"Five years ago," writes Mr.Wheeler in September, 1866, "the pastor of the Harpoot church, now President of the Union, when we put upon his people an increased amount of his salary, inquired, 'By what right do these men put this burden on my church ?' But when, in this meeting, a proposition was made to get the pastor's salaries from other sources than their churches' treasury, this same man, aided by the pastor at Arabkir, so conclusively showed the folly and hurtfulness of the proposal, that the mover of it dropped it in shame.

The Arabkir pastor said: 'This is to enable the pastor to be independent of the people, and to say, What have you given me that I should be your servant ?' The force of this pithy argument is felt here, where ecclesiastics rule and devour the people, and where the tendency in that direction is so strong that we need to guard against it in laying the foundations of the churches.

He then went on to show that it would be for the good of the churches to support their pastors.

They would thus love and heed them more.

'The pastor,' he continued, 'who should get his support from any source outside of his own people, would be beyond their control.' In a subsequent discussion on supporting the poor of the church, he said: 'I am fully persuaded, that every church is not only able to support its poor, but its pastor too.'" The truth of this last remark was strikingly illustrated by the church in Shepik, the poorest and feeblest in the field, which for thirteen years had paid almost nothing for preaching, and was supposed to be a permanent pensioner on missionary bounty; but all at once it raised enough for the support of the preacher, besides nearly two hundred dollars in gold for the building of a house of worship.