members will hardly be found more numerous among them than among other classes. If they can be gathered under the influence of the gospel, even by motives in them not altogether pure, let him who is without sin among us first cast a stone at them to drive them out of their Father's house. That blessed gospel which proves saving to the rich, notwithstanding, upon the authority of the Lord himself, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," will also prove saving to the poor, if by any lawful means they can be brought under its influence. If the church fail to accomplish this, she can do nothing for them, and they must perish in their sins. Let us follow the Lord in this matter, and his blessing will follow us and our children through all generations. For "blessed is the man that considereth the poor; the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. The Lord will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth; and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies. The Lord will strengthen him upon the bed of languishing: thou wilt make all his bed in his sickness."

4. But, in fine, we are persuaded that all other measures of reform must fail to reach the cause of this evil, and fail to restore the scriptural relation of the church to the poor, whilst the expenses of our congregations continue to be provided for exclusively by the system of renting the pews. It appears to us that there is no conceivable way in which this method can be prevented from exerting an irresistible influence to alienate and exclude the poor from the church. For, as we have seen, it offers the gospel to them upon no other terms than the payment of a sum of money, which multitudes are not able to pay; and it says, by a course of action, more significant and expressive than any words could be, to the "man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel... Sit thou here in a good place;" and to the "poor man, in vile raiment, . . . Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool." We have seen, also, that the respectable poor will not occupy, except in rare cases, free pews set apart for them in a church where this system prevails. For reasons similar to those which influence them in this case, they cannot be gathered in any large numbers into churches built and sus

tained by the purest benevolence of the wealthy for their exclusive accommodation. Hence the failure of those enterprises which have been undertaken for this object, in some of our large cities. And if they could be gathered into separate churches by themselves, that would be to subvert the Christian idea of the worshipping assembly, which requires, as we have seen, that the rich and poor should meet together before the Lord; and thus the church, like the religious system of the Brahmans, would lend her influence to exasperate, and render perpetual, class distinctions in society, which her gracious Head lost no opportunity to mitigate and heal. Could this end in any thing short of apostasy? The poor Hindu cannot become a Christian until he has renounced caste.

Now the simplest modification of this system of defraying the expenses of our congregations, would be to raise, say onehalf of the necessary amount, by voluntary subscriptions, thereby reducing the pew-rents to one-half of what they would otherwise be, and to equalize them throughout the church. This, if it were put in practice, would obviate many of the dif ficulties which the poor now encounter at the door of the sanctuary. But this method has been found to be so uncertain, and to produce a revenue so fluctuating in amount, that we think it can hardly ever be generally adopted. Nor would it diminish the temptation of the church to endeavour to attract to herself the rich rather than the poor; it might even increase it, inasmuch as it would render all the more necessary in each congregation, a goodly number of the wealthy who should be able to furnish large subscriptions.

It seems plain to us that in order to apply an effectual remedy to this evil, it is necessary either to take such measures as will provide a general sustentation fund for at least a partial support of the ministry, like that of the Free Church of Scotland, which has been so signally blessed, or to adopt the system of permanent endowments of our churches, to at least half the amount of their expenditures. Either of these measures, we believe, would be adequate, effectual, and entirely practicable. We are not ignorant of the general and strong prejudice which exists, nor do we undervalue the arguments which have been advanced, against these methods of support

ing the institutions of religion. But we know, also, that nothing that is human, is perfect; and that every thing is liable to abuse in the degree in which it is good. The gospel itself could not be a savour of life, if it were not liable also to become a savour of death. But all the evils of such a fund, or of such endowments, taken together, do not seem worthy to be compared with the alternative, i. e., the general failure of the church to reach the poor with her gospel, which seems absolutely inevitable under the present system. The benefits of such a measure could not fail to be enormous. For a congre

gation, so endowed, would be possessed of a permanent investment for the use of the poor to the amount of one-half its expenditure; and thereby it would be released from that subtle and powerful temptation to endeavour to attract to itself the rich rather than the poor, which arises out of the necessity of deriving its whole support from pew-rents and voluntary subscriptions. The pew-rents, reduced to half their present amount, and equalized, would come within the means of a vast population of the respectable poor, who now are virtually shut out from the house of God; and the man with the gold ring would have no preferred place in the sanctuary before him in vile apparel. The same results substantially would follow the support of the ministry, to the amount of half their salaries, by a general sustentation fund. We are persuaded that if either of these methods were adopted and put in practice, it would exert a mighty influence to bring back our beloved church into her true scriptural relation to the poor, and to that great class of our population who are not able to pay much for the support of religious institutions; and yet who will certainly alienate themselves altogether from the ordinances rather than occupy free pews, and be designated as paupers in the house of God.

Nor does it appear that there is any insuperable difficulty in the way of effecting such a change. The chief one is the prejudice which has so long been fostered among us, that our present system is one of the glories of the American. church, and that any thing in the form of a permanent fund is rather a curse than a blessing to any congregation. But this prejudice ought to give way before the inevitable result of

our present method, i. e., the banishment of the poor from God's house. And surely there is no dearer object to the hearts of our people, than that of providing for the wants of the destitute, especially of providing for them the means of grace and salvation. Whatever, as above exhibited, may seem to be inconsistent with this, is probably due rather to the influence of a wrong system, than to any lack of sympathy with the poor. If such a method of support for our religious institutions, as is here indicated, were recommended to the people by our ecclesiastical bodies, and urged upon them from our pulpits; if adequate pains were taken to convince them that it is the only way in which we can secure the preaching of the word to those who are not able to pay for it, the only way in which we can reach them with the gospel of Christ; and that all contributions for this object would be in effect permanent investments for the spiritual benefit of the poor-it is believed that there are large numbers in our congregations, who are already so interested in this object, that they would not be backward in furnishing, by collections, private donations, legacies, and otherwise, the necessary means. Rich congregations could be induced to aid feeble ones, in the form of such donations, because these would be investments to provide the poor with the means of grace. Incidental influences, hardly inferior to that of the immediate object, would aid the movement, and make it one of ever-increasing activity and power, until its end should be fully realized: as, e. g., that numerous class of our ministers, who are now only half-supported, and whose miserable pittances are paid without regularity or promptness, would all advocate it, if for no other reason, because it would diminish the uncertainties of bread for themselves and their families. For these, and many other reasons, we might anticipate ultimate success for this great movement. Of course it must be the work of time; for the evil to be remedied is one of chronic growth; yet one which, if not remedied, but left to work itself out, as it is now doing, will, it is to be feared, one day leave our Presbyterian branch of the church deserted by the poor, and deserted by the Lord.

ART. IV.—A Plea for High Education and Presbyterian

Colleges.

THE attitude of Presbyterians towards liberal education has never been dubious nor wavering. Theoretically and in practical intent, at least, they have favoured such education of the highest grade, in the ministry, the learned professions, and the higher spheres of life. In regard to the kind and degree of such liberal culture, they have aimed at nothing short of the highest attained or aspired to in the country. Such has been their recognised and undisputed standard. Nor has it required to be urged upon or argued into the Presbyterian mind. It has held the dignity and authority of a first truth, ever since its rude realization was begun in the celebrated Log College, which was the germ of Princeton, the fruitful mother of Presbyterian colleges. And the church has always been in a state of unrest, when conscious of not approximating, or working and struggling towards such a standard of liberal culture for her gifted sons, whom she would so train and endow, that they may exert a moulding influence on society, and become leaders and commanders of the people.

It is equally a fixed principle, and has even come to be an axiom, which, however debated in the past, is too clear to need arguing hereafter, that this liberal education, as indeed education of every grade, ought to be religious; and not only religious, but Christian; and not merely Christian in name, or according to any partial and distorted view of Christianity, but Christian in the inculcation of those great truths of the evangelical system, and that life of faith, which Presbyterians recognise as constituting genuine Christianity. In order, then, that the means of imparting this education, which shall be at once high and Christian, may exist, Christian colleges of the highest class are a recognised and undisputed necessity. And to the end that their views of high christianized education may be adequately realized, it is the no less universal conviction of Presbyterians, that they must have access for their sons to colleges of the first grade, which are not only under Christian,