed good qualities were duly made known. It was unanimously agreed to ask him to come to Kumara guaranteeing a stipend of £250, with a free house, for twelve months certain, which there was no occasion to have done, because he was coming to New Zealand in any case, and one of our Presbyterian privileges is that we should see and jodge of the fitness of any candidate before accepting him as our pastor. In Air Hay’s case he was not eligible to receive call and ordination for ten months after bis arrival • but that was perhaps not his fault, though we certainly expected it would not take so Jong to qualify him. Well, previous to his advent very high expectations were raised and a period of much prosperity was predicted for the Presbyterian Church here, and with good reason, for I believe no minister had a more favorable opportunity of doing good work. But, alas 1 it soon became painfully evident that Mr Hay was not the man for Kumara; that, in fact, he was and is entirely out of his element in such a community as this. Coming here from the Old Country without the authority or status of a minister, he arrogated to himself all the supposed privileges and importance which belong to a clergyman of say a State church like the Established Church of Scotland, to which church Mr Hay belonged ; and here let me say that to his training in that church might perImps be ascribed his conduct here at first. Ministers of that church do not come in contact with the people in the same way as they do in the churches here; consequently Mr Hay did not know what it was to depend on the popular offerings of the people for support—vide his own remarks in the Kumara Times of the 25th ult. But one would think that by this time he would have learned that here the people think and act for themselves, that they are generous and liberal, if properly treated, that if a clergyman of any denomination deserves it he will gain their respect and support; but that “ the cloth ” is nowhere in these colonies ; that, in short, he must learu what was laid down by the General Assembly of our own church only last week: “that the minister is for the church, not the church for the minister.” But to the point; certain high-handed proceedings, connected principally with the late buggy accident, had greatly dissatisfied a good many of the congregation, who duly protested; but (I speak for myself and a good many others), out of sympathy with Mr Hay’s family, and considering that we had asked him to come here, and knowing that to reject him after ten month? trial would seriously injure him at the outset of his career, we signed the call and allowed the ordination and induction to take place. But, aa showing that no amount of experience will teach some men, though well aware that the “ Sword of Damocles ” hang over his head on the night or ordination, he persisted in the same course until events culminated in a petition to the Presbytery for inquiry into hia “ arbitrary and imprudent conduct,” signed by thirteen church members and six adherents ; also petition from his owu aouior oicik, the investigation of

which occupied the Presbytery from nine o’clock till four next morning, December 17, 1884, resulting in Mr Hay giving his promise to resign his charge, and leave within three months. And so the matter has rested till now, meantime Mr Hay, losing no opportunity of villifying and abusing what he calls the “few exclusives” who signed the petition and absent themselves from the church. But are they few ? No, Mr Editor; the nineteen who signed the petitions included every member of the church, with I think one exception, then resident in the district, and the district was not canvassed for signatures; no one was asked to sign who were not more or less aware of the complaints. I myself told a man who offered to sign that it was not necessary. It is not the few, sir, who are dissatisfied : it is the many ; and I would ask Mr Hay, as proof of my assertion, What has become of his once flourishing Bible class?—lt is no more. What of the Sunday School?—lt is decimated. What is the average weekly collection (the true barometer of the church)? — notwithstanding the favorable-looking balance-sheet for last year presented by the treasurer. Here again appearances are deceitful and on their own shewing at December 31st last. The debt on the congregation is over £3O larger on December 31st than on the 30th June last. In short, the congregation is simply destroyed. Now, apologising for the great length of this letter, and trusting to your generosity to insert it, I conclude by giving you the cause but for which it would never have been written. A meeting was held in the Church on Wednesday night (which, by the bye, is protested against as “ illegal and irregular”), a resolution was carried asking certain favours of the Presbytery, and containing a clause to the following effect, “We indignantly deny that the nineteen late petitioners in any way represent the congregation." I think I have shown whether they did so or not, and will only add that I firmly believe the great majority who voted for it were in entire ignorance of the circumstances. But what shall be said of others who knew better and still supported and voted for such an audacious assertion 1 I say emphatically they and not the petitioners are the Rev. Mr Hay’s worst enemies.—l am, sir, yours, Ac., Presbyterian. Kumara, March 6, 1885.