There is great and rapidly increasing wealth in California; wealth, if it were held consecrate to Christ, far more than sufficient to sustain all needed religious institutions; but it is safe to say that forty-nine fiftieths (and I wrote at first, not without careful thought, ninety-nine one-hundredths,) of it is in hands of men who will not consider appeals for missionary contributions and evince no interest in any church work. There are also some strong churches in California, in connection with all the leading denominations, and we, Congregationalists, have perhaps our share of them. These churches have wealthy men in their congregations, and a few of these men are professors of religion. But what I wish noted is that _all_ such churches, so far as our own denomination is concerned, could be counted on the fingers of one hand. I name them: The First and Plymouth of San Francisco, the First in Oakland, and the First in Los Angeles. Of course, when we speak of churches as strong or weak, we speak relatively. I have in mind what might be called the New England standard, and I say that only these four among all our churches would, if set down in Massachusetts or Connecticut, be accounted strong. The churches in Berkeley and in Sacramento would rank next to these, though in both of them the home work involves a constant struggle. There are certain other points, as Ferndale, Lockeford, Woodland, South San Juan, and especially Grass Valley, where single individuals of considerable wealth are connected more or less closely with our churches, but when I have spoken of these I have exhausted the list of those who _could_ give largely, however well disposed.