ST. THOMAS' AGAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6330, 2 March 1882, Page 3

ST. THOMAS' AGAIN.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—lii your issue of this clay is a letter signed by J. H. Cornish with the mystic letters following "E.C.U.," which mystic words or letters are better known to the Society of the Holy Cross than to many of us here. But for these 1 would not have noticed the letter, as the writer is apparently a hardworking zealous man. Unfortunately, his opinions, as well as of most of those associated with him at St. Thomas', are most thoroughly antagonistic to those of the congregation of St. Matthew's aud consequently the said congregation do not relish the idea of nursing and suckling a viper which in the future may put forth its deadly poison far and wide. There is also a letter under the nom da plume of "Churchman," which I would not notice but for the lying statement the writer makes, that a person stated at St. Thomas' that the Rev. R. S. Hassard deceived and defrauded the contributors, by getting money for a school, and then building a church with such contributions. The words used might probably have the same meaning to the mind of a certain person who ran about the room like a maniac, slandering everybody who would not swallow liis opinions, but not to any reasonable man. The exact words were that it could be proved by a printed document, pasted in the cashbook ; and such document, being a part of the parish magazine, edited by and under the sole control of the Rev. R. S. Hassard, and in this document are the names of the contributors, and headed, "For St. Thomas' school." There is also an appendix at the bottom, showing that a grant from the S.P.C. was also for a school, not a church. This document can be seen by any one interested, at the parsonage, where it now is. A sum of £350 was also borrowed for the same purpose, for which the writer was one of the securities. This also can be proved , from the minutes of St. Matthew's vestry, written and signed by the Rev. R. S. Hassard. Can " Churcbman" deny these statements ? I defy him to do so. Then, I would ask, Who is the maligner ? The writer is also pointed out as the author of the letter signed " Well-wislier." I think, Mr. Editor, you can state I was not. If I had done so, or written as "Churchman," would I have opened with such words as " St. Thomas' Scandal ?" But they are characteristic. No, Mr. Editor, nor would I treat a young lay-reader, about to be ordained, as a well-known party did; nor would I, when I could not override all constituted authority, remove a publie Sunday-school to my own private house; nor would I use deception to get permission to put up a building by stating there was money to pay for it, when such was not the case, but in connection with others contract a debt, and run off leaving them in the lurch, not even endeavour to get a shilling towards the payment, and had not St. Matthew's taken it

over, there would in all probability, have been St. Thomas' scandal No. 1. Neither would I endeavour to build up a church by such means as dancing until late, or rather early hours, in a Sunday-school building contiguous to, and on the same ground, as what I thought wa3—a church. Would "Churchman" do these things? Did he? If these are the characteristic? of a Churchman, then, Air. Editor,—l am March l. ISTo Churchman".