Issued by the Sustentation Fund Committee. } November 1868. fxtt Cjntrcij 0f OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE MINISTRY. Dr. Chalmers’ “Visionary Anticipations” realized. The inherent energy of a self-supporting Church—its propagandist force—had been strikingly manifested among us before 1843. The Secession Church, founded by the Erskines, instead of passing away after the first impulse was spent, in spite of unhappy divisions, in spite of a bitter and strong opposition, without any thorough organization of its resources, continued to make steady progress, adding at the rate of more than thirty new congregations every ten years. The eight •min isters who were deposed in 1740 were represented in 1840 by some 400. Yet there was but little faith at the time of the Dis¬ ruption in the free-wiH offerings of the people; and when Dr. Chalmers expounded his Church Economics in the memorable Convocation of Ministers which met at Edinburgh in November 1842, he was Hstened to with an almost utter incredulity. When he spoke of a Central Stipend Fund of £100,000 a year at the least; of a Supplementary Congregational Fund, appealing to the interest of the people in their own minister, and noway interfering with the other; of the “bright and beautiful ulterior” of a large Church extension, which should give a grand missionary character to the Church’s whole financial operations—these seemed to most of his hearers “the visionary anticipations of a sanguine imagina¬ tion.” “ I was disappointed,” he says himself; “ I felt that the success of our Church extension (where the result was at least tenfold 2 of what the Church at large had ever deemed to be possible) might have protected me from the mortification of so great an incredulity. But such was not my good fortune; and certain it is that my at¬ tempted demonstrations fell at the time still-horn on the ears, if not of unwilling, at least of unimpressed and unconcerned auditors.” But the Church withal took his course, entered into his plans, and Dr. Chalmers’ dreams are now more than reality. The Central Fund has gone thirty thousand pounds beyond his minimum ; the Supplemen¬ tary Congregational Fund has done the very work he laid out for it, and has kept neck and neck with the other in its progress; the “ ulterior ” has never been lost sight of, and it has been no doubt one grand element of our success that our Church has been so largely a “ Home Mission Institute.” It has not been easy work, indeed; there has been much to dishearten; there have been occasional storms, but faith and prayer and resolute purpose have overcome all difficulties. It may be interesting and useful at this time briefly to examine the course of things during these five-and-twenty years. I.—The General Sustentation Fund. The Equal Dividend in 1844 was £105,—with the work of building our churches then on hand, it is wonderful so high a figure was reached. But we had the impulse of a great movement to help us. It was yet the period of romance and enthusiasm. When all that was gone, and the Free Church had become a commonplace thing, it was the hope, and perhaps the fear, of many that people would weary of these assaults upon their purses. Bomance and enthusiasm are potent things no doubt,—but evanescent. Love of money is an abiding force; self-interest is the set to which human nature always comes back in time. Pass over, then, the years of spring and impulse, and how do things go after ? In the five years, 1849-1854, the Equal Dividend had risen to an average of £122. And still it rose. The average Dividend of the next five years was £133 ; of the next five £137 ; of the next five £143. Last year the Central Fund supplied an Equal Dividend of £150, and besides that a Surplus of about £4000 for distribution under the new plan by which, in addi¬ tion to the £150, congregations get according to their rate of giving. Occasionally, indeed, there has been recession. Every year has not been ©ne of progress. Especially after any forward rush there has been perhaps a slight back-going ; but in every five years of our Church’s 3 history there has been advance. What has been won has been always kept. Then when yon look into this history of progress, yon find it still more satisfactory. Thns with a rising Dividend all along yon have the self-snstaining Congregations growing in number. They amounted in 1849 to 167; in 1854 to 209 ; in 1859 to 220 ; in 1864 to 230 inl868to250. In other words, our medium congregations, constituting such an important part of the Church—you might almost say its back¬ bone—have decisively outrun the Church’s general progress. This is the more notable, because congregations of this type have many temptations to “look to their own things.” While they have few large givers, they are ambitious of securing the best preaching gifts, and of standing on equal terms every way with their wealthier neighbours. And it is most satisfactory to find that their givings to the General Fund have made such an increase. It indicates the prevalence of a true spirit among them, full of hope for the future— for, in fact, they have great resources if they could be developed. But what of the smaller country congregations ? It would be disheartening to find that they had gone back. A Church of the towns and cities merely will hardly hold its ground, it will be like a river without the springs to feed it. But the smaller congregations have shared in the general advance. The number of congregations giving under £50 a year to the Central Fund was 189 in 1844 ; 160 in 1854 ; 117 in 1859; 107 in 1864; 95 in 1868. Twelve years ago 551 congrega¬ tions out of 775 gave under £100 ; in 1868 only 436 out of 864 did so. Nor is this the result of a decrease in the number of country congregations. Not more than a dozen or so of these have ceased to exist during the period in review, while, as we have indicated, very many more have been set up. Then again, it used to be a common fear, or a common expectation, that congregations largely aid-giving, pouring their hundreds into the General Fund, while they get only as their neighbours back from it, would not long continue liberalities on such a scale. The few great givers would die out and find no suc¬ cessors. Wrought up in a crisis season to unnatural heights of sacrifice, it was not to be imagined that a succeeding generation would do as they had done. But these anticipations have not been realized. Either large individual givers have found successors, or their loss has been made up by a general rise. For last year we had one-half more of our congregations giving to the Central Fund above £500 a year-, than we had twenty years ago, and paying at the same time, in most cases, an increased salary to their own ministers. 4 II—Supplements from Congregational Funds. Dr. Chalmers, as we have pointed out, had, in his original con¬ ception of a true Church finance, not merely a General Fund, standing as it were in the place of a State Endowment, and securing a certain stipend to all the ministers of the Church, irrespective of the con¬ tributions of the particular congregation,—he had also a Congregational Fund, by which the kindly feelings of the congregation to its own minister should find expression. His idea was that the general and the special would not hinder but help one another; that just as the bodily frame has its strength fully developed by its different sets of muscles being brought into play by different kinds of exercise, so is it with Christ’s body, the Church, in this matter of liberality. The larger and more general philanthropy is quickened by the special interest, and the special interest is elevated by the general philan¬ thropy. There is no doubt some difficulty in working out this idea in the case of aid-receiving congregations. If they are to get more from the Central Fund than they give to it, it might seem fair that all they can give should be sent to it. But it is not so much a ques¬ tion of abstract justice as of concrete human nature. The real point is, making allowance for exceptional cases, which way of it is likeliest to open the heart and the hand ? What, then, are the results ? Here is the progression in the two Funds— Stipend from Central Fund. Average Congregational Supplement. 1849, . • • • £122 0 0 £53 0 0 1854, . • • • 133 0 0 57 0 0 1859, . • • • 137 0 0 61 0 0 1864, . • • • 143 0 0 69 0 0 1868, . • • • 150 0 0 74 0 0 It lies on the face of this Table that the two Funds work into each other’s hands. They are not conflicting, hut co-operative. The General Fund apparently gets the advantage of any greater congrega¬ tional life, and the Special Fund derives benefit from any more general movement. The weak point of this secondary fund is, that it scarcely applies to the smaller and poorer congregations. Upwards of 200 of these give no supplement at all, and from 100 to 150 give a merely nominal supplement of less than £l 0. And it is one of the chief merits 5 of the recent amendment on our system that it mends matters in this re¬ spect. Substantially the Church says in it to these smaller congrega¬ tions :—“ You feel at present your dependence on the General Fund to be so great—your hopes are so entirely centered there—that you reckon it both duty^and wisdom to send all you can to it. If you are to give, indeed, anything like your neighbours to it, with your limited means and numbers, you can never do much to supplement your minister’s income. But if you would like to do that, we are willing to help you. You are giving at the rate of say 6s. a member to the Sustentation Fund, increase that to 7s. 6d. a member, and we shall appeal to the larger and wealthier congregations to enable you to give £25 a year over the Equal Dividend of £150 to your minister—or if you go as high as 10s. a member, we shall try to secure you £50 of supplementary stipend.” We thus practically and fully carry out our original idea. We literally yoke Dr. Chalmers’ two principles together and make them both operative in the smallest country congregation as well as the largest city one. Experience bids us hope the best results from their co-action. As we have already noted, a fair measure of success has been already gained. Another pull, and the rural charge of 100 or 150 members, with life and heart in it, will be able to raise its stipend to £200 a year. Taking the two sources of ministerial income, and some small sums besides in possession of the Church, for annual distribution, the Free Church last year paid as stipend to its ministers about £176,000,—a sum which, before the Disruption, would have seemed utterly unattainable. This sum gives an average of £203 to each charge—if it were the £200,000, towards which we are evidently making, it would give that as the minimum to all in a condition to claim it. This is exclusive of manses, of local endowments of various sorts, which exist now to some extent, and of such aid-funds as the Ferguson Bequest, which, in the six western counties, adds materially to the incomes of ministers of smaller and poorer congregations. III.—The Extension of the Church. Then "the bright and beautiful ulterior” has not been forgotten. The incomes of the ministers have not been increased by contraction, but in connexion with a continued expansion of the Church. Ministers have sacrificed their own personal interests for the sake of poor and necessitous districts. In the long-run, however, they have not been losers. The consciousness of unselfish object has enabled them to plead the cause of the Central Fund with greater freedom and power. 6 and its missionary character has helped to a general enlargement of idea, as well as to an actual Church extension. In 1844 a full Equal Dividend of £105 was paid to 470 ministers; in 1868 an Equal Dividend of £150 was paid to 728 ministers—200 of these receiving £5 more, and 264 receiving £10 more under the stimulus plan. The following Table shows the progress in the General Fund, the ordinary Supplementary Fund, and the number of congregations during the last nineteen years :— * Central Fund Stipend. Average Supplementary Stipend. No. of Congregations. 1849, £122 0 0 £53 0 0 729 1854, 133 0 0 57 0 0 - 756 1859, 137 0 0 61 0 0 784 1864, 143 0 0 69 0 0 835 1868, 150 0 0 74 0 0 865 Not, then, by cutting off congregations, and concentrating our re¬ sources, has the increase of stipend been attained; on the contrary, the increase of congregations has kept pace with the rise of stipend, and in one quinquennial period, 1859-64, greatly outran it. It has been with an every year increasing burden on the General Fund that ministerial income has advanced, for much the larger proportion of added congregations are poor ones, needing help instead of affording it. A large Christian generosity pays better than selfish over caution. Not that we are reckless. The system of expansion under our scheme, indeed, is a most prudent one, and works admirably. A new con¬ gregation is not placed on the General Fund at once. It must first win its spurs. Aided by yearly diminishing grants from the Home Mission Committee, it is left to its own resources, with the hope of being raised, in its turn, to the Equal Dividend Platform. It is thus put on its mettle, and encouraged to do its utmost; it is at once tested and trained; it is educated into a more complete understanding of the Church’s system; and when it actually gets on the General Fund, it does so with the habit of giving formed, and formed upon a higher rate, with a stronger congregational life, and a more self-reliant spirit. We have some 50 congregations of the aid-receiving class climbing up the ladder at present, and nearly 100 Mission Congregations, most of whom, we believe, are eager to set foot upon its steps. 7 IV— Present Duty. These are remarkable results. What do they mean for us ? They mean surely that we ought to thank God and take courage; they mean that Unbelief is the dreamer of dreams, Faith the true seer, the dealer in realities—and they bid us, as with God’s own voice, Go forward, with high aims and expectations, realizing our special testimony that the Lord of glory is King in Zion; they mean that our Church has been honoured to make an important contribution to the solution of the difficult problem of ecclesiastical finance in a Church having no State endowments, to develop a financial system which, to a large extent, secures the ministerial independence of an Establishment without its sopiting influences,—which supplies a constant and effec¬ tive stimulus to ministerial activity, without putting ministers in a position where they may sometimes find it difficult to preserve their dignity and self-respect,—which (as our experience is more and more demonstrating) quickens congregational life without creating the con¬ gregational selfishness and narrowness which have been charged upon ordinary dissent. Perhaps we were proud enough of the Disruption at the time. It naturally bulked in our eyes, and we spoke sufficiently often of it as a great event. “You have heard of the great Dis¬ ruption in the Scottish Church,” said a Free Church minister to a fellow-traveller in England in the summer of ’43. It was, no doubt, to the good man a most perplexing and saddening ignorance when he found that the Englishman knew nothing about the matter—had never heard of the Deed of Demission, or Tanfield. But the Disrup¬ tion is growing bigger in men’s eyes, especially in the financial point of view. It is telling, whether rightly or wrongly, on the action of Parliament. It is an element in the decisions of statesmen on highest questions of policy. Above all, Churches with trial days threateningly impending are looking to us for heartening and guid¬ ance, and any failure, any retrogression, on our part might do un¬ speakable damage. We have accomplished much. Would it severely tax us as a Church to accomplish all we aim at ? Is our breath out with our efforts to reach the humble goal of our aspiring ? As things go in these days— with the social position in which ministers must try to make a decent appearance—with the education they must give their children,—will any man of common sense aver that they will be overpaid with £200 a year as a minimum ? Ministers of Christ should no doubt be in¬ spired with the spirit of a lofty self-denial. They should be ready 8 to endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Woe to him who, with the call of God in his soul, turns his hack upon the work of the kingdom, because there he has poverty and trial, and else¬ where he has prospects of worldly wealth and honour. But because it is my duty to overcome temptation, may you therefore, as it suits you, put temptation in my way ? That youth, serious and gifted, with thoughts and longings towards the ministry—he should rise above all lower feelings and aims, and count it highest honour to become a preacher of righteousness; but should you not do all you can to help him to the right decision, instead of putting stumbling- blocks before him ? What have you done individually in this matter ? You rejoice, perhaps, in what the Church has been able to do. You feel a sort of pride in her achievement. But if there had been no greater zeal than yours—no heartier effort than yours—no higher liberality than yours —would we have been as we are ? Ask yourself whether you have pushed the wheels vigorously onward, or been a drag on them. If you feel that others have chiefly borne the heat and burden of the day, now, at least, when we are within sight of land, give us heart and help. The Methodists have a maxim, “ All at it, and always at it.” They lay great stress on that maxim. Under God, they attri¬ bute their remarkable success largely to it. If we took it and applied it, there can be no doubt of the result. Next Assembly would give us all we want, and bear a grand testimony to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At least think of it—take some real interest in it. They tell us our Scottish Presbyterianism is narrow; let us prove, at least, that it is a thing of power. EDINBURGH : T. CONSTABLE, PRINTER TO THE QUEEN, AND TO THE UNIVERSITY.