is never seen? It is plain that on our present plan the people by thousands must perish for lack of knowledge, and if other churches were to act on our principles, the gospel would become a luxury, confined almost exclusively to the wealthier classes of the people. We do not think that these facts can be disputed. Nor is it possible for conscientious, Christian men, to look them in the face, and not feel humbled and convinced that something must be done to rescue our church from this reproach, and to enable her to do her part in preaching the gospel to all people.

The great thing, as we believe, to be accomplished is, to bring Presbyterians to feel and acknowledge before God, that the obligation to support those who are called to the ministry is the common duty of the church as a whole. It is not enough that a congregation supports its own pastor, it is not less bound to see that others of their fellow-sinners have the benefits of a Christian church. That the support of the clergy of a church is the common duty of that church as a whole is plain,

1. Because the command of Christ to preach the gospel to every creature is given to the whole church. This is the grand design for which the church was instituted. It was to teach all nations.

It was to bear witness to the truth among all people. It was to bring men everywhere to the obedience of the faith, to make them the sincere worshippers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus advance his kingdom on the earth. This is what the church exists for. If she neglects this work, and in proportion as she neglects it, she fails of her mission. And any plan of operation which hinders her in the discharge of this great and primary duty ought to be rejected or modified. There can therefore be no greater mistake than for our wealthy congregations to suppose that they discharge their duty in securing the preaching of the gospel to the people of this land when they support their own pastor, and leave others to do ast they can. If the church as a whole is bound to see that the gospel is preached to the people of China and India, why is it not bound to see that it is preached to the people of Minnesota and Iowa? The heathen are unwilling, and, in many cases, unable, to support the missionaries of the cross, and therefore we feel bound to send them the gospel. If any portion of the

people of this land are unwilling or unable to sustain the messengers of Christ, we are bound to do it for them, to the extent of our ability. This clearly follows from the command of Christ.

2. It is not every member of the church who is called to preach the gospel. The call to the ministry is a distinct call, given to some and not to others. Christ constituted different offices, making some apostles, others prophets, others evangelists, others pastors and teachers. As the body has its organs each with its appropriate functions, so the church has its organs by which, as the body of Christ, it has to discharge its great duty in the world. What the body would be without hands, feet, and eyes, that the church would be without its divinely constituted officers. The gospel, the apostle teaches us, is designed for all men and necessary for their salvation. Men cannot be saved without faith; but they cannot believe without hearing; and they cannot hear without a preacher, and how can they preach, he asks, except they be sent. It is therefore the church's duty to send preachers to all those who it is the will of God should hear the gospel. To send is not merely to say, Go. That would be easy work. It would give the church no part in the self-denial, the glory, and blessedness of promoting the kingdom of Christ in the world. When the government sends embassadors, or an army, it sustains them. When men send labourers into the field they give them their hire. And where that is withheld, its cry enters into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. In like manner when the church sends forth ministers or missionaries, to discharge, as her organs and officers, the work Christ has given her to do, the church is bound, by the clearest of all obligations, to sustain those whom she sends. And it matters not where she sends them; whether it be at home or abroad; to the heathen of our great cities; to the ignorant in the thinly-settled portions of the country; or to the few scattered sheep of the flock of Christ who may have none to guide them into his pastures and to the living waters.

3. It is to be borne in mind that the minister is not the officer and organ exclusively of the particular congregation of which he may be the pastor. He is a minister and functionary of the church as a whole. He is ordained by the church and for the

church. He is as much a minister without a congregation as with one. He is responsible to the church as a whole, dependent upon it, and employed in its service, and therefore the responsibility for his support rests on the whole church. If he is unworthy, or idle, or inefficient, he may be dismissed, or put on a retired list. But while he is able and willing to work, it is the sin and shame of the church to which he belongs that he is not employed and adequately supported. The relation of a minister to the church is, in this point, analogous to the relation of the officers of the army and navy to the country. Our military officers belong to the country; they are in the service of the country, and they are sustained by the country. The children of the world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. It would be well for the church if she discharged her duty to her ministers as well as the state acquits itself of its obligations to the servants of the public.

4. As it is the common duty of believers to labour for the conversion of sinners, the edification of the people of God, and the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, it is a duty common to them to sustain the ministry, which is the divinely appointed instrumentality for the accomplishment of those ends. We are bound to do what we can for the salvation and spiritual welfare not only of our immediate friends and neighbours, but of all men wherever they are. The souls of men afar off are as precious as those of our neighbours. The honour of Christ is as much promoted by the salvation of the one as of the other. The union of believers effected by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit secures a love for all believers, and the union of all with Christ produces the desire to bring all men to acknowledge and serve him. There is no pure Christian motive to impel a man to support his own pastor, which does not operate to make him desire to secure the blessings of the gospel and of the stated ministry for his fellow-men, and especially for his fellow-citizens. The recognition of the duty to sustain the ministry as obligatory on the church as a whole, as it grows out of the nature of Christianity, and is the proper outworking of its expansive, catholic spirit, would be the greatest blessing to the church itself. It would promote brotherly love, which our Lord so often and explicitly enjoins as the great duty of his disciples. It would call into

It

more vigorous exercise all Christian graces. It would lead to self-denial, to diligence and zeal in the work of Christ. would open a new and copious fountain of blessing to the whole land, and do more for the promotion of the best interests of the nation than any other measure we, as a church, could adopt.

5. The principle in question is recognized in other departments of Christian and benevolent enterprise. Even the state, which is held together by far weaker bonds than those which unite the people of God, recognizes it as a common duty to provide for the education of the people. It is common to hear selfish and narrow-minded men say that it is unreasonable to tax one man for the education of another man's children. If he wishes them to be educated, let him pay for it himself. This selfish spirit has at times and places prevailed, and the principle has been adopted of making every teacher dependent on his school for his support. But this plan has been repudiated in every enlightened Christian community. The benefits of knowledge, and especially the ability to read the word of God, were recognized as privileges belonging to all classes, poor as well as rich, to the children of the ignorant and indifferent as well as to those capable of estimating the advantages of mental culture and willing to make sacrifices to secure them for their offspring. It was seen too that the interests of society as a whole, and of all the classes of which it is composed, demand the general education of the people. What was a common benefit should be a common burden. Hence in every enlightened community we have free schools and a school fund; adequate provision is made by a general tax in some way to render the blessings of education attainable by all the people. Why should not the church act on the same principle? Will Christians say that it is unreasonable for them to be taxed to secure the gospel for other men? Will they say, Let those who want the gospel pay for it themselves? No man professing to be a Christian would venture to utter such sentiments aloud. They would shock the most sluggish conscience. Besides, if the common interests of the state are promoted by general education, will not the common interests of the church, which are of so much higher order, be promoted by making the gospel and the ministry accessible

to all its members and to all men? We are simply urging the duty of making a common benefit a common obligation. If we act in reference to the heathen on the principle that the church is one, and that the obligation to send them the gospel rests on the whole church, why should we not act on the same principle in reference to our own people? If it is obligatory in the one case, it is still more obligatory in the other.

This matter is so plain that it cannot well be disputed. Indeed it may be said to be universally recognized. Our Board of Domestic Missions is founded on the principle that it is the duty of the whole church to aid in rendering the gospel accessible to those who of themselves are not able to sustain the expense of a stated minister. This is important as an acknowledgment of a principle; and no one can doubt that great good has resulted to the church and to the country from the operations of that Board. But it does not, and cannot, with its present aim and method, accomplish what the full recognition of the unity of believers and the interests of the church demand. It is well however to bear in mind that in advocating the organization of a sustentation fund, we are only advocating the carrying out more effectually the principle on which the Board of Domestic Missions has been conducted. It may also anticipate one class of objections to say, that the adoption of the plan which has so successfully operated in Scotland, does not necessitate any interference with the work of that Board. It, even as now organized, may be the agent of the church for carrying out the Scottish plan in its application to our church.

Some persons have supposed that by a sustentation fund was intended a permanent fund, the annual interest of which was to be applied to add some five or seven hundred dollars to the salary of every Presbyterian minister in the country. This is a wild idea. This would require a fund of eight or ten millions of dollars. If such a sum could be raised for such a purpose, which is impossible, it would throw the burden of supporting the ministry of the future in large measure on the present generation. No such idea has been seriously entertained in any quarter.

A sustentation fund is a sum raised by annual contributions to carry out the two principles, first, that every minister of