gave us would have been, ‘What doth it profit a priest if he win to God the whole parish, and suffer the loss of his own pew-rents?"

Before going further, let it be said that there is one method of treating the whole subject of the pews' financial obligation to the pulpit that is not only quite unobjectionable but is in reality obligatory on the efficient pastor-his giving a periodical sermon or a catechetical instruction on the fifth precept of the Church. It is clearly part of his office to teach his people their religious duties, and his lucid and unimpassioned explanation of this particular duty of the lay Christian may easily prove more effective in securing its fulfilment than will reiterated scoldings and bitter sarcasms, not to say vituperation and invective, on the occasion of specific failures to meet the obligation. That the explanation is needed from time to time would seem evident from the fact that the notions of not a few Catholics on this point are hazy rather than distinct. In truth, the religious duty incumbent upon the laity to contribute to the support meir pastors is probably more imperfectly understood than are most other obligations of the Christian life.

One reason for such imperfect knowledge is doubtless the comparatively cursory treatment accorded to the fifth precept of the Church by the teacher in the Sunday-school. As the fulfilment of the precept, the contributing to the pastor's support, lacks the element of actuality so far as the children of the catechism class are concerned, the explanation usually given of this command

ment or law of the Church is probably more superficial than thorough. Obedience thereto will not become a practical question for the class until the boys and girls become men and women, so the precept does not receive all the attention and insistence that is given to moral duties of more immediate interest and import to the young.

All too often, apparently, the meagre explanatory comments of the Sunday-school teacher remain unsupplemented by intelligent reading and study in maturer years. In any case, account for it as we may, it is an undeniable fact that some Catholics either ignore the gravity of the obligation imposed upon them by this particular law of the Church, or, knowing full well the strictness of the obligation, deliberately and dishonestly shirk its fulfilment. That such persons form only a small minority of the faithful in any one parish or any one diocese of the country is perhaps quite true; but their existence at all is an abuse which merits public condemnation. At the same time it is hardly fair to the exemplary parishioners who give freely and cheerfully of their means for all religious purposes that they should be forced to listen to such condemnation, instead of the Word of God, week after week from January to December. Once a year, perhaps, in the course of a series of instructions on the commandments of God and the precepts of the Church, a set sermon on the subject will be appropriate; and, as has been intimated already, it is likely to be all the more effectual because of the preacher's appearing in the character of an expositor of Christian doc

trine, not in the rôle of an importunate creditor or a nagging dun.

As for the subject matter of such a sermon, no priest presumably needs suggestions as to what he should say. He will naturally point out that the precepts of the Church are veritable laws, strictly binding on all her subjects. A society established by Christ in order to lead men to Heaven, the Church has undoubted power to make such laws and regulations as she judges necessary for her preservation, her prosperity, and the attainment of the end for which she was instituted. The obligation imposed by her fifth precept is as rigorous as that involved in any of the others; and, accordingly, the lay Catholic who does not contribute in proportion to his means to the support, the congruous maintenance, of his parish priest is a flagrantly dishonest debtor. He is guilty of patent injustice and is unquestionably bound to make restitution, just as he would be were he to refuse payment of a legitimate debt to his medical doctor. It may further be pointed out that the layman's obligation to pay his quota of his pastor's salary is not derived from ecclesiastical law only; it is founded on the natural law and upon divine legislation as well. A parish priest's vocation obliges him to attend to the immediate service of God and the care of souls. He is in consequence debarred from seeking the emoluments of other professions and of business pursuits. Now, the most elementary conception of justice clearly teaches that, being so debarred, he has every right to look for his support to those with whose spiritual welfare

he is charged, and in whose behalf he habitually labors. That his right is acknowledged by divine law is evident from the prescribed payment of tithes in the Old Testament, and from various passages in the New-among others, St. Paul's declaration that "they who serve the altar partake with the altar."

Ever so little amplification of the foregoing points should suffice to demonstrate to the average congregation of Catholics that, in contributing their proportionate share to the regular salary of their pastor, they are performing an act, not of pure generosity, but of strictest justice, and that to neglect such contributing is to incur not merely the reproach of meanness and parsimony, but the stigma of unequivocal dishonesty. Very few other professional men whose training for their lifework has been equally lengthy and arduous, receive so small an income as the priests of this country are permitted to devote to their personal use; and it should not be difficult to convince Catholics of ordinary common sense and fair-mindedness that the least they can do (if only to preserve their own self-respect) is to see to it that their pastor's scanty remuneration be paid to him cheerfully and promptly.

Some clerical philosophers of our acquaintance have a theory that the ease or difficulty experienced by a pastor in getting money from his people depends in a great measure, if not entirely, on the use of the money when obtained; that the priest who "does things" can readily secure all the funds he needs for the upkeep of the church property

and the prosecution of his various religious works; and that the greatest obstacle to the generosity of a Catholic flock is the impression, rightly or wrongly entertained, that their pastor is more or less tainted with avarice, is too fond of filthy lucre, or, in up-to-date parlance, is "out for the money.” As regards the pastor's salary, of course, it is really none of the parishioners' business what disposition he makes of it. The money is his own; it has been well earned; and he is clearly not accountable to his people for the manner in which it is expended— or possibly hoarded. Concerning other funds, however-money needed over and above his salary for a dozen different purposes, building, repairs, heating and lighting the church, insurance, conducting the school, etc.-there is certainly a good deal of truth in the theory mentioned. It is only natural that people should like to see the results of their contributions, even to church funds; and, when the results are meagre, future contributions are likely to be less in quantity and more reluctantly given. It is to be noted, too, that the priests who have acquired the reputation of money-grabbers are not always those who have numerous works to keep up. Not a few of them seem far more concerned about the condition of the rectory than the state of their church buildings, and the one charity in which some of them appear to be especially interested is that which begins at home.

The mention of avarice in connection with priests may at first blush appear strangely incongruous and entirely uncalled for. If there is on earth one man who, more than any other, should