result is, that I see no reason to expect that, on the present footing, we shall be able to carry it higher than it now is, and not a little reason to fear that, in spite of our best exertions to prevent such an evil, it may rather fall off. I know, indeed, that this belief is becoming so general and so settled in the minds of many of the most liberal and enlightened friends of the Church, that, in despair of accomplishing anything more for our country ministers through the medium of a central fund, they are many of them already devising means of escaping from the difficulty in other and different ways. Some I know are betaking themselves to the idea of having separate and local funds for the ministers of their own individual Presbytery. Others, again, have been led to contemplate the raising of a separate and special fund, to be administered by a committee of the subscribers, in the way of augmenting the stipends of those ministers whose congregations shall be found to comply with the conditions the committee may prescribe. Now, I honestly confess that, while I thoroughly appreciate the generous spirit which prompts these movements, I should regard any attempt to carry them into effect with grave alarm. My firm conviction is, that we cannot, and must not, have two Sustentation Funds raised and administered apart from each other. In the long-run the one would inevitably prove fatal to the other.

What is proposed, in the measure now under discussion, is not only entirely free from every possible risk of injuring our present Equal Dividend Fund, but will inevitably and largely promote and perpetuate its prosperity. It is a measure which, instead of operating as a conflicting force against the Equal Dividend Fund, will operate as a conspiring force on its side, as the following words, which embody its fundamental provision, clearly show:-That, under this new measure, "the first and fundamental object of the Sustentation Fund shall be, as heretofore, to secure for all her ministers, who shall be entitled by the laws of the Church to receive it, an equal dividend of £150, and that the revenue of the fund shall be so appropriated accordingly to the whole extent necessary for this purpose." Plainly, therefore, if this new measure succeeds at all, it is the equal dividend that will reap its first fruits. It is true that, after raising the equal dividend to £150, the remaining surplus of the fund will be administered on a principle different from that of the equal dividend. In this fact, indeed, lies the whole virtue and efficiency of the scheme. The surplus fund will go to increase the stipends of those ministers whose congregations, by their liberality to the fund, entitle themselves to receive this benefit from it. If all our congregations were able to give their ministers a suitable supplement, in addition to the equal dividend, there would, of course, be no need for any surplus fund such as it is now proposed to raise. But we are all perfectly well aware that the great mass of our rural congregations have no supplements to give-or none which are anything more than merely nominal. Here, for example, is a fact full of significance on that point. Last year the whole sum paid to the ministers of our Church in the form of supplementary stipends was £40,332, 13s. 1d.; but of that sum no less than £30,709, 6s. 10d, went to the ministers of town charges. Of these there are in our Church 178; so that, adding the supplements to the equal dividends, the average stipend of the 178 ministers, amounted to the very creditable sum of £316. But what comes, meanwhile, of the ministers of rural charges? Of these there are on the platform

of the equal dividend 592. Even if the whole £9623, 6s. 104d. paid in the form of supplements to ministers of rural charges had been equally divided among them all, it would have given to each only £16, which, added to last year's equal dividend of £143, would have raised their entire stipend to no more than £159. Manifest therefore it is, beyond all possibility of dispute, that for the great mass of our country ministers the supplementary part of our financial system can do little or nothing. What we want, therefore, in connexion with our great central fund is, that, over and above the equal dividend which it provides for all, it should possess the means of doing, in at least some suitable measure, for the ministers of our poorer congregations, what our system of supplements effects for the ministers of our wealthier congregations.

In saying this, of course I don't mean as every one who examines the proposal now before the Assembly will at once perceive, that it is intended by it to introduce, in connexion with our central fund, anything so odious as a distinction between rich and poor congregations. We have always studiously avoided recognising such a distinction in administering our equal dividend-which goes, share and share alike, to the minister of St George's, Edinburgh, and to the minister of the remotest of the Shetland Isles. What is now proposed is, that substantially the same rule should be followed in administering the surplus fund. All, that is, who share in it at all, whether they be ministers of rich or poor, of town or country congregations, will share in it, on the footing of certain welldefined and uniform principles, applicable equally to all. But with this one exception, that there are certain congregations which it is proposed to exclude from participation in this surplus fund altogether. First, then, let me briefly advert to the conditions which are to exclude congregations from the benefits of the surplus fund; and next, let me notice the conditions which are to admit congregations to its benefits. Of the disqualifying conditions there are two. The one is, that no congregation giving less to the Sustentation Fund than £60 as its contribution for the year shall participate in the surplus fund. This may seem hard, but it is mainly, at least, the hardness of a necessity, under which we are placed by the limited pecuniary resources at our disposal. Every congregation contributing less than £60 to the Sustentation Fund, will, by receiving the usual dividend of £150, be costing the Church, at the very least, £90 a year. In fact, not a few of these congregations will be costing it sums ranging from £90 up to £120, and even to £130. The whole number of congregations included in this class is 146, and the average number of their Church members is 135. It is obvious from these facts, that it would not be a wise, or even a very warrantable policy, on the part of a Church like ours, to employ on behalf of such congregations any larger amount of those pecuniary means which the Divine Head of the Church places at her disposal for the support of gospel ordinances than she is doing already. It may be proper, at the same time, to state, that of the 146 congregations now alluded to, there are 58 which contribute annually to the Sustentation Fund upwards of £50; and that there are 13 which contribute upwards of £55. Of these, a very considerable number, if not the whole of them, would, in all probability, under the stimulus of the surplus fund, find it quite possible to rise to the sum which would bring them within the reach of its benefits. The other disqualifying condition applies to all congregations whose aggregate contribution, even although

it amounts to £60, or to any sum however much above that amount, does not come up to the average rate of 7s. 6d. a year per member.

Having thus noticed the conditions which, according to the proposed scheme, are to exclude congregations from participating in the surplus fund, I shall now advert to the conditions which are to admit congregations to share in its benefits. These conditions are, simply and only, certain average rates of contribution. This is, in truth, the grand distinctive feature of the scheme, and that in which, if carried into effect, its great strength will be found to lie. What we require, above all other things, is to raise the general standard, or rate, of giving to the fund. It would, of course, be altogether wrong to pitch that standard too high for ordinary country congregations to reach. But that 7s. 6d. is not too high an average rate per member, must be tolerably apparent from these two facts; first, that it amounts to less than three halfpence a week; and next, that, even at present, without the aid of any stimulus whatever to induce congregations to increase their rate of giving to the fund, there are no fewer than 458 of our congregations on the equal dividend fund, that have already reached the minimum average rate per member now proposed. Of the whole number of our congregations, therefore, which contribute £60 and upwards annually to the Sustentation Fund, there are only 168 which would require to increase their contributions in order to get immediately within the range of the surplus fund. But while an average contribution of 7s. 6d. a year per member will place any congregation that gives to the fund annually £60 and upwards upon the platform of the surplus fund, it is to be observed that this platform has two stages, a lower and a higher. To reach the higher stage, and to enjoy its double benefit, the average rate of contribution per member must be 10s. Of congregations that give at and above this rate, we have at present 246, and of these a very considerable number are among the humblest of our country congregations. I believe there is no one competently acquainted with the subject, who doubts that the above number of congregations might at once be doubled without anything approaching to pressure. In our country congregations generally there are no seat-rents. Their contributions to the Sustentation Fund are, therefore, their only contributions for the support of gospel ordinances. I suppose that, of the Church extension charges, whether in town or country, which for years past we have been setting up, there is scarcely one which had not to agree to raise an average contribution of 10s. per member, in order to receive sanction from the Assembly. That sum amounts to only 10d. a month, or rather less than 24d. a week. It is, therefore, my decided conviction that there is no valid reason why five-sixths, or even nine-tenths of all our congregations should not rise to the average rate of contribution now named. And if this were done, our financial difficulties would be at an end. We have a membership in the Free Church at present nearly approaching to 250,000. Ten shillings from each member would, therefore, give us more than our whole present income, donations included. That income last year amounted to about £120,000. With the excess arising from the multitude of congregational contributions, which go indefinitely and largely above the average of 10s., added to this amount, we should at once have a revenue that would enable us with ease to accomplish everything at which the present movement aims.

Of course the question-and it is the great question-remains, Will the proposal now before the Assembly do anything effectual in the way of promoting such a general rise in the contributions of the Church? To that question nothing but time and a fair trial can furnish a conclusive answer. But this at least is plain, that while, as long and large experience has proved, there is absolutely nothing in our present system to produce or preserve the desired rise in the rate of contributions, the measure now before us would bring into play motives and inducements both with the aid-getting and the aid-giving congregations, that could hardly fail to tell in favour of such a result, and with a very powerful force. The prospect of getting for their ministers the important help of the surplus fund, would be a constant incentive to every right-hearted aid-receiving congregation to rise from its present 5s. or 6s. contribution to at least the lower qualifying point of 7s. 6d., while it would press with an equally wholesome effect on those aid-receiving congregations which have already reached that point to struggle up to the higher level of the 10s., and thereby to receive for their minister the corresponding benefit. As regards the aid-giving congregations, on the other hand, the consideration which at present so often and injuriously restrains their liberality, would, by this new plan, be completely taken away. They would now have a solid assurance that their increased liberality would no longer be thrown away, and that to its whole extent it would really go to the accomplishment of the great object to which they were devoting it-that, namely, of providing a more adequate stipend for the great body of our poorer-paid ministers.

But while, on such grounds as these, I venture confidently to think that this scheme which I have laid on the table, has in it such elements of success as to entitle it not merely to the favourable consideration of the Assembly, but to a fair trial at the hands of the Church, I am very far from regarding it as a perfect scheme. Our present system is very far from being a perfect scheme; and this, at least, I will take it upon me to say, and would engage, if need were, to show, that there is no defect or inconvenience which can be fairly charged against the measure I am now laying before the Assembly, which is not chargeable in a far stronger degree against our present system; and with this important difference in addition, that while this new proposal would tend to lessen the defects and inconveniences now existing, and would put us in a far better position for dealing with even the very worst of them, the present system leaves all these evils to go on undiminished and unrestrained. That the scheme should be looked at all round is not what I deprecate, it is what I earnestly desire. But I do deprecate that hyper-criticism that exhausts its ingenuity in picking holes and finding faults-and not less do I deprecate that utopian criticism which, because the scheme is not a panacea, fitted infallibly to cure every possible existing or imaginable ill to which our present financial system is liable, at once decries it, and declares, with oracular voice, that it is naught. For example, one objector may say that, under this scheme, the simple fact of some single wealthy member of a congregation leaving it, may pull down the congregational rate of giving below the 10s. average rate, or even below the 78. 6d. average rate, and thereby deprive the congregation of the benefits of the surplus fund. It is quite true-such a thing may occur. But, at the worst, it will still leave the minister of the congregation better off

than he is at present. At present he has only £144, he will then have, at least, the higher and uniform dividend of £150. But, I believe, the thing supposed would happen very rarely. The very fact that such a result was likely to arise would go far to prevent it. It would probably lead the wealthy member of the congregation not to withdraw his important contribution at all, or, at least, not suddenly and all at once -not until the congregation had found means to make up for the loss of it. And, moreover, the very risk of such a danger would have this next important effect. It would lead congregations to lean less on the larger contributions of any individual member, and more on the maintenance of a good average among the members as a body. Again, another objector may say, We have congregations with four, five, six, or even eight hundred members, whose average rate of contribution is only four or five shillings. It would cost them much less to give a good supplement to their ministers than to raise their average contribution to the point that would qualify them to participate in the surplus fund. I answer, once more, It is quite true. But, I ask, at the same time, are not these congregations giving their ministers a good supplement at present? I know they are; and just for that very reason the proposal now before the Assembly does not concern itself with them. Their ministers have a tolerably fair stipend already. If any of them get it, to any extent, at the expense of their congregations not acting fairly towards the Sustentation Fund, let the Church deal with these congregations, and get the wrong repaired if it can. This is not a scheme to rectify such evils. It makes no pretence of meddling with supplements at all. Its one single but all-important object is to get an adequate stipend for that large class of our ministers who either have no supplement at all, or none that is worth the naming. I do hope, therefore, that whatever is done or decided in reference to the proposal now under discussion, it will not be made responsible for evils which it neither originated nor pretends to cure, nor be pooh-poohed and put aside, because under it, in particular cases, hardships may, in the course of providence, arise. If the scheme should not always be able to prevent or remove these hardships, it will at least, in every case, lessen and alleviate them by securing a higher equal dividend than has been hitherto received. In a word, if this scheme succeeds to the extent of adding even so little as one-tenth to the present income of our Sustentation Fund, it would thereby accomplish these two things in the first place, it would raise the equal dividend, for all ministers, to £150; and, in the next place, it would leave, besides, a surplus fund amounting to £7000, to be employed in adding to the stipend of the ministers of every congregation which had given, during the year, 7s. 6d. and upwards, as its average contribution, per member, to the Sustentation Fund.

To enable us to judge of the addition which would thus be made, and of the working of the proposed scheme, let us suppose that, as at present, we had 212 congregations contributing at and above the lower average of 7s. 6d., but at less than the higher average of 10s. per member, and therefore each entitled, under the proposed scheme, to a single share. Let us suppose still further, that, as at present, we had also 246 congregations contributing at and above the higher average of 10s. per member, and therefore each entitled to a double share. In these circumstances the supposed surplus fund of £7000 would be distributed as fol