It was said that when they numbered 100 members they would be self-supporting.

But, if they still subscribed $5 a head, there would be no more liberality in the Church of 100, which was self-supporting, than in the Church of ten, which was not self-supporting.

There might be more, if the ninety members added were very poor; there might be less if one wealthy man joined the Church.
Since the status of a self-supporting Church is one of honour and privilege, the members might even be tempted to admit an unworthy member who was well off in the hope that his subscriptions might aid them to attain that glorious position without much self-denial or effort on their own part.
Moreover, the collection of money is a highly developed art.

It is extraordinary what pressure men can bring to bear upon converts to induce them to subscribe, so that the contribution is in many cases little different from the payment of a tax.

It is truly amazing to read how many forms of appeals and fees can be invented to collect money from more or less unwilling givers.[1] We cannot then accept the existence of self-supporting churches as an evidence of liberality, nor base our calculation on the sum subscribed for the upkeep of such churches.
[Footnote 1: This is a list of the means employed to raise money by one missionary in order to assist the people in his district to arrive at self-support:-- (1) Sunday collections.