so. The support of the Ministry has become a habit. It is this which constitutes so great a difference between us and the Church at home. There, save in rare cases, whilst most liberal subscriptions are forthcoming for church building, charities, missions, and general church work,—many millions per annum,—very few are asked to support their Clergy.
I am tempted to quote, in connection with this, a conversation I heard of between a Colonial Bishop and a layman in London, a man of earnest churchmanship, and keenly interested in the perplexing question of raising the incomes of so many clergy to a really living wage, which their "livings" fail to supply.
"May I put a plain question to you? I know that you are a most liberal churchman; that you give freely to church work; may I ask you how much you give for the actual maintenance of the clergy who serve you and give you those Sacraments and Means of Grace on which you set such value? Do you pay anything, save a very occasional fee, for their ministrations?"
The reply was, "Well, now you put it in that way, I confess that I pay nothing."
I should like to set against this little practical example of the working of the system at home of so-called "Livings," in which Voluntaryism has little or no share, another view of the case.
I was asked to attend a large meeting of clergy, and give them some account of our voluntary system in New Zealand. Inviting questions, I was met by this objection: "You say that the clergy are paid by their people?" "Yes," I replied, "but not directly; their offerings, which consist of regular Sunday offertories, subscriptions, and donations, are
