MR RYLEY AND THE PRESBYTERY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9383, 24 March 1892, Page 3

MR RYLEY AND THE PRESBYTERY.

TO THE EDITOE.

Sir, —No one can but appreciate the kindly spirit and good taste that pervade your subleader on the above subject; but, without wishing to begin a discussion in your columns on so painful a subject, will you allow me to state two aspects of the question (not, so far as I am aware, mentioned at the presbytery), which, despite your article, tend to confirm one

in the opinion that the position Mr Will took up was a just and proper one ?

1. The stipends of nearly all ministers of the Gospel are relatively small, and most ministers find it difficult, and really i>ainful, to maintain themselves and their families respectably and meet the numerous calls that are made upon them, while provision for old age is out of the question. They all are tempted to, in oue way or another, supplement their incomes ; but that is a temptation which they feel they must resist, because if they yielded to it there is no knowing what the end of it would be, and because in this money-loving age a minister must, if possible, be above reproach in regard to monetary matters. Mr Ryley's case is a painful illustration of the risk a man runs who has the handling of capital. He may be dragged before the public in^all kinds of disagreeable ways: as a foreclosing mortgagee, for instance. 2. Mr Ryley is engaged in business—a risky business—a business which, in this part of the world at least, has failed to give 20s-in-the-pound returns to a .considerable number of those who have tried it. He has to talce his chance, like other men. How would the church stand affected if, unhappily, he should not be fortunate ? Would it not have to suffer reproach ?

There is no use in anyone professing to be able to see ill-will to Mr Ryley at the bottom of this letter, for it is written by one who recognises the great amount of good work that he has done, and is sincerely sorry for him, yet who feels that, in the existing circumstances, the church should be considered first, and the individual second. —I am, &c, March 22. P.