THE ANGLICAN HOME MISSION SOCIETY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7693, 19 July 1886, Page 3

THE ANGLICAN HOME MISSION SOCIETY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Archdeacon Dudley has issued » circular, by which the world is informed that the Home Mission Sooiety is in extremis. The circular states that " the demands upon the fund are steadily increasing, while the income of late years has been decreasing." The whole income for the year ending June SO amounted to little more than £800, leaving a defioit of £220. It is easy to realise the position; more difficult to grasp the causes that have led up to it. I will briefly indicate two-(l) The employment of the organising olergyman; (2) the misappropriation of the Parochial Endowment Fund. The weak point of the Home Mission Sooiety is undoubtedly connected with the organising clergyman. This premature appointment is the real cause of the present deficit. There is no man better adapted for the work than the Rev. J. Haselden. He is business-like, self-denying, and enthusiasts in the cause. The (synod, however, made the mistake of hastily sanctioning his appointment without making proper provision for his stipend. It was vaguely stated that the appointment would cause no diminution of the grants made to country clergy, and then the organising clergyman was launched on his mission, and commended to the care of Providence. Result: Defioit of £220 at the end of the first year, cutting down of grants all round, general panic of the Standing Committee 1 I may say here that the organising clergyman costs the society about £350 per annum. As a set-off he pays over to the Home Mission fund the amounts he receives from Sunday offertories ; but as this is also done by clergymen who take Home Mission duty (at the rate of £2 or £3 per Sunday, with a few shillings for travelling expenses), it is clear that in this respect no advantage is gained, The question naturally arises, Why appoint an organising clergyman at ail ? The Bishop is the real organising clergyman. To organise is the very raison d'etre of a colonial bishop. In point of practical importance, it is infinitely greater than all the other duties of his episcopal office. Bishop Selwyn acknowledged the force of this principle. He organised incessantly in the country districts, and to facilitate this he laboured hard to get the colony divided into a number of small dioceses. It is sometimes said that Bishop Cowie's work in Auckland has increased so much that he needs an assistant organiser for the country districts. But is this strictly correct? Might not the Archdeacon relieve the Bishop of many little details, such as presiding at meetings of the Standing Committee, Sailors' Rest, etc ? This, I am sure, he would cheerfully do if requested. The Bishop needs help in the town, not in the country. It is in the country that the Bishop is a power. It is at places like Manakau Heads, Whangaroa, and Warkworth that he is welcomed by people who gather together from places miles distant and record the date of the episcopal visit as a red-letter day in the distriot. Our diocesan authorities have never realised that no man can fill the Bishop's place in the country but the Bishop himself. In some of the Australian and South African dioceses bishops are absent three months at a time from their capital cities, travelling, confirming, and organising.' Surely one man can do this in our little diocese. If, however, an organising clergyman is necessary, as he is doing part of the Bishop's work, let him be a charge (in part, at least) upon the Bishoprio endowment fund. It is popularly supposed that the fund is to small to meet any extra charges. As a matter of fact, for the last four or five years the Bishop's inoome has been above £900 per annum, in addition to Bishopscourt, with its magnificent situation and grounds, worth at least £150 a year. Last year the income reached £950, and it is steadily increasing. Some may consider this a small sum, but it iB, at any rate, larger by some hundreds than the incomes enjoyed by half the Australian bishops. It is not, I respectfully submit, a small income in a country where first-class University professors can be obtained from England at £700 or £800 per annum, in a diocese where many of the country clergy at the present time are in receipt of less than £150 a year. I maintain that the very objeot for which the Homo Mission Society exists is defeated by making the organising clergyman's salary a charge upon its funds. (2) With regard to the exigencies of the Home Mission Society, there is a short and easy way of meeting its present liabilities, and increasing its future income—viz., the proper appropriation of the Parochial Endowment Fund. . Certain endowments exist, partly formed from moneys supplied by Bishop Selwyn and partly from local subscriptions. The income amounts at present to £200 per annum, divided as follows :— Paul's, £80 ; St. Matthew's, £80; All Saints' and St. Sepulchre's, each £20. There can be no doubt that the idea in Bishop Selwyn's mind was that so soon as the parish receiving the money became strong enough to support itself the money should be handed on to assist other struggling parishes, or, at any rate, be applied to missionary purposes. With the exception of St. Sepulchre's parish (where three clergymen are employed) the design of the donor has been frustrated. Take, for example, the central city parish of St. Matthew. The parish contains a population roughly estimated at from ten to fifteen thousand. For more than twenty years it has been consolidated, and in thorough working order. The church site is one of the finest in the city ; the parish possesses a good church, schoolroom, and parsonage. A sum of more than £11,000 is invested for building purposes. Yet, in spite of all these advantages, what iB the present position? The revenues are certainly not larger, and the congregations are decidedly smaller than they were twenty years ago. With so much material to work upon, the parish does not employ a curate, a oity missionary, or even a Bible woman. It does not even pay the whole of its clergyman's stipend, but complacently appropriates £80 a year from the endowment fund. Is this the outcome of the voluntary system ? It is no use to make special appeals to the laity till we remedy these defects. Let the city parishes comply with the spirit of Bishop Selwyn's gift, and hand over the money tor Home Mission purposes. I am aware legal points may be raised, but no one will dispute that if the parishes receive the endowment, they can pay its equivalent to the Home Mission Society. Let the olergy set an example of self-denial and brotherly love.. For once let there be no quibble about legal points, but more of the spirit of the Gospel. The sum of £200 annually (a mere trifle to the wealthy city parishes) would, if properly distributed, cheer many a toiling country clergyman's heart. I have already, sir, trespassed too much upon your space. The importance of the subject to thousands of your readers must be my excuse. I respeotfully suggest:—l. That the organising clergyman (if retained) be a charge on the Bishoprio Endowment Fund. 2. That the parochial endowments be applied to Home Mission purposes. 3. That Archdeacon Dudley be commissioned by the Bishop to wait upon all wealthy churchmen in the diocese, with a view of obtaining additional subscriptions to the Home Mission Fund.— am, &c., July 13, 1886. Reformer.