answer that I cannot find any trace of such a distinction in the New Testament; and, further, that the nature of the ordinance is against it. The Lord's Supper is one of the chief expressions, perhaps it may be called the chief expression, of the faith and fellowship of the Church. They that unite in its observance thereby confess their faith in Christ, and their subjection to Him, as well as their union with one another through their union to Him; and if, therefore, applicants may be received to the Lord's Supper without a credible profession of faith, there can be no valid reason for requiring it in order to membership. The two things must go together.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DISCUSSION OF A CONGREGATIONAL SUSTENTATION FUND.

I. THE FREE CHURCH SUSTENTATION FUND.

THE Sustentation Fund of the Free Church of Scotland was conceived by the late Dr. Chalmers, and was established upon the principle that all the congregations should throw their contributions into a common fund, and that each minister of the Church should receive from it an equal share, whatever that might amount to. Although one or two slight modifications were effected in regard to the working of the Fund about a year ago, in the direction of encouraging and rewarding the efforts of those congregations which seemed to be most conscientious in the fulfilment of their obligations to this great central Fund, yet no departure has hitherto been made from the vital principle on which the Fund was originally established. As showing the interest which has been all along manifested in the importance of this Fund, it may be mentioned, that whilst negotiations for union with some other bodies have been conducted during several years past, and whilst but a minority within the Free Church has been drawing attention to the difficulties existing in matters of doctrine, there has been a uniform anxiety expressed in the resolutions of all the Presbyteries of the Free Church that the Sustentation Fund should be preserved in its integrity. It should be understood that the income which each minister receives from this great central Fund is altogether independent of any additional stipend which his own congregation chooses to give him. Nearly every minister of the Church has such an additional stipend, which is called a supplement, and which varies in amount from £10 in poorer country congregations to several hundreds of pounds in the larger and more wealthy congregations in the towns and cities.

At present the annual revenue of the Sustentation Fund amounts to nearly £150,000, and each minister receives from it a minimum stipend of £150 a-year; and at present there is a special effort being made to bring up the amount paid to each minister from this Fund alone to a minimum of £200 a-year with every prospect of success.

The Congregational Funds of the Church amounted last year to about £120,000, and this sum, after paying local and incidental expenses, is devoted to the supplements of ministers. In this way the average income of the ministers of the Free Church of Scotland amounts to considerably more than £200 a-year and if the value of the manses and gardens, and in some cases glebes, be taken into account, the average income of the ministers cannot be much, if any, under the sum of £300 a year.

It ought to be mentioned that whilst at the beginning, when the Church was newly formed, it was impossible to deal with the various congregations so as to ascertain what sum should fairly be expected for the Sustentation Fund-now, when any vacancy occurs, before the congregation is allowed to call a minister, it must agree with the Committee of the Sustentation Fund to send annually a sum bearing a proportion to its membership, and the call cannot be proceeded with until the congregation adopts a minute agreeing to the recommendation of the said Committee. At the same time, should the congregation be unable, from any cause, to fulfil its engagement, no loss is thereby allowed to befall the minister, but the matter is enquired into, and moral suasion is employed if there appear to be a necessity. The two Funds named above are irrespective of the sums raised for Foreign and Home Missions, Jews, Highlands, &c.; and the whole revenue of the Church is some £400,000 a-year, being about £50,000 a-year in excess of the whole revenue of the Church of Scotland before the disruption, and whilst both parties were within the pale.

pew rent.

A FREE CHURCH MINISTER.

II. COMMENTS ON THE SCHEME OF T. B. T.

T. B. T. estimates our Church membership at 300,000, and proposes that, without exception, each should contribute one farthing per diem, or 8s. 6d. per annum. This 8s. 6d. a-year some would deem a good annual It is certainly twice as much as some now pay in that form. But this 8s. 6d. per annum from every member of our Churches (as there are some poor families that have in them five members, whose joint contribution would thus be £2 2s. 6d. per annum) is to be paid, as I understand it, in addition to the present pew rent, and go to an object which the rich pastor is to be benefited by as well as the poor, and in which general result their own pastor would have only an infinitesimal share.

I do not question the accuracy of the writer's calculation that 300,000 members regularly contributing each 8s. 6d. a-year to this general fund would raise £95,000 per annum, but I feel as certain as I do about anything, that such an amount could not be raised for such an object in that way. However simple a thing, the scheme could not be reduced to practice. The writer, evidently delighted with the vision of £95,000 per annum, raised with the magic wand of only a "farthing a-day," soon finds himself (by a very natural law) making still bolder flights; and by turning the farthing into a penny, or more in some cases, and even a shilling a-day in

one, soon metamorphoses the modest £95,000 into the glorious £351,000 ! What! all this for an 66 augmentation fund" to eke out the salaries of "poor dissenting ministers?" And every member of our Churches to contribute Ss. 6d. per annum to our entire ministry? Oh no! The Ministerial Augmentation Fund now expands into a general fund in aid of Foreign, Home, Continental, and Colonial Missions, superannuated ministers, colleges, special cases, &c.

No one will question the large-heartedness of your correspondent; but he must have had but limited experience in the art of money-raising, if he thinks that any power on earth could keep steadily to the collar, dây after day, every member of our Churches, in raising so large a sum for objects so diverse and so wide.

Equally lacking in practical wisdom is your correspondent's suggestion on the point of distribution, and especially in alloting to every minister in the denomination the same amount out of the common fund. If all ministers were in receipt of an adequate income, who would ever dream of an augmentation fund? And if any of that class were to receive a penny out of the proposed fund, how many of our members would be persuaded to contribute 8s. 6d. a-year to such an object? What is not absolutely needed to bring up the salaries of our accredited ministers to a certain minimum ought never to be asked for, and if sought will certainly not be found.

A fund in aid of minister's incomes will never be raised except to meet cases of real need, and will not be properly worked unless it be given, not directly to pastors at all, but simply to needy Churches as the condition of their raising a certain other sum, so as to secure, through the action of the Churches, an adequate support to their pastors.

III. THOUGHTS SUGGESTED BY THE PAPER OF T. B. T.

G.

The paper on "Ministerial Support" inserted in your last number contains valuable suggestions as to "universality and regularity" in giving to public objects, and a timely protest against the prevailing custom of seeking guinea-a-year subscriptions-a method which has operated most injuriously in restraint of liberality. But the plan recommended by the writer-to augment, by a uniform gift, the salaries of all ministers, enrolled in the list of accredited Congregational pastors, appears to me to be open to serious objections.

One of these, anticipated by himself, which I regard as insuperable, I will state in his own words, "It will give an equal portion of the augmentation fund to men who are, intellectually speaking, totally unfit for the ministry," or who, "morally speaking, ought to have no place in it at all," and will give it on the simple ground that "so long as their names are found upon the roll of the Year Book, they belong to the body." The grant would also, if this rule were acted upon, be made to persons who might not hold what T. B. T. designates our received doctrines." There may

66

be but few such improper persons" in our stated ministry at present, but would there not be great danger of the number being much increased if the plan of your correspondent were adopted? Our pastors are not now, nor are even a majority of them, men of "high culture." This is not necessary, perhaps not even desirable; but is not some special training for the work of a pastor most important? Do not men now succeed in gaining admission into our ministry without any previous examination as to their qualifications, and in some cases without any strict and particular inquiry as to their antecedents? Yet these men obtain a place among our recognised pastors by being admitted into some Association." Has not the solemn rite of Ordination, considered so important by our fathers, become little more than a ceremony? and is it not being superseded by Recognition tea-meetings? While the door of admission is so readily opened, is not that of exit, except in the rare cases of immorality, practically almost closed? How very few on the ground of proved or admitted unfitness retire from our ministry? Who will venture to undertake the invidious task of "expurgating from time to time the list" of pastors in association, and removing from it the names of improper persons," if such should hereafter obtain a place in our ministerial ranks?

66

The appropriating of an equal portion of the fund to those ministers "who are already receiving an income which is amply sufficient" would, I apprehend, be generally considered too much like "giving to the rich." (Prov. xxii. 16.)

May I be permitted to suggest for consideration what appears to me "a more excellent way?" The appointment of Him whose authority we regard as sole and supreme in the Church,-that stated preachers of the Gospel should be supported by those to whom they preach it, is recognised by "our body" as a law in full force, and if the personal application of this law to their own individual case, renders the urging of it upon the consciences of their hearers too delicate a matter for our ministers, might not some ministerial brother, not himself a pastor, be employed solemnly to remind at least our Church members of their duty, and earnestly to persuade them to set about its practical recognition? I have no doubt that many of our smaller Churches might do much more than they are now doing for their pastors, if they would learn a lesson from the Methodists, as T. B. T. suggests, and "be more methodical" in their financial arrangements.

There is one of our ministers who, in obedience to what some gentlemen think may justly be considered as a providential call, has devoted the remaining years of his life to the work of disseminating the truth on the subject of "Systematic Giving." Might not this honoured individual be requested to " open his mouth for the dumb on behalf of such as labour in the work of the ministry," without receiving adequate means of support for their families? Might he not be employed with the greatest advantage to indoctrinate first our deacons, and through them the members of our

Churches generally, on the sacred obligation, devolving both upon rich and poor, to set apart a fixed portion of receipts in order to meet the claims of benevolence? I might say in this case the claims of justice, for to that category the right of pastors to adequate means of support from their flocks rather belongs; and at the same time to recommend and urge the adoption generally, but specially by persons of the class and social position to which most members of our smaller Churches belong, of the Divinely-suggested and sanctioned, if not strictly the Divinely-commanded, method of weekly storing, and, in reference at least to Church finance, of weekly (Lord's-day) giving.

J. W.

IV.-AUGMENTATION, AND WHERE TO BEGIN. Gratefully I read an article, and your invitation of opinions upon this subject, in the "Christian Witness," the very organ for this purpose. The large number of pastors having painfully small incomes I have long known, attended by insufficient family nourishment, distracting mental anxiety, prevalent heart-sorrow, want of helpful books, frequent debt, with consequent loss of usefulness, frequent change of pastorate, or desire for change, with consequent loss of pastoral sympathy, and the local influence which attends long and faithful labour; above all, often the rareness of those spiritual trophies which constitute a minister's best credentials, his holy life stimulant, and his rich eternal reward.

This evil demands instant removal, by one or both of two remedies; i.e, enlarged home contributions, and help from wealthier Churches. Both remedies are needful. The strong are not justified in refusing to help the weak till they reach their fullest ability, as the loss falls on the suffering ministers, and not on their defaulting Churches. Yet the first step of true, healthy, and substantial progress, is to induce all Churches to do to the best of their power for themselves, that foreign help may reach only the truly needy. Does not the claim of help begin only when the power of self-help ends? Is the claim for other help just till the limit of self-help is reached? Self-help to the extent of ability is every way honourable and conducive to Church power, expansion, and stability. Reliance on others tends to Church weakness, contraction, and collapse. Moreover, the claims of Christ, their own integrity, and the woes and wants of mankind at home and abroad, demand of all Christians equally and always the fullest liberality consistent with honesty. So long as some Churches receive help which they could render themselves, God's work will not be done. When all shall do what God knows they can do, His blessing will gloriously succeed their work. The urgent want is universal, conscientious giving. This would enable many Churches to reach a far higher income. It would also provide ample funds among richer Churches to assist poorer ones.

An Augmentation Fund, as T. B. T. feels, is a better name than a Sustentation Fund. The features in his paper which I like are-detailed