%^ dM .%. o^ \^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 141 1^ - m " m 1.4 IIM 2.0 1.6 6" Va ^ /} e. w ^1 ^7 7 M Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) B72-4S03 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historlques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibllographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D D D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough) Transparence I I Pages damaged/ I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~7| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I — I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression r~/ Includes supplementary material/ 1 ^1 Comprend du materiel supplementaire I — I Only edition available/ D Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies A nouveau de faqon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. T t( 1 P f 0Thi8 item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de rMuctlon indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X v-- ^ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmds en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernldre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernidre iiTiage de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds A des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 G ON r THE GOSPEL TO THE POOE VERSUS PEW EENTS W B. F. AUSTIN, B.D., PRINCIPAL Of Alma ladies' College, St. Thomas, Ont, WITH INTRODUOTION BY BISHOP CARMAN, AND PAPERS ON THE PEW SYSTEM, BY REV. NEWMAN HALL, LL.B., AND OTHERS. TORONTO: WILLIAM BRIGGS, 78 & 80 KiNdPSTRKBT East. MONTREAL: C. W. COATES. HALIFAX: S. ^. HUESTIS 1884. BNTRKED according to the Act of the Parliament of Canada. In the year one thouwnd eStrndr^ and elghty-four. by William BRioas. in the Office of the Minister of eight Agriculture. CONTENTS. ,1 — — COS ' '" ■ ' ■■-.'■ * CHAPTER I. God's Kindness to the Poor, A Law to the Christian Church 9 CHAPTER II. Pew-Renting an Unauthorized Innovation in the Church AND A Desecration of the House of God 19 CHAPTER III. The Pew Rent System Renders the Church Uncatholic AND Exclusive 27 CHAPTER IV. Pew Rents Create Unwise and Unscriptural Distinctions BETWEEN Rich and Poor in the House of God 38 CHAPTER V. Pew Rents Unnecessary and Inexpedient 44 CHAPTER VI. Pew Rents a Hindrance to the Cultivation of Christian Benevolence 61 CHAPTER VII. The Weekly Offerinc System the "More Exoell'-wt Way. " 67 ♦ CHAPTER VIII. Objections and Answers 64 jy CONTENTS. APPENDIX. j.^^, L-The Pbw System-Is It Reasonable, Equitable, Ex- ^^ PBDiBNT, Scriptural ? II._The Churches and the Masses 89 III._Pbw Rents * 94 IV.— Pew Rents V.-The Word of God at Public Vendue-A Stinging Criticism on the Auction System «*> 101 VI.— Pew Rents VII.-Trials of Men of Limited Means in the Church. 107 VIII.— Poverty and Pew Rents ! I INTEODUCTION BY BISHOP CARMAN. PRINCIPAL AUSTIN, with his usual vigor and -■- directness, evidently under pressure both of little time and earnest conviction, writes hastily and heartily some things for the directors of Christian enterprise and Church support, particularly on this continent, to think about calmly and prayerfully. In lands where worship is pomp and parade ; where procession is the substitute for preaching, and gorgeous cere- monial for instruction, meditation and prayer ; where priests are maintained out of the public revenues, and grotesque beadles ply the collection-boxes without intermission among the crowds in the free and equal standing places gazing at the pageant of orchestra and altar, the pew-rental question is scarcely likely to arise. But where the people assemble to be in- structed in the doctrines of our holy religion, to medi- tate thereupon, and abide as in the Divine presence, the combined necessity of sitting accommodation and VI. INTRODUCTION. pastoral support would readily enough suggest such a device. Primitive, humble, earnest Christianity might dictate something better, something more brotherly, more like the family of God, more clearly adapted to the genius of the Gospel, — its prevalence among all classes and its spread in all lands. It would certainly appear to be a stroke of worldly wisdom, more of the policy of the children of this world than of the children of light, to pay the preacher by taxing the pews. At all events, as this brochure amply demonstrates, great evils have grown up in connec- tion with the pew-rental system. The reprehensible distinction between the rich and poor in the house of God ; the fostering of social and family pride and exclusiveness ; the unseemly competitions, strifes, and even divisions, in the household of faith ; and often the invasion and conquest of the sanctuary, and even the control of the pulpit, by mammon and power, directly or indirectly through this usage, in many churches, proclaim at once and decisively that if this plan of operations should not be abolished, put under a prohibitory pew-rental law, it should be promptly put and persistently kept under some very wise and vigorous regulations. Brother Austin evi- dently believes the whole thing is wrong in principle as well as destructive in practice ; which latter must, INTRODUCTION. Vll. of course, always follow the former. But there are some, possibly, that do not quite hold with our bro- ther, that the whole business is wrong in principle, but a justifiable mean? nnder prudent direction, in settled communities for the support of the pastorate. It is to be hoped and expect'ed that a discussion of the subject will bring all to a better understanding of the interests involved, and at least immediately abate the evils that have grown upon the system ; if indeed they are not, as our writer maintains they are, in- separable from it. Common observation will at least justify the remark, that in settled religious communi- ties, with moderate demands all around and economical management, these evils are reduced to a minimum. Perhaps it might not be amiss to inquire whether this system under consideration, while it is a fungus in which some poison develops, is not rather an effect than a cause. A cancer it may be; but does it not spring out of deeper evils in the whole body, which cured, the cancer would lose its virus, and actually wither for lack of material to feed upon? The sim- plicity of the gospel in its militant and aggressive state ill comports with expensive buildings, sumptuous appointments, and large emoluments. When we give ourselves to costly churches and high salaries, we give ourselves to a call upon the public revenues of the €? Vlll. INTRODUCTION. country or large ecclesiastical preserves and invest- ments, or some efficient scheme of money-raising that must lay hold upon the men who have the money. And the men that have the money are by no means always the followers of the lowly Nazarene, or choose His spirit of action or plan of operation. By undue ex- pensiveness in our church appointments and arrange- ments we do the very thing John Wesley told us not to do ; that is, we make rich men necessarj'' to us. In that case they will, of course, bring on pew-renting, or whatever policy suits them, to raise money. If it comport with spiritual power and true Church work, all well ; but if not — why, the money must be had anyway ! THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR VERSUS PEW EENTS. ■ ♦ ■ , CHAPTER I. GOD'S KINDNESS TO THE POOR, A LAW TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. " He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor." (Psalm Ixxii. 4.) ^ " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me I to preach the gospel to the poor." (Luke iv. 18.) LIKE a golden thread through the web of both the . Old and the New Testament history runs the jrecord of God's special kindness to the poor. By a great jmany particular provisions in the Mosaic economy, by jpromise and by prophecy of the olden time, God re- pealed the tenderness of His compassion toward the )oor of our race. Numerous and convincing as were these divine manifestations of peculiar interest and 2 10 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR ■I I tenderness toward the poor in the Old Testament times, they are but primal rays of the meridian glory of God's love that burst upon the humbler classes after the Sun of Righteousness had risen upon the world. The life and the lips of the divine Teacher were qually eloquent in unfolding the riches of God's grace to the poor. A few illustrations of God's kindness toward the poor, taken in order from the Old Testament and the New, will help to impress this great lesson upon the Christian heart and to develop the great central prin- ciples followed out in God's dealings with those who are in poverty or misfortune. In the Mosaic economy we discover a very decided adaptation of the claims of religion to the circumstances of the poor. The poor man, for example, was not required to make so expen- sive a trespa^^s offering unto the Lord as the rich. If he were not able to bring a lamb, two turtle doves or two young pigeons were acceptablci in place thereof (Lev. V. 7), and lest even the sacrifice of the doves and pigeons might prove burdensome — the law thus adapting itself to the extremest poverty — it was en- acted that the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour should be acceptable in lieu thereof, if the worshipper could not afford a costlier sacrifice ! Could any evi- dence be more positive, could any proof of God's ten- derest compassion to the poor be more convincing, than . | this merciful provision in their behalf on the part of the Lawgiver? There is not a shadow of reason for supposing that the tenth part of an ephah of flour '! I l;l| VERSUS PEW RENTS. 11 ,ament L glory classes on the 'eacher f God's ard the and the pon the -al prin- ose who iconomy )lai'm8 of rhe poor p expen- he rich, tie doves e thereof ihe doves law thus was en- fine flour orshipper any evi- ^od's ten- cing, than le part of •eason for of flour from the poor man was not as acceptable as the lamb or the kid of the goats from the rich. Nor did the poor suffer the slightest inconvenience or disadvantage in the public worship on account of the smallness of his offering. The same adaptation of the law of sacrifices runs throughout the whole Jewish code. Thus, for example, the leper ordinarily was required to give three lambs, three-tenth deals of fine flour, and a log of oil for his cleansing, but, in the case of the poor leper, the re- quirement was narrowed down to one lamb, one -tenth deal of flour and a log of oil. (Lev. xiv. 21.) The same considerate kindness is manifested to the poor in the laws respecting harvest fields and vineyards. "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard ; thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger; I am the Lord your God." (Lev. xix. 9, 10.) This divine law checked miserly i avarice, encouraged the exercise of brotherly sym- Ipathy toward the poor, and assured them of the [thoughtful solicitude of the great Lawgiver in their )ehalf. Akin to this enactment was the law requiring the -est of the land every seventh year, which was framed especially in the interests of the poor. " And six years shalt thou sow thy land and shalt gather in the fruits thereof ; but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still, that the poor of thy people may eat. In like 12 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR ! I manner shalt thcu deal with thy vineyard and with thy oliveyard." The poor were, by divine enactment, to be freely invited to the sacrificial feasts. The law of release every seven years was graciously designed to mitigate the evils of poverty, while charity toward poor brethren was made a fundamental law of the Jewish religion. (Read Deut. xv. 7-11.) Such being the merciful provisions of the great Ruler in the Mosaic religion, which was confessedly very imperfect and exclusive in its character, and such the equality of all worshippers, rich and poor, under Judaism, we would naturally expect in Gospel times a continuance of the same compassionate policy toward the poor and needy, and a more complete enunciation of the doc- trine of human equality than the world had yet re- ceived. Nor are we disappointed. Our Lord beg»n His earthly career by an act of astounding condescen- sion to the poor, whereby He gave to them the great- est possible proof of His sympathy and love. " For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich." Though rich in Himself — all the perfections of the Godhead belonging to Him, in His possessions — the universe created by Him and for Him, belonging to Him of divine right, in glory and in honour — the ma- terial and spiritual creation shining with His glory and proclaiming His praise, yet He became poor. Out of all the various grades of human condition from the lowest poverty to the highest affluence that were open VERSUS PEW RENTS. 13 to Him, He chose that of humble, honest poverty, and thus gave to the poor of every age an abiding and convincing proof of His compassion and favor. Com- ing, as He did, on a mission of mercy to the race — most of whom had to struggle against poverty — He became poor that He might the more etfectually preach the Gospel to the poor. Christ identified Himself with the poor throughout His entire ministry. Zac- cheus, who climbed a tree in His eagerness to behold Christ, and who afterward gave substantial proof of ihe sincerity of his repentance and faith ; Joseph of Arimathea, who withheld not his own tomb for Christ's burial ; and many other rich friends of Jesus were passed by in the selection of His apostles for humble fishermen and despised tax-gatherers, that Christ might distinguish the poor with His special favor. Thus these apostles from their homes of poverty went forth as fitting standard-bearers of a religion specially adapted to the poor. An equally convincing proof of Christ's special re- gard may be found in the wonderful adaptation of all His teaching to the comprehension and circumstances of the poor. His language was that of the common people. Such was the simplicity of His style, and such the subject-matter of His discourses, that the common people heard Him gladly. Nearly all His illustrations are chosen from the humbler walks of life, and are such, therefore, as would easily be intelligible to the mind and affecting to the heart of a poor man. Take, for example, the parable of the laborers. Who could THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR ilh enter into the meaning and appreciate the teaching of that parable like the poor man who had toiled for a penny a day ? Who could understand and feel the apparent injustice of giving to the eleventh-hour laborer the same reward as to the others, like the man who had borne the burden and heat of the day? The Vanderbilts, Astors and Goulds of that day, or of any age, could scarcely interpret the parable of the lost piece of silver, but men who have been pinched b^' poverty know full well the anxiety of the poor woman for her missing coin. The poor, and the poor alone, can appreciate the joy of the poor woman over the recovery of her silver. Further proof of the special adaptation of Christ's teaching to the poor might be found in every discourse He uttered. In all ages the poor have appreciated more fully and pro- fited more largely by Christ's teachings than the rich. And so Christ's entire ministry had in it an adaptation throughout to the circumstances and needs of the poor, and hence Christianity has been characterized justly as "the religion of the poor." The Rev. H. S. Brown, a distinguished English minister, points out in one of his discourses the remarkable reply made to John's disciples, by which Christ emphasizes His preaching to the poor as the very climax of all the blessings and benefits of His ministry. John had been imprisoned for preaching against royal sins, and hearing of Christ, sends some of his followers to enquire: Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another? Christ said, Go and shew John again those things ye VERSUS PEW RENTS. 15 do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the Gospel preached to them. As much as to say: Should John ' doubt My Messiahship after hearing of My miracles — ev^n the raising of the dead — he will not doubt when he hears I am preaching to the poor. The Christian religion began its career among the poor, and has in every age been an unspeakable boon to them in allevi- ating their sorrows, removing their burdens and lifting them up into comfort and hope. The first financial engagements of the Church were not so much in the line of ministerial support, or church building, or even missionary work, as in the support of widows and the poor. The first Christian collections were for the poor saints. The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with its doc- trines of human brotherhood and human equality, has smoothed away those artificial distinctions of birth and fortune that have proved such terrible instruments of oppression to the poor in past ages. Oppression of the weak, slavery in nny form or degree, cannot abide the influence of a, religion that points all man- kind to a common divine parentage, putting master and slave, king and subject, rich and poor upon a com- mon platform with a common prayer: Our Father I which art in heaven. Look at the civil, social, intel- lectual and spiritual blessings conferred by the Gospel [Upon the poor, and you cannot fail to read the lesson of its peculiar adaptation to the humble and oppressed 16 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR among men. All our charitable associations, all our benevolent societies, our hospitals for the indigent sick, our asylums for the deaf, the dumb and the blind, which have proved such inestimable blessings to the race, are the outgrowth of ' the Christian spirit, and hence but the realization of God's thoughts of mercy toward the poor. Doubtless these intimations of special divine regard are to be taken not only as re- velations of God's character, but also as indications of His will. The dealings of God with man as recorded in Scripture, are generally to be taken as examples for our imitation as well as admonitions for our instruc- tion. Thus the Old Testament history has its perpetual lessons to our race. (1. Cor. x. 6.) The whole life of Christ is doubtless intended to be educational. (John xiii. 14, 15.) We are to be imitators of God. (Ephes. v. 1.) Hence the divine kindness to the poor, as revealed to us in Scripture, is as much a law to the Church of Christ to-day as though promulgated amidst the thun- ders of Sinai, or written in letters of fire across the heavens. Should any one ask, therefore, How should the Christian Church treat the Poor ? The answer is ready : As God has taught us by example and precept. To briefly summarize the practical lessons from these facts, let us note that in God's treatment of the poor there has ever been — 1. Not only full recognition of their circumstances and needs, but also kind con- sideration for their rights and feelings. 2. An adapta- tion of the financial claims of religion to their poverty. 3. No superior advantages in public worship to the rich VERSUS PEW RENTS. 17 on account of his ricnes, or disadvantage to the poor on account of his poverty. " The rich and poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all." Who can doubt that the Church of Christ, following the divine example, is under imperative obligations to consider the circumstances, the needs and the claims of God's poor; to so frame the ordinances of God's house that no distinctions on the ground of wealth or poverty- shall be created; to so govern the house of God that the poor man may have equal rights and suffer no disadvantage on account of his smaller offering or lower social circle; to extend to the poor that sympa- thetic and cordial welcome to the public worship that shaix make them feel equally as much at home there as their rich neighbours ? How is the Christian Church meeting these obliga- tions to the poor to-day? Can the principles hereto- fore laid down and the duties pointed out, be recog- nized and obeyed where pew- renting obtains ? We venture to affirm, after some consideration of the question, that there is not a single principle in God's treatment of the poor that is not squarely vio- lated by the ordinar/ system of pew rents ; that there is not a single Scripture to authorize it, or one bearing uprn the Church's duty to the poor, that i^ not dese- crt-ted by this abominable system; that the inevitable consequences of pew-renting — even where conducted with the utmost moderation and kindness — is the fos- tering of distinctions among worshippers, the practical exclusion of a large class from the public worship, and 18 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR the transforming of a church society into a select, re- ligious club. What consideration of the poor is there in a system of church management that compels the poor man either to pay as much as the rich, or advertize his poverty by sitting in the gallery or on the footstool 'of his rich neighbor, or absent himself from the church altogether ? Surely the wisdom and piety of nineteenth-century Christians ought to be equal to the task of devising some system of church management that would permit the poor man to attend church without being repeat- edly reminded of his poverty, and compelled to ac- knowledge the same publicly. . What right has any trustee board or managing com- mittee to put the rich into a portion of the church by themselves, and the poor in the gallery, thus recogniz- ing and perpetuating mere worldly distinctions in the house of God ? Pew-renting is utterly inconsistent with the record of God's dealings with the poor. It would not have been tolerated under Judaism — partial and imperfect as that system confessedly was — and is as much out of harmony with the genius of Christianity as thumb-screws are out of harmony with the worship of to-day. ' ! i VERSUS PEW RENTS. 19 [it, re- lem of either 'tyby s rich ether? jntury jvising permit repeat- to ac- g com- irch by coffniz- } in the isistent )or. It -partial —and is stianity worship CHAPTER II. PEW-RENTING AN UNAUTHORIZED INNOVATION IN THE CHURCH AND A DESECRATION OF THE HOUSE OF GOD. "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all those that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves." (Matt, xxi. 12.) THE merchants and money-brokers of Christ's time \\'^ere guilty of desecrating the sacred temple of God by engaging in secular traffic therein. The sale of sheep and oxen, and the changing of money — per- fectly legitimate in themselves in a proper place — were a profanation of that temple which was rendered doubly sacred by its solemn consecration and its exalt- ed associations and services. That the conduct of the traffickers was exceedingly heinous and impious in the sight of God, we have every reason to suppose from ithe unusual indignation manifest in the words and actions of Christ. So fierce and scorching were the rays of His wrath, so impetuous was His conduct, that the entire body of traffickers was stricken dumb with I fear, and, in the midst of overturned seats and tables> I rushed in panic from the place. There is every pro- Ibability that the brokers and merchants were not 20 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR alone in the transgression and in our Lord's condem- nation. It is impossible to conceive that outsiders were in peaceable possession of the Court of the Gen- tiles, and that the brokers had their money offices duly organized without the connivance of the temple authorities. The traffic appears to have been exten- sive, well organized and uninterrupted until our Lord purged the temple of its abominations. Randolph says : — "The seats and folds were let out by the priests, and an exorbitant gain made as well by them as by the money-changers and brokers." Our Lord certainly rebuked the priests and rulers of the temple when He expelled the traffickers, for the latter carried on their impious business by the purchased authority of the former. . There can be little doubt that had the traffic been conducted for the benefit of the temple funds, it would still have been as severely condemned by Christ, for all traffic was illegal and sacrilegious in the temple of God. It was the profanation of the sacred place, it was the desecration of that which should have been holy that called down upon the offenders the scathing rebuke of Christ. Pew-renting in the church to-day is as unauthorized as the renting of seats aild folds by the priests in the time of our Lord. The principle of barter is the basis of each transaction, and barter is a desecration of any place consecrated to God's worship. Nor have the trustee boards or managing committees of our churches to-day a shadow more authority for the renting or sale VERSUS PEW RENTS. 21 of pews than the priests of our Lord's time for their conduct which received unmeasured condemnation. The renting of pews and the payment for the same cannot be construed into an act of worship. It is a commercial transaction on each side and by no means a devotional one. It degrades the church at once to the level of the music hall or theatre, in which people enjoy various grades of privilege according to their ability, and from which the poor are shut out altogether except they enter as dead-heads. The giving of money in church for a charitable purpose, or for the support of religion, is an act of worship, and is fully authorized by the spirit, teach- ing and practice of the New Testament Church. But who ever authorized a trustee board of a Christian church to put up its pews at public vendue ? The church is God's house and cannot be managed as private property or the property of a corporation. It I is built and consecrated to one purpose, viz., the fulfil- ment of Christ's command to preach the Gospel to I every creature. A recent correspondent of the Chicago Tribune puts the case thus : — " Such a place of worship being dedicated and con- Isecrated to this service, is God's temple and sanctuary, the appointments and accommodations of which cannot rightfully be set apart, or conveyed, or held by the builders or reputed owners thereof specially for the I use or occupancy of any one upon the payment or con- tribution of money, as is done under the practice of pew-renting. No body of Christians has any right to 22 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR ,: I barter away those necessary accommodations or ac- cessories for money, nor has an individual any better right to accept such assignment — unless custom makes a wrong to be right — than has a robber to acquire and assign property obtained by robbery. In things spirit lal, or in duties or efforts pertaining to interests beyond the grave, it is undoubtedly the will of God that there shall be equality and freedom ; that the wise and unwise, the learned and unlearned, the weak and powerful, the rich and poor shall stand upon a common level with equal advantages which none may presume to usurp nor curtail, nor ought any to surrender." It may be said the authority for pew rents is in the necessity of the case. The Church must have funds, and this is the only efficient way of securing them. To which it is sufficient to reply that pew rents cannot claim to be the only efficient method of raising funds for the support of religion, since only one church fund out of many is generally raised by pew rents, and in many large and prosperous churches pew rents do not obtain at all. The simple fact that pew rents yield large financial returns can never sanction or authorize a system which violates the great cardinal doctrines of religion. If pew rents yield large returns financially, as some claim, the very same may be said of a great many unscriptural and irreligious systems of money- , getting that churches have been tempted to adopt. Where, we repeat, is the authority for renting pewd in a church dedicated to God and consecrated to Chris- tian worship ? It is a pure assumption of authority li, ii i VERSUS PEW RENTS. 23 on the part of trustees for which not a shred of scrip- tural support can be produced — an assumption that partakes of a bold and sacrilegious character. For how can a board of trustees claim the right to rent or sell a pew to the highest bidder, or to fix a price upon admission thereto, without claiming the corresponding right of rejecting those who either cannot or will not meet the conditions imposed ? The right to open the pew to a certain class implies of necessity the right to close it to all others. And what does the closing of the pew door mean ? It means, to express it in the mildest form possible, that certain classes shall not hear the Gospel except under very humiliating circum- stances, if at all. It* does not meet our argument to reply that all except a certain few must be in any case rejected from each pew. It is true that only a limited I number under the voluntary system can hear the [Gospel from each pew. Yet there is a world of differ- lence between a natural limitation of this sort that is i * no respecter of persons " and an arbitrary rejection )f all who are unable to pay pew rents, which has in itself a discrimination against the poor. It is true bhat if a church has a capacity of only five hundred, ive hundred only can hear the Gospel there; but a brustee board would be none the less guilty on that iccount if it made a selection of the favored five hun- Ired. Especially would the iniquity of such a selec- bion be apparent to all, if the selection were based ipon a mere worldly distinction, and virtually pro- libited that very class that God has especially distin- lished with His loving favor. !1 I i "i 1. 1 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR But- there is something even more impious and sacrilegious in pew-renting than this discrimination against certain classes. Pew-renting or selling (for both are practised to-day) is a virtual putting up of the Gospel at public rental or sale. For what is it that gives value to the pews rented or sold ? Cer- tainly not the seats themselves. Can any one deny that it is chiefly the preaching of the Word of Life ? Just as at the opera hall the performance of the musicians, or as in the theatre the acting of the "star," draws the crowd and gives value to the seats, so it is chiefly the preaching that gives value to the pews. Doubtless other considerations are taken into account both by church authorities and by church attendants, such as the beauty and comfort of the church, the class of people that attend, the quality of the vocal and instrumental music, and other kindred attractions. Still no one ^ill deny that the preaching is the "star" attraction that "draws" and "pays" under the pew rent system. The value of the pews commercially depends upon the preacher's ability to preach the Gospel in an attractive and pleasing way to the people, and hence pews are at premium, par, or discount, according to this peculiar qualification of the Gospel minister employed. Hence churches that have in- volved themselves heavily in debt for a magnificent edifice, fine organ and the usual accompaniments, gen- erally find themselves under necessity to call a " star " preacher to fill their pev/s and give them increased value. . L VERSUS PEW RENTS. u What is this but making merchandise of the Gospel? There is as much a sale of the Gospel in the Church under pew-renting as there is of music and amusement in the opera and theatre. And what a perversion of the right ways of the Lord is here ? That Gospel, one special glory of which is that, like its divine Author, it is no respecter of persons, under which there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum- cision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all ; that Gospel, unto which by glowing prophecy as well as by the lips of Christ all men were invited without money and without price, is now put up at public auction in our churches, or assessed by church officials at a higher or lower figure according to the state of the Gospel market ! Can any one, for a I moment, imagine Christ as the pastor of one of these pew-rented churches preaching to a select class of the )eople, while the poor and the "great unwashed" rere ignored, or entirely shut out from His teaching? )&n any one doubt that He, who declared Himself mointed to preach the Gospel to the poor, and who mrified the temple of its abominations, would speedily iweep away every hindrance that prevents the poor lan enjoj/ing as much Gospel privilege and blessing Ls the rich ? Would He, who first fullv unfolded the rreat doctrines of divine fatherhood and human )rotherhood, sanction a system that divides up those rho have enough grace and wealth to attend church Ls railroad companies divide up the travelling public ito first, second and third class, according to ability 10 pay ? *■!»«>■ 26 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR lUlj iiij Would He, whose burning words of indignation sent the impious traffickers and conniving priests of His own time terror-stricken from the temple, condone the conduct of church officials and ministers in making merchandise of Gospel truth ? In some cases under the pew system each seat is held at a certain price fixed according to its location. Ir other cases the pews are sold at public auction and the church is, for a time, converted into an auction hall, and the spirit of the mart is brought into the house of God. Can any one conceive a scene more indecorous in the Christian Church than an auction of pews in which to hear the Word of God ? Let the reader picture to himself a crowd of excited buyers in a church spurred into unseemly rivalry by the tactics of an auctioneer, and vieing with each other in unholy rivalry to obtain " uppermost seats " in the sanctuary. Can conduct more reprehensible be im- agined than that of church officials who instigate or sanction such shocking desecration of God's sanctuary? Surely if a deliberate attempt were made to offer in- sult to the Deity and to travesty the religion of the Cross, conduct better suited to the purpose could not well be chosen. Can it be that ministers and members of the Christian Church have forgotten that it was organized to preach the Gospel to all men, to teach men to be humble and Christ-like, to prefer one another, and to walk in Christ's footsteps in a ministry of love to the poor ? VERSUS PEW RENTS. 27 CHAPTER III. THE PEW RENT SYSTEM RENDERS THE CHURCH UNCATHOLIC AND EXCLUSIVE. " Ho ! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, and eat ; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. " — Isaiah. "Compel them to come in." — Christ. i IT is the characteristic of Christianity, as distinguished from Judaism and other systems of religion, that it knows no distinctions among men, offering its bless- ings alike to Jew and Gentile, bond and free, rich and poor. Whatever excuse there might have been for pew rents under Judaism, which was confessedly partial and exclusive in its character, there remains not a shadow of excuse for such an exclusive policy in [managing churches under the Gospel, the fulness of j whose provisions and the unlimited nature of whose blessings were the subject of glowing promise and prophecy through preceding ages. That the Gospel is adapted to all men, that its [provisions embrace all men, that it is to be preached bo all men, and that the one great duty of the Christian [Church is to press its claims as speedily as possible [upon "every creature," are facts perfectly indisputable, 28 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR ■!!!■ ! -ii and facts, too, that must be taken into strict account in all the rules and regulations of the Church of God. The Church is, therefore, under imperative obligations to make her methods and her work fully harmonize with the great plan and scope of the Gospel. She dare not make arbitrary distinctions among men. She must be catholic in spirit, in her policy and in her polity. Now, pew rents of necessity render the Church uncatholic, because, in the first place, they shut out a large class that cannot pay the prices fixed upon the seats. Whether we like to admit it or not, whether we recognize or ignore it, there are in our towns and cities (where pew rents mostly obtain) thousands who cannot, if they would, pay the pew rents of our churches. To deny this is to deny a fact as patent to every careful observer as the fact of day and night. If the pastors and people of pew-rented churches are not acquainted with this fact, then so much the worse for that system that builds up a wall of separation be- tween the genteel and respectable church attendants and the great mass of burdened and neglected poor. City missionaries know and attest the existence of a poverty among the masses undreamt of by those who only see men in churches or on the streets. The "first- class" city church knows, we fear, far too little about where the people live and how they live, and hence its pastor and officers can scarcely be expected to know that hundreds are practically unchurched by so simple a thing as a $10 or $20 annual pew rent. Men can only learn of this poverty by visiting the poor in VERSUS PEW RENTS. 29 H] their homes (as Christ did), commingling with them socially, from both of which duties the city pastor is held absolved by the pressure of more important (?) public duties. But ignorance of the facts does not destroy them, and no one competent to judge will deny the truth of the statement, that a vast number of people are compelled to stay away from church be- cause they cannot pay the trilling (?•) pew rent. It does not invalidate or weaken our argument to say that many of the poor would not attv^nd church if they could, so long as it is true that they cannot if they would. But, again, the pew rent system renders the Church uncatholic in practically excluding a very large class who are not able to rent the best pews, and who have not grace enough to publicly acknowledge their poverty to the Church and the world. Among this class may be found a large number of people who " once saw better days," and moved in what is Called the "highest circle" of society. Those people, whose social instincts are rooted in a certain plane of society, find it extremely humiliating to drop down from their former position into a poorer rank, into a less costly style of dress, and into a cheaper pew. The Rev. W. S. Rainsford, of St. George's Episcopal Church, New York, recently said : " Money is God's gift, but it should not be the simple test of the right to worship in God's house. I have seen a poor man enter into God's house for worship, and a policeman in uniform go to him to warn him that he was out of place. I knew li 30 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR i' 'n I a woman, formerly a wealthy member of a church, who lost her property, took cheaper and cheaper pews, until she could no longer afford to rent one, who appealed to her pastor and was told by him with tears that she could no longer attend the services, because there were no free pews — that the pew system prevailed in that church." It matters little vO the argument to point out the obvious fact that such people should smother their pride, and es:eem the ser- vices of God's house of such inestimable value as to amply repay them for any self-crucifixion they may endure in attendance thereon. Such people, un- doubtedly, if possessed of sufficient divine grace, will still attend church, and if not, will stay away ; but in either case the pew rent system is responsible for heaping obstacles in the way of their hearing Christ's Gospel. Nor does it affect our contention at all to say that many of the ppor, if they were prudent and self- denying, might readily save the price of their pew rents from self-indulgences, such as rum and tobacco. It is an undoubted fact that many who do not, might go to church if they would, as it is an undoubted fact that many who are too poor to pay pew rents might hear the Gospel from the gallery of the church or in mission chapels. The poor are not all saints, and if they were, the less necessity for the com- mand, " compel them to come in." The Church must deal witi. men as they are, not as they ought to be. She must regard the facts in every case, not theories She is bound to consider the circumstances, the vices ■«^n into the cheaper and poorer ones, or stays away altogether. "But," says thp advocate of pew rents, "there is really little difference in the seats, and the same Gospel is preached to all." Granted that the same doctrines are preached to all who attend church, yet this does not do away with the iniquity of creating and fostering class distinctions among worshippers, nor the i;ii VERSUS PEW RENTS. 43 guilt of blockading the poor man's way to church, nor the sin of putting up the Gospel of Christ at public auction. St. James' denunciation is as applicable to the pew system after we admit this fact as before. Nor does it at all affect our objections to pew rents that the cheaper seats are sometimes as comfortable and convenient as the costliest ones. There must be something to make the distinction between the "cheap" and the "costly" pews, and whether it be some difference in the pews themselves, or merely in their location, is a totahy indifferent matter. It matters little where the public estimation fixes the most valuable seats, whether in the front, middle, or rear of the church, or even in the gallery. The moment the Church gives that which the public opinion esteems most valuable to the rich, and that which the same public opinion pronounces the least valuable to the poor, the distinction has been made ; she has had respect to persons and has virtually said to the rich man, Sit in a good place ; to the poor. Sit under my footstool. What if we admit that the same Gospel may be heard from the cheap pew« and the gallery as from the costliest sitting in the church ? Would this fact atone for the absence of thousands who are virtually shut out of the pew-rented churches, and, as a consequence, never hear the Gospel there at all ? a^555HHi 44 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR CHAPTER V. PEW RENTS UNNECESSARY AND INEXPEDIENT. i ' ! ■! " Who hath required this at your hand ? " — Isaiah. " To the law and to the testimony." — Isaiah. " For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders." — Mattheiv. MOST church people will admit that pew rents have no scriptural authority, that there is much in- justice and hardship to the poor in the system, that in theory all churches should be free, and that, at the best, pew rents are a necessary evil. And, accordingly, we find, when all other arguments have been given up, the advocates of the pew system falling back into this plea of necessity and expediency as the one impreg- nable line of defence. Has the illogical position occupied by such advocates, in defending as necessaiy to the Church of Christ that which is admittedly un- authorized, unjust, and UBScriptural, never dawned upon themselves ? If pew rents are incapable of scrip- tural defence or apology how can they be a necessity to a Church that is founded on scriptural authority and designed to teach the Scriptures to men ? It can hftrdly be said that pew rents are necessary to the existence and prosperity of the Christian Church, ■Tr'i -i'^ VERSUS PEW RENTS. 45 5T. ^nd lay i have Lch in- hat in at the Ungly, ^en up, to this mpreg- )Osition cessaiy dly un- iawned f scrip- ecessity ithority ecessary Church, since that existed and flourished lone: before churches were built. Nor can it be asserted that the voluntary system is inadequate to maintain the services of reli- gion to-day, for there are many churches in our midst supported by the purely voluntary method, as were the earliest church services. To what, then, is the pew system a necessity ? We answer it is a necessity only to the large and expensively managed churches, and to those that have incurred heavy obligations in the line of church luxuries. Magnificent edifices, expensive organs, salaried organists and singers, and cushioned and upholstered seats are church luxuries, legitimate enough, perhaps, if provided on scriptural methods, but by no means a necessity to the Christian Church. How far such an equipment of churches and such a use of church funds are in harmony with Gospel principles, is a question on which there is honest difference of opinion. So much is certain : these things are not necessary to the faithful preaching of the Word of Life, and if in- dulged in at all by a Christian people, must be re- garded as luxurious conveniences rather than essentials in church management. The writer is not among those who condemn large, commodious, and even beautiful edifices, for the worship of God. He sees nothing sinful in the use of an organ, the employment of an organist and paid singers, or a highly salaried minister. All of these may be lawful enough while they are, in the opinion of many, of very doubtful expediency. Such expenditures, however, can never become excuses for an unscriptural method Kf.S ^m MHWHHHMtll 46 THE gosm:l to the poor 'iii of raising money. They are neces to a certain mode of church organization an*' but they are by no means necessary to tht per performance of all true church work, and are, hj say the least, very far removed from the simplicity of the Gospel. Suppose, then, it be admitted for argument's sake, that these church luxuries cannot be had without pew rents, and that where heavy debt has been incurred in this direction, expenditure and income can be made to meet only by pew rents, does this demonstrate the necessity of the system to any church organized and conducted on a plan of Gospel simplicity ? If pew rents are essential to the highest financial success in church operations, why do churches that practise pew-renting raise the majority of their funds by the voluntary plan ? Churches generally rent their pews for the payment of the church debt, or for the pastor's stipend, all the other funds being raised by voluntary donations. Surely, if the plan of making payment for church sittings compulsory be right and expedient, it would greatly simplify matters to make the entire annual contribution a charge upon the pews. Why should not our Educational Fund, our Superan- nuation Fund, our Missionary Fund be raised from pew rents ? If it is lawful to tax the pew-holdei* for a part of the church expenditure, it is lawful to tax him for all. This would be but extending the advantages of the pew system to all the church funds as we have them now, it is claimed, in one or two. For example, one great advantage of the pew system as stated by its VERSUS PEW RENTS. 47 advocates, is this : it compels those who abuse the free peW system by enjoying church privileges without contributing to church support, to pay their fair pro- portion into certain church funds. Why should not the same advantage be given the other church funds ? Have the church debt and the pastor's claim any right to a monopoly of the advantages from pew rents ? Are there not thousands who " abuse " the voluntary system of raising the Missionary Fund, the Educa- tional Fund, and the Superannuation Fund ? Should not these men be compelled to "level up" on these funds as well as on the more fa\ ored ones ? It seems, indeed, but a natural deduction from these arguments urged in favor of the pew system, that all giving to the support of religion should cease to be voluntary and become a compulsory tax upon the pews. What Church will earn the gratitude of all Christen- dom by first demonstrating the feasibility and expedi- ency of raising all its funds frrin pew rents, that is, of inaking giving wholly compulsory, and of making men benevolent by taxation ? But is it an established fact that pew renting is a financial advantage in the raising of any church fund ? Let it be granted that there is an increase of receipts from a certain class who would either pay nothing at all, or much less than under the pew system, is there not a larger proportionate decrease in the receipts from those who ought to give more than the pew taxation, and would give more if the system were voluntary ? Do we not know that the financial ability of the 48 THE GOSPEL Tu THE POOR ■■till various attendants at church, differs far more widely than the taxation of the pews ? Let us suppose that Mr. A., a working man, with a family of six persons and a yearly income of $600, is required to pay $20 a year for one of the cheapest pews. Mr. B., a wealthy capitalist, with family of three and an income of $6,- 000 per year, ought to give at least $200 for his pew. But no such proportionate giving exists, or can exist under the pew system. If Mr. B. gives $50 a year for his pew, he feels he has done^a meritorious deed and ought to be ranked as one of the pillars of the church. And the church officials and ministers, neglecting to teach the people the great scriptural obligation of giving "as God has prospered them," either tax the poor man far more, or the rich man far less than they ought. As long as pews are rented or sold, wealthy pew-holders will be well content to pay the current price, and will satisfy their consciences by the reflec- tion that they pay more than their poor neighbors into the pew funds. But let the pews be open and free to all, and the matter of paying into the funds in proportion to ability be pressed upon their consciences as an obligation they owe to God, and we shall find rich men in many cases doubling or quadrupling their ofTierings. Would not the increase on the one hand equal the decrease on the other ? If not, ought not churches to consider the blessedness of those who suffer " for righteousness' sake ?" Surely, if direct taxation is the system under which the church debt, or the pastor's salary is to be raised, churches ought to have by VERSUS PEW RENTS. 49 as high a sense of justice as governments and muni- cipal authorities, and tax according to the property possessed, or the income received. But let us admit for argument's sake that the increase under the volun- tary system from the source indicated, would not equal the decrease. There are other sources from which in- creased receipts might be expected. The removal of pew rents would doubtless result in a much larger church attendance, and in a large number of small offerings from those who do nol attend, and will not attend, churches with pew rents. If giving is, as the Scriptures teach, more blessed than receiving, if it develops, as we know it does, the noblest part of man's nature, then surely the Church ought to make every lawful effort to multiply the number of its benefactors and cultivate a more general spirit of benevolence and liberality among the masses. If the Church can reap the same, or nearly the same financial results from the multitude of small offerings, as from a small number of large donations, she ought by all means to prefer the former on account of the more general extension of benevolence .among the people. And churches have always prospered more by the multitude of small offerings from the many than by the princely donations of the few. The natural order of church growth and prosperity seems to be first an earnest evangelistic effort among the masses, that is among the poor, then as the masses become, through the Gospel, more and more en- lightened and evangelized, there is an emergence of the 50 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR i -'ii people out of poverty into affluence, and the consequent enriching of the church. This was the order in apostolic times and also under early Methodism. And thus the great reforms and mighty religious revivals of past ages have grown up among the common people. The Church should follow Christ's example and seek after the poor and needy, and grow strong in numbers and wealth with the growing numbers and wealth of the people. The pew system seeks to reverse the natural order of growth and prosperity by courting the presence, favor, and support of the wealthy and cultured, that is of the minority, and neglecting the masses. This is very short-sighted policy, for as fast as men embrace Christianity they become prosperous and the better able to support all the institutions of the Church. The Christian poor of to-day are the rich of to-morrow. Poor people more generally give to church support than the rich, and more generously too. Any system, therefore, that hinders general church attendance on the part of the masses, must necessarily cut off a large number of small offerings to church support. And these, with increased donations from the rich under the voluntary system and under proper religious instruc- tion would, we think, fully counterbalance any decrease in other sources of income resulting from the adoption of free pews. '.:il VERSUS PEW RENTS. n CHAPTER VI. PEW RENTS A HINDRANCE TO THE CULTIVATION OF CHRISTIAN BENEVOLENCE. " Not because I desire a gift : but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. " — Paul. " For if there be first a ivilling mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." — Paul. XT is doubtless the purpose o£ God in committing the JL evangelization of the world to men to train and perfect in every Christian heart the grace of benevo- lence. Especially is it for this purpose that the sup- port of the services of religion has been left as a perpetual obligation upon the Church, in place of being divinely provided in some miraculous manner. God desires " fruit that may abound to our account," the cultivation of the " willing mind," that is, the generous disposition. To this same end the Church of Christ is built on self-denial, being composed of men who have learned to deny self, beaT the cross, and follow Christ. The service of Christ, though one of love, is yet one of constant self-sacrifice, calculated from its very nature t9 develop in us the spirit and mind of the Divine Master. No duty required at the Christian's hands has a TiSS mmoi 3BS 52 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR more intimate connection with the growth of the Christ-like spirit within him, than that of giving to the support of the Church and the spread of the Gospel. Christians fail to understand the great- ness of their responsibility and the greatness of their privilege in the consecration of their worldly goods to the cause of God. And ministers, it is to be feared, fail to give the instruction they should to the Church of God on the nature of this Christian duty, and the blessings and privileges it confers on those who prac- tise it. Giving ought to be an act of worship, and there can be no doubt the Christian who understands his true relation to God, and out of a full heart donates his substance to Christ's cause, realizes that " it is more blessed to give than to receive." Now, in order that giving may prove acceptable to God and full of blessing to the giver, it must have certain essential characteristics. First, the act must be spontaneous, and hence it differs from most of the giving prescribed under the Law. The laws requiring sacrifices marked out the various requirements at the hands of the pious Jew, varying with circumstances, services, and seasons. Yet, in connection with all of these compulsory sacrifices there were various kinds of voluntary peace offerings, which afforded scope for the expression and cultivation of true devotion and benevo- lence. Under the Gospel we are free from the " law of commandments contained in ordinances," and all our giving should be ennobled by its purely voluntary character. Our giving, under the light, love, and VERSUS PEW RENTS. 53 grace of God manifest in the Gospel, is to be like our praises, the spontaneous outflow of hearts in sympathy with Christ. Secondly, giving, if it w^ould realize che fulness of divine blessing and the richest return to the Christian's own heart, must be pure and simple sacrifice, without thought of any selfish consideration or return. Self-interest must not be taken into ac- count ; there must be nothing of the nature of exchange or barter about it. The moment you "introduce into the transaction any selfish interest, that moment you rob giving of its noblest characteristic, pure unselfish- ness, and destroy in a large degree its power to elevate and ennoble the character. When a selfish object is held out to view and becomes a factor to any extent in the giving, to that extent the action ceases to be benevolent and sinks into a bargain. Sacrifice, or the giving up of one's right or interest, exists in every act of barter upon the mart, but tLe sacrifice is supposed to be mutual betw^een buver and seller, and no one claims any merit therefor. The giving that Christ pronounced more blessed than receiving, is the making of sacrifice to or for another, without consideration of any return whatever. This, and this alone, cultivates true benevolence and fulfils the design of God. And this certainly ought to be kept constantly in view in all church schemes and operations for raising money. The people ought to be educated on the line of pure benevolence, and the Church, following out the design of God, ought to teach the people to give regularly, proportionately, and freely. Giving would thus be- ;;il m 54 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR come a part of worship, acceptable to God, and rich in blessing to all practising it. Pew rents make giving to church funds a matter of practical compulsion, and hence, as we have shown, there can be no true development of the grace of liberality by such a system. It may, indeed, be said men are not compelled to take pews, as, with equal truth, it may be said men are not compelled to eat, yet the alternative is such that the system is practically compulsory. " But," says an objector, " there is abun- dant room for the exercise of the voluntary principle along with the pew system in the raising of the vari- ous church funds." True, there is room for the exer cise of the voluntary principle, yet, so far as pew rents cover the ground of church benevolence, they are a. hindrance and not a help. Men who have been taught to expect a quid 'pro quo in the pew system do not take so readily to the sacrifice of their wordly goods where no selfish advantage of any kind is apparent. The proof of this is found in the large number of pew-holders who are not represented at all, or very illy represented, in the Missionary, Educational, and Super- annuation Funds of the churches. Men, in their lack of true*generosity, eagerly sieze upon that which has some appearance of the genuine article and yet yields a direct return to themselves, and then close up their hearts against all claims made on the purely voluntary system. Many who rent pews, though they may be ever so selfish in their action, are too often quite ready to take credit for generosity and make pew-renting an VERSUS PEW RENTS. 00 excuse for withholding from nearly all the claims of religion. • Again, pew rents hinder the cultivation of true benevolence by placing the burden of church support on a basis of barter. Men are called upon to pay into the church funds certain sums, not so much on account of their obligation to God as on account of their obliga- gation to the church for a legal monopoly of a com- fortable seat. Hence the vast majority of people, in renting a pew or buying one at public auction, never even think of their obligations to God. They are pay- ing for their pews and thus giving proof of their honesty, but never imagine themselves any the more generous on that account. They receive so much church accommodation and privilege, and pay therefor so much money. This is barter, pure and simple, and not generosity. Nor is it so much for the mere ac- commodation as for the privileges that the majority pay. There is something in the possession of a pew, especially " in a good place," in the respectable society to which it introduces the owner, in the power to con- trol it at will, in the tacit right enjoyed by the pew- holder to decide who beside himself and family shall occupy it, that is exceedingly gratifying to the pride of man's heart. And for these rights and privileges, with the Gospel included, the man feels as much bound to pay as for the seat he occupies at the opera. Surely it was not of such " giving " that the Saviour spake when He declared it more blessed to give than to receive. The mere pew accommodation in every church con- i' ! isn ffummmm ^Bom m\ 56 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR secrated to God ought to be as free as the Gospel itself ; the rights and privileges that%re tacitly conferred on every pew-holder, and which are so dear to human pride and vanity, ought never to be given by the Church of God, much less made articles of merchan- dise. This feature of the pew-rent system vitiates entirely its power to cultivate benevolence and lib- erality among the people. . <■;!! mi ;JM VERSUS PEW RENTS. 67 CHAPTER VII. THE WEEKLY OFFERING SYSTEM THE "MORE EXCELLENT WAY." " Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." — Paul. *' Freely ye have received, freely give." — Christ. JUDAISM had its vast number of rules and regula- tions prescribing each religious service, and even the number, weight, or value of each sacrifice re- quired. Christianity burst the bonds of Judaism and emerged into religious freedom. But this freedom is greatly misunderstood by many. It is not a freedom from obligation and responsibility, but from those nar- row and sectarian views of thesis things which are no more adapted to the perfect Christian system than the garments of childhood to adult life. If there is,»there- fore, under Christianity no exact prescription as to the amount of contributions required for the support of religion, it is not because there is no obligation as under Judaism, but because the obligation is one that cannot well be measured and defined. The obli- gations imposed by Christianity for the financial sup- port of religion are so broad and deep and com- prehensive that they are best expressed by some I! I ■ maMw mmi^m 58 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR '4 4 general precept like our Lord's, "Freely ye have received, freely give." When measured by the stan- dard of privilege enjoyed under Judaism, the Chris- tian's privileges are almost infinitely greater, and hence his obligations to support religion must be pro- portionately increased. If, then, the justice of the rule, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," be admitted, and if, as schol- ars estimate, the total contribution of the pious Jew ranged somewhere between one-third and one-fifth of his annual income, let the candid Christian ask him- self, How much, under the , light and blessing of Christianity, ought I to give for the support of reli- gion and the evangelization of a world ? As to the method of giving, the New Testament is nearly as destitute of directions as it is regarding the amount. Doubtless where the great fundamental principles of religion are adhered to, much is left to choice and to the varying circumstances of time and place. The nearest approach to a prescribed method in giving is, perhaps, that contained in 1 Cor. xvi. 2, and quoted at the head of the chapter. Here we have the outline of the voluntary weekly offering system, a method of church support that has been adopted with the happiest results in many places, and that is at once systematic, scriptural, reasonable, ex- pedient, and successful. The practical working of the system is as follows : The Finance Committee of each congregation at the beginning of the Church year makes an estimate of the total amount of annual ex- J rTirH > > ii . . VERSUS PEW RENTS. 1^9 of ekly t has aces, ex- f the each year ex- penditure in the equipment and management of the Church services. This amount divided by fifty-two, the number of Sabbaths in the year, gives the expen- diture necessary for each Sabbath, and consequently the amount of weekly offering required from the entire congregation. An effort is then made to obtain pledges of weekly contributions sufficient to cover the weekly expenditure (allowing for the customary difier- ence between subscriptions and cash receipts), and this being secured, but little more is necessary. Envelopes with blank for name and date are supplied to subscrib- ers, a financial secretary is appointed to receive and credit the weekly contributions, and the scheme is ready for trial. Now, in favor of this plan of church support, let it be noted, first, that it is systematic. There is a regular fixed time and place for the contributions. It cannot well be forgotten as each Sabbath service brings it fresh to the memory. It becomes, after a little prac- tice, so habitual as to seem a necessary part of the worship. Its accounts are easily kept, and mistakes can either be avoided or easily corrected. It pays the year's expenditure as the year passes, allowing no account to run behind, as under the pew system or the " quarterly plan " of payment. It has all the advan- tage over the pew system that the cash business has over the credit system. Secondly, the plan is Scriptural, in that it har- monizes with the examples and precepts oi Scrip- ture, makes giving voluntary and proportionate, and i ii I I 60 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR '••ilf is based upon Apostolic recommendation to the Church at Corinth. The most remarkable and praiseworthy examples of giving to the support of religion re- corded in the Scripture are those which gave full play to the voluntary principle. In the erection of the tabernacle it was not taxation that secured such large and liberal donations from the people. Moses said, " Whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering to the Lord." Every man was at liberty to give or not to give, and anything offered in the right spirit would be acceptable. The people take time to consider, and then "they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whose spirit made him willing, and they brought the Lord's offering to the work of the tabernacle of the congregation." The men brought "blue and purple, and skins and wood," and the women brought " brace- lets and earrings and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold." And such was the spirit of liberality begotten in their hearts that they brought "much more than enough," and had to be "restrained from bringing." Such are the offerings pleasing to contemplate and acceptable to God, for the Lord loveth the cheerful giver. Again, in the erection of the temple we see a mag- nificent testimony to the efficiency of the voluntary principle in securing resources for the services of reli- gion. Dr. Brown says : " The donations of David and his people astonish us by their magnitude. In addi- tion to the immense sums which he had amassed dur- ■Wl, VERSUS PEW RENTS. «i> ing his reign for the building of the temple, he, on the occasion referred to, devoted to this pious purpose what is equivalent to about eighteen millions of our money ; and his people's joint contributions consider- ably exceeded thii^ty millions." All the contributions of all the Christian Churches on the face of the earth for all missionary purposes, it is said, fall immeasur- ably short of this single offering on the part of ancient Israel and her king. There was first a great assembly of all the valiant men, the princes of the tribes, the captains of the thousands, the captains of the hun- dreds, and stewards of all the possessions and substance of the king, and his sons, with the officers and mighty men in Jerusalem. There was doubtless first a con- sultation between David and his " mighty men," then a presentation of the financial claims of religion, fol- lowed by a general and generous response. And " the people rejoiced for that they offered willingly to the Lord, and David the king also rejoiced with great joy." The widow of Sarepta, who in the extremity of poverty and in time of famine hesitated not to give the last of her small store to feed the Lord's prophet, thus placing herself in entire dependence on Providence, and the poor widow who "out of her penury" cast ^wo mites, "even all her living," into the treasury, have both been immortalized by our Lord's commendation — a commendation that would never have been uttered had the sacrifice been compulsory. Again, this voluntary weekly offering is in perfect harmony with the precepts, promises, exhortations, and :■<« f rsm r-:— — '-KW-. as 6 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR fl; 1;' ! ■). warnings of Scripture respecting giving to God's cause and generosity toward mankind. All of these imply- that giving is to be a voluntary matter, and that in this consists its chief virtue. Take for example : " Honour the Lord with thy substance and with the first-fruits of all thine increase." "To do good and to communicate, forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." " If thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink ; for in so doing tKou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head." " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." " He that giveth, let him do it with liberality." "The Lord loveth a cheerful giver." ^ Again, the weekly offering plan commends itself to all church members and attendants as an eminently reasonable one. Its claim upon every one is in propor- tion to his ability, " as God has prospered him," and is ot once so clear and just and easily met that the sys- tem is necessarily popular with the people. Nor can it be questioned that it is by far the most expedient and successful method yet devised for developing the grace of liberality in the Church, and securing needed funds for the support of religion. For surely, if it be blessed to give to God's cause occasionally as under the pew system, it is more blessed to give frequently and regularly as under the weekly offering plan. The mind and heart of the worshipper are beneficially affected every time an offering is made unto the Lord, and therefore the weekly offering has the Am] VERSUS PEW RENTS. 68 many advantages over the irregular system of pay- ment under pew rents. Again, the giving required under this weekly offering plan of church support is in connection with the religious services of God's house, and is much more apt to become a part of wor- ship than the quarterly settlement of an account for pew rent with some church official. No other system of church support can secure as large financial returns as the weekly offering, with so little embarrassment to the givers. The vast majority of those contributing to church support can give their ten, twenty, or fifty cents a week very much more easily than they can contribute the aggregate once a quarter or once a year. This is so well understood and appreciated wherever it is tried that the plan soon becomes very popular with the people. May the voluntary weekly offering soon supersede the unscriptural pew system in all our Churches ! Amen. I , \ 64 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR CHAPTER VIII. OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS. "We must obey God rather than men." Peter. " For we take thought for things honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also of all men. " PatU. THAT the abolition of pew rents in any church long accustomed thereto would be attended with difficulty, there can be little doubt. There is always more or less conservatism among the people in re- gard to church polity and policy. And hence the giving up of a system of church management, sanc- tioned by general and long-established usage, a system commonly lauded for its financial advantages, and very acceptable to the majority of the genteel and wealthy classes, would, of necessity, be something of a revolu- tion in church life. Abandonment of pew rents for a purely voluntary system of church support would doubtless appear to many like the giving up of order for confusion — the relinquishment of certain returns for doubtful gains. Such a proposal would meet little favor at the hands of that large class of people, who, when once satisfied that any measure or cus- tom pays financially, are not over scrupulous as to the principles involved. The public conscience, not- VERSUS PEW RENTS. ft6 .>n withstanding the multitude of our churches and the success of their work, is far from being as sensitive as it should be on matters of general policy, and hence the ethics of many a public question is lost sight of in the consideration of its dividends. Let us look for a few moments at some of the objections often urged against the adoption of free pews. First, it may be said, and probably with some degree of truth, that many pew-holders would not continue in attendance if pew rents were abolished and with them the absolute and legal control con- ferred by that system upon the pew-holder. The adoption of free pews, whilst it would not necessitate the giving up of one's particular seat, would certainly involve a very great curtailment in the rights and privileges of the occupant, and put his tenure of the seat upon an altogether different basis. Men are gen- erally sensitive regarding their rights and privileges, and more especially so if they have financial invest- ments therein. This would most likely prove true of that large class of respectable church attendants who are better known and more highly valued for their wealth and social position, than for their humility and devotion. In all probability many of this class would resent any new arrangement by which their absolute control of pews would be diminished, and look with little favor on a system that would give them no particular advantage over their dependents in the house of God. Let such people once understand that ii:i aOM MM '-^^■4-idt. iL. *rw 66 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR under the voluntary system no choice of seat would be given for money's sake — that, whilst a regular seat might be assigned them on condition of becoming regular attendants, no seat would be kept vacant after a certain hour ; and that, in short, the entire spirit of church management would be that of a re- public rather than a pliitocracy — and in all proba- bility many of them would immediately seek a church home elsewhere. Some of this class would prove open to argument, and might be disposed to give free pews a trial ; but that the purse-proud and irreligious, who have become accustomed to pew rents, would re- ject so plebian a system as free pews may be regarded as certain. These difficulties must be faced, and certain losses must be sustained, if pew rents are abandoned, and the scriptural and voluntary method adopted. What should ministers and official church members do in such a case ? If convinced that pew rents are unscrip- tural and evil, they ought to abandon them, no matter what the consequences may be. If they cannot please God and their fellowmen, they must offend their fellowmen. "We must obey God rather than men." If need be they must be ready to make sacrifices for principle in church affia,irs, as they are taught to do in private life. Church officials are clearly bound to con- duct the church on scriptural principles and in har- mony with the great doctrines of human brotherhood and equality. If men cannot be pleased and retained in a congregation by scriptural methods, the church I 11 VERSUS PEW RENTS. m m in len. for Ido in con- har- rhood lained Ihurch must bear their loss. Woe to the church that covets the presence and favor of rich worldlings more than the presence and favor of God ! But whilst there would doubtless be this class of " irreconcileables " in every congregation, it may safely be presumed that the vast majority of church mem- bers and attendants would, under proper instruction, readily perceive the reasonableness of the free-pew system, and soon become convinced of its advantages in a financial as well as a spiritual point of view. And whilst there would be a loss on the one hand in attend- ance and support by the adoption of free pews, there would be on the other hand, as we have shown else- where, a gain in both attendance and support from that class of people that has always been readiest to receive and support the Gospel. Righteousness exalts a nation — will it not do as much for a church ? Shall we discard principle for the sake of popularity ? Shall we esteem the favor of man of more value in church work than the favor of God ? Church life and prosperity depend upon the divine blessing, and this secured, the Church of Christ can bear unmoved the loss of a few adherents. Akin to the objections already urged against free pews is the assertion that some churches that have long been dependent upon pew rents for meeting the church debt, would be seriously embarrassed, or perhaps compelled to close their doors without them. We are convinced that in the majority of cases the burden of the church debt might be shifted from pew rents to i* 68 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR voluntary donations. Let an appeal for annual free- will offerings be made to the people in behalf of the church debt. Let the matter of giving be presented as a duty and a privilege, and pressed home upon the conscience of the people. Let the rich be urged to give proportionately, freely and generously, bearing the burden of their poorer brethren. In a majority of cases the people would respond to such appeal, and feel all the happi'^r for giving with " willing mind " what they had formerly been compelled to pay by taxation. But suppose that a church here and there through- out this land of churches, should be called upon to choose between continuing its career by a method of support which it regarded as unscriptural, and closing its doors for the sake of principle, and should choose the latter alternative and die — would not such death be blessed ? Could not its pastor preach a sermon over its decease very appropriately from the text, " Blessed are the dead that C.e in the Lord ? " The death of such a church, resulting from firm adherence to scrip- tural principles, would prove a powerful tonic to our modern Christianity, which, as some people imagine, needs a little more of the martyr spirit. The pastor, thus freed from his labors among an over-churched people, and fired by the enthusiasm which the martyr- death of his church might be supposed to impart, could set about raising a regiment of volunteer mis- sionaries for heathendom. And surely there would be many volunteers among the ministers of a people that a VERSUS PEW RENTS. 69 ed Irt, lis- jbe hat has the Gospel in such abundance that small towns and villages can sport a Protestant church for every hundred inhabitants, while China has only one mis- sionary to the million of her people. Who knows but this, after all, is what we need — a few deaths among the churches, a little weeding out, that there might be more life ? Some churches, by a martyr-death such as we have been contemplating, Would, like Samson, destroy more enemies in a dying hour than they had in a life-time. The spectacle of such a death would be edifying to both saint and sinner, and in many places where churches are planted so thickly that ministers are half starved and congregations needlessly burdened, the aemise would not cause inconsolable grief among the remaining churches. What becomes of the argu- ment, then, so frequently used by dishonest people and by churches : We cannot live by legitimate means, a'^d we Tnitst live ? Why must ? The case of a church on extremis from pure adherence to scriptural usages would excite general attention. Will trustee boards consider this ? " But," says another objector, " I favor pew rents because I think that every attendant it church should have a regular seat, and that families should sit to- gether." Doubtless, it is much better that attendants have regular seats in church. One soon becomes so accustomed and attached to a church seat that he finds a comfort of body and tranquility of mind while en- joying it, which he cannot experience in any other seat in the church. Habit rules here as elsewhere. ■il''?Wli • T,-Wflt.-MT 3a 70 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR Ji The scriptural direction that " all things be done decently and in order," requires the allocation of seats to regular attendants. There is even stronger reasons why families should attend church as families, their members sitting together in the house of God. There can thus be much better supervision of the younger members; the worship becomes more attractive and profitable ; the ties of family and of church becoming interwoven, and increasingly powerful for good. But why not have allocated seats as well with free pews as under a system of pew rents ? In all free-pew churches with which we are acquainted, the seats are allocated in the order of application, each applicant having choice of all vacant seats. This secures the advantages of the pew system without its evils. It is, of course, assumed that under free pews no such ab- solute control of the seat belongs to the occupant as is given under pew rents ; yet so far as his own per- sonal enjoyment of the seat is concerned he has little cause of complaint. But the greatest objection remains. Free pews have 'always been and always will be abused by a large class of persons who are abundantly able to render the church financial support, and yet will occupy the most eligible seats and contribute little or nothing. And is not the pew system abused ? Do men give at all proportionately under that system ? Do not the poor give too much, and the rich far too little ? But let us look at the objection. It has a two-fold aspect, as we consider the interests of the church on ble he Ihe at Ihe kt )ld on VERSUS PEW RENTS. 71 the one hand, and the interests of the class of people referred to, on the other. So far as the church is con- cerned, the only loss to it is a financial one, which we have elsewhere shown it can well afford to make iit view of increased returns from other sources. So far as the people themselves are concerned, it can scarcely be claimed that pew rents would render them at all generous, or that free pews would have a tendency to make them niggardly. It is true that men will pay for a seat under the pew system, and sponge their church living under the free pews, but the payment under pew rent is not generosity, and the failure to give freely and generously under free pews is no proof that the men have become penu- rious by the influence of free pews. Many a man, before losing his position in genteel society and his honored place in the church, will submit to a heavy taxation under pew rents, and, perhaps, take a great deal of credit to himself for generosity. The same man will give little or nothing under free pews, you say. Yet he is as generous in the one case as the other, and, so far as the man is concerned, there is very much to be gained by the free pew system. In the first place, he will come to a better understanding of himself under free pews. He will see that the forty dollars which he paid yearly under pew rents, as he supposed, I generously, "with a willing mind," has dwindled down to one-fourth that sum when left to the promptings of his own heart. Such a revelation of the man to himself is one of the greatest blessings < 111 ' ammgrn 72 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR VERSUS PEW RENTS. Mm that could come to a penurious man. Secondly, there is much more likelihood of proper instruction upon the subject of liberality under the free-pews ystem than under pew rents. The voluntary system would seem to require this indoctrination of the people in the grace of liberality, and at least an occasional setting forth of the duty of generous, proportionate and systematic support of the Church of God. There is much better chance, then, for the development and training of Christian liberality under the voluntary system than under pew rents. dHHIiiaiia APPENDIX. I. THE PEW SYSTEM— IS IT REASONABLE, EQUITABLE^ EXPEDIENT, SCRIPTURAL? A paper read be/ore the London Congregational Board, BY THE REV. NEWMAN HALL, LL.B. :! i THE pew rent system may, in its generic character, be illustrated by that of theatres, concerts, lectures, and similar entertainments. Seats are classified ac- cording to their advantages of position, and prices are regulated accordingly. The only qualification is, not capacity to appreciate, but only competence to pay. Thus, the more wealthy and the best attired are in the front places ; the poorer, are in the back benches and upper galleries. At a concert may be seen persons whose late arrival, heedless behaviour, and early de- parture, indicate how little they value the performance for itself ; while others, in remote corners, show, by rapt attention, a passionate love for music itself. The immediate object of the managers is to secure a finan- cial success, and to this all their arrangements are u \ • 74 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR I' \5 I- H-«i subservient. The children of this world are wise in their generation. The pew rent system is similar in its main features. But it has this important distinction, that it invites the entrance of others than seat-holders. In most cases free seats are set apart for the poor, and soon after the commencement of service, if not before, places not actually occupied are open to all comers. Still the fact remains that in the majority of our churches precedence is given to those who can afford to pay the best prices ; that others are often kept standing till the service be- gins, when the best seats may all have been taken possession of, and so it comes to pass that generally the more wealthy sit together in the front, while the poor are found in the back seats and the galleries. 1. Is this system reasonable ? A Christian Church is a society of believers. The qualification is not Wealth, but faith and holiness. The object of assembling is not to provide an entertainment which shall be a financial success, but to worship God, to nourish piety, and convert sinners. Viewed in relation to these objects, is the pew system reasonable ? A seat-renter may select a church because it is fashionable, or the service imposing, the music good, the preacher eloquent, original, amusing, yet without love for the worship of God itself. Still, if he can pay the regulation price, he can occupy one of the most convenient or conspicu- ous seats, while others, who worship in spirit and truth, and aid every sermon by prayer, are treated as strangers. They have no familiar seat of their own, VERSUS PEW RENTS. 75 I IS a ese Icu- ith, as rn, dear by many sacred associations ; but, after waiting near the door, go hither and thither, "having no certain dwelling-place," and often, by the seat they find, illustrating that, while many that are last as to piety are first as to place, others who are first in the eyes of God are last in those of the pew-opener. Congregationalists, who hold that the church consists only of believers, profess that for their religious welfare the public services are in the first instancf^ designed. In receiving to membership and the Sacred Supper we make no distinction. From peer to peasant alike we de- mand nothing more and nothing less than Scriptural faith and consistent life. Moreover, as advocates of the voluntary principle, we profess to rely on the free-will offerings of the people according to their ability. We are not under the law, but under grace. The question is how far the pew system is in harmony with these objects and professions, and, therefore, how far it is reasonable ? 2. Is it equitable .? Do seat-holders contribute in proportion to benefits received and ability to pay ? Pew rents are generally appropriated to the support of the minister. But his work is not confined to preaching. He has the grave responsibility of presid- ing over a society, to preserve which in peace, purity, and usefulness, requires no ordinary combination of zeal with prudence, firmness with forbearance, and a constant vigilance which may be the more effectual when the less obvious. He has to guide the perplexed and comfort the sorrowing in private. He is the re- li ■ 76 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR * tained counsellor of his people, any one of whom has a right to resort to him or send for him to advise them in any case of difficulty. If time and strength prevent more frequent visitation, he is always expected in the sick-room and in the house of mourning. Is all this to be recognized only by the hire of so many square inches of oak or fir, entitling the tenant to precedence at two public services which often re- presents the smaller half of a pastor's labors ? A mere outsider, who comes only twice a week, pays as much as a member or even officer of the church, who attends all the meetings, shares all its privileges, and, next to his own dwelling, esteems it his home. Is it equitable that by paying for two public services a rental no larger than that paid by the stranger, he shall be thought to discharge his pecuniary obligation to the church ? Moreover, he may owe his own salva- tion to the church, and with it his temporal prosperity ; he may owe to it the salvation of his children. Yet his obligation is measured by that of the stranger, and he pays for his sitting. Is the ministry for the sittings, or for the hearers ? Does the value of the sermon de- pend on the position of the pew ? Does the spiritual good resulting dwindle as the sittings recede or the rents diminish ? If the ministry is not for the wooden seats but for living souls, then it is equitable that these, wherever they sit, should contribute according to their individual capacity and sense of obligation. But in the pew system this measure of equity has no place. Suppose a bachelor or widow with £1,000 a year get '»T' VERSUS PEW RENTS. 77 he igs, de- bual I the Iden lese, leir it in rear pays for one sitting £2; while a clerk or trader with wife and six children needs eight sittings. But having only £250 a year, he takes inferior seats at half the price, and pays for eight seats £8. With an income four times less than that of his neighbor, he pays four times as much in actual cash. But as his income is four times less, he proportionately pays six- teen times more. But wife and six children entail certain expenses absolutely beyond his control, so that the fund on which he can draw for religious purposes is further diminished, and, therefore, his contribution is relatively increased. On the other hand, if the family man with £250 equitably pays £8, notwith- standing family expenses, the man with £1,000, and no such expense, instead of £2, surely ought to pay £32. Take another illustration of inequity. A man with a thriving trade may well afford to take a pew at a high rental. But reverses come. It would injure his credit, wound his social feelings, disturb his devotion, to change his sitting, which, in equity to his creditors and family, he cannot pay for as before. Would it not be more just to allow him to assess himself at a lower rate ? Or, if his income steadily increases, might he not feel it positively unjust to continue to pay only the comparative pittance which was asked for his seat when he was straitened in resources ? Again, a man of wealth and large family has a pew of eight or ten seats. In process of time his children get settled in life. He and his wife are left alone. liiii 78 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR They give up the sittings no longer wanted, and keep two. They are richer than ever, they have fewer ex- penses, and contribute far less. This is the pew system. Is it equitable ? It may be said with truth that many generous members of congregations contribute large sums for special objects and the missions of the Church, and so make up for the small sum paid for their pew. But this does not interfere with our argu- ment which has to do with contributions specially for the support of divine worship and the ministry. 3. Is it expedient ? Some may say, " The principle is objectionable in the abstract, but revenue forbids its relinquishment." Is this so ? As reg.?,rds the rich, does it not lessen contribution? Fix a trade-price, and the wealthiest are content to pay what is charged. Rich and poor alike give the market value for com- modities, irrespective of their intrinsic worth. Many a rich seat-holder would think it ostentatious or in- vidious to offer more than the regulated sum, which he would double or quadruple if left to his own sense of obligation. Many who love the Gospel, and ardently admire and extol the minister, would be ashamed to put down, as their voluntary tribute of appreciation the paltry sum they pay with perfect satisfaction when it is the full price charged. Is there not many a church where seat-rents are low because renters are few, whose pastor is exposed to positive privation, al- though there may be one or two persons of wealth among his people, and several traders able to put by their hundred a year or more ? There are men who ful VERSUS PEW RENTS. 79 I! I oni- any in- he e of tly dto ,tion tion any are ,al- alth by who with wealth have generous hearts, who would liberally respond to their obligations, but whom the system of hiring so many feet of benches renders slow to under- stand their privilege and duty ; so that they recognise their minister's services by a measure they would be ashamed to apply, I will not say to their doctor or lawyer, but even to their cook, their groom, their scul- lery-maid. I remember once dining at the house of a wealthy merchant who, though he loved the house of God and faithful preaching, yet was not remarkable for generous contributions, and who said to me across the table that at church that day his thoughts had wandered by calculating that in the course of about thirty years he had paid some £200 in pew rents. It was, perhaps, rude in me ; but my spirit was stirred to reply, " And more, sir, for blacking the shoes of your household." After a pause he frankly said, " That is tru* ." I heard no more from him about the payment of pew rents, as if it were an example of generosity. Under a better system would not such as he be ashamed of so low an estimate of obligation ? If, under a voluntary assessment, the rich would often give more than a fixed sum, many of the p«or, who, by the present system are excluded altogether, would become contributors. By the poor man's church is sometimes meant a church supported by the rich for the benefit of the poor. They who provide the money expect to direct the procedure. They who receive benefits, at no cost, are generally expected to be grate- ful without interfering. But surely the poor man's w!li I liii,* I ^i ■ i: 'fi'Mn\ I am ' '>« :* ii 80 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR r- * H i church is the church where he has an equal status with the rich ; where he shares in the privilege of con- tributing both to the ministry and the expenses ; where, giving according to his means, he is on an equality with the largest subscriber, and does not feel that in the highest of all relationships he is pauperized, but that the church is to him, equally with those most favored in worldly circumstances, his own spiritual place and home, for which he prays, for which he works, for which he gives. Objection may be taken to any change, from a sincere apprehension that selfish people will take undue advantage of it ; while, perhaps, in some cases, the objection may be prompted by the apprehension that a free system would entail large contributions from the objectors themselves. But my own convic- tion is that the increased gifts of the rich, with the numerous contributions of small sums from the poor, who, after all, are the most constant and generous givers according to their ability, would result in an increase of revenue ; and this is confirmed by the ex- perience of many churches where a voluntary assess- ment has been substituted for a fixed rental. It io, perhaps, too much to hope that this principle may be carried out in large and wealthy congregations where the present system is amply adequate for the pastor's salary and all expenses. But if it were carried out, each giving not according to what his own church needs, but to what the ministry in general deserves, a large surplus fund might be created for the aid of ^imall :■!! VERSUS PEW RENTS. 81 conqregatiorxd, and to supplement the stipends of pastors inadequately sustained. Any attempt to displace an established system, "the time-honored institutions of our fathers," is liable to be objected to till some better plan is fully developed and tested. As if any new plan could be tested before it is tried. Let us settle principles, and ways ana means will follow. " But," says some kind friend, " suppose, meanwhile, the ministry should suffer by inadequate support?" I ask, in reply, "Is it adequately supported under the present system ?" In the rear of a few pastors who, not from superior generosity, but only from larger numbers, receive ample support, though seldom half what such men could earn in secular em- ploy, there are hundreds of others no less cultured, zealous, and godly, whose studies are disturbed and minds depressed and energies crippled and social in- fluence weakened by stipends inadequate for present necessities, still more for future contingencies. Is it not pardonable in their interests that some, who will not be suspected as pleading for themselves, should speak out on this question, and suggest to the churches and their oflScers their responsibilities and privileges ? But suppose that for a brief period there should be a difficulty, as in multitudes of other cases, the passing pain might lead to a permanent cure. If a principle is right let us adopt it and trust the result. There was a brief period in which St. Paul's congregation failed to supply his need. Instead of stalling and in- stead of begging, he took to trade and stitched tent :j ! !ii i" ■:: IP m 19'! if " II*' 1 ' liSi 82 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR I r ; 1 % cloth. I'll be bound he did it well. No such cloth as his was offered in the market at Corinth. They that are best fitted for the ministry are generally fit for other work also. Let them, as a little pleasant change, become successors of the apostles by being lay preachers as they were. Let them, if necessary, show their in- dependence by " working with their own hands ;" and very soon those who are " taught in the Word " would feel that in obeying the command to " communicate unto Him that teacheth in all good things," they were not dealing a dole but discharging a debt. A little variation of industry would not necessarily do us harm. It might increase the muscularity of our Christianity and the wholesomeness of our theology. Then, when the whole energies were again devoted to the ministry, that ministry might be more useful and better appreciated than before. Then, with voluntary offerings from the many, winged with willinghood, not weighted by a tariff, our pastors, who, in spite of all that may be said against the apostolic method of the ministry being supported by the people, are amongst the most fearless, would be, if possible, more fearless still ; knowing that a ministry honest and outspoken, being no respecter of persons, is most likely to be honored in its honesty, when it rests on the entire Christian community, instead of a section of its wealth- ier members, however generous they may be. Another suggestion is not unworthy of notice. There are some yt)ung men whose early training, peculiar sensitiveness, or notions — right or wrong — of what is VERSUS PEW RENTS. 83 bhe rst less len, be tire tb- lere liar is due to a Christian gentleman, may cause them to re gard with disfavor a mode of ministerial support by the hiring of seats as for a place of amusement. If their own fathers show their regard for their pastors by taking so many sittings, their sons may, perhaps prefer some other church where, though the stipend is smaller, the mode of obtaining it is more to their taste. Here, again, comes the question of expediency. Is the pew system likely to deter from our ministry some young men whom we may be loth to lose from our ranks ? Thus a change may prove expedient, both financially and in the supply of ministers. But there is a higher expediency. This is tested, not by revenue, but by spiritual prosperity. Would another system be less repellant to the outside world, whom we wish to attract in order to save ? Would strangers feel less like intruders, be more ready to repeat their visit and bring others, and so, after a while, increase the church by new converts ? Would a more voluntary system tend to raise the tone of church life, binding all classes in closer sympathy, con- fidence, and mutual interest ? Would it increase love for the ministry, and so promote its efficiency ? Then would such change tend to the glory of Christ, and, therefore, would be expedient, even should revenue suffer. But all experience proves that spiritual pros- perity secures a fuller treasury for every good work- " The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich." Is it Scriptural? Does what we read off the equality in the early Church of all believers, irrespective of I i; ft 111 1, i m I'l .fS ii hiis mmmsmamaaB 84 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR 4 1 i'i worldly advantages, the spontaneity of service, the acceptableness only of " the cheerful giver," the rule of giving "every one according to his ability," and " as God has prospered every man," — does this seem to favor the pew system ? Imagine a congregation pre- sided over by Paul, Peter, or James, with reserved seats for those who could pay high prices, including certain Jewish scribes, or Greek sophists, or spies, who had secured sittings in order to study the new religion, listen to a fresh style of eloquence, gratify curiosity, or gather materials for a criminal prosecution ; these, along with the wealthier converts, taking front seats, while other poorer brethren, yet " beloved of the Lord, chosen to be saints," stand at the door waiting for vacant places ! If the pew system tends to secularize what is sacred ; to introduce trade principles into the management of the household of faith ; to lead church officers to measure ministerial success by the number of sittings let, and the amount of rents received ; to encourage measures for obtaining money rather than winning souls ; to treat the church as if it were a shop, and incur the Saviour's condemnation of those who made God's house of prayer a house of merchandise — if such is the tendency of the pew system, and thus opposed to the teaching of the Holy Ghost, can we expect in connection with it the utmost blessing we are encour- aged to pray for ? Many texts might be cited to show how far the system is Scriptural ; but there is one so specially ap- VERSUS PEW RENTS. 85 fg In licable, and so emphatic, that it needs no comment. " My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have regard unto him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him. Sit thou here in a good place ; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool, are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts ? " or, as in the margin of the Revised Version, " Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts- Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him." (Jas, ii. 1-5.) If on careful consideration, the pew system appears to be reasonable, equitable, expedient, and, above all, Scriptural, by all means let us uphold it. If otherwise* let us so modify it as to neutralize these objections, or let us abolish it altogether, assured that whatever is not in accordance with the mind of Christ cannot pro- mote the prosperity of our churches or the success of our ministry ; and that the most absolute submission to His authority is not only right, but will be found reasonable, equitable, and expedient also. 'm s if I iIlM " :lf 'I 'I ^ : iili '111 i'l .M III m #. 86 THE GOSPFL TO THE POOR hlm\ 11. THE CHURCHES AND THE MASSES. A71 Editorial taken from the Telegram, Toronto. IS the time coming when the churches will be beyond the reach of the common people ? It is a question if they are not beyond the reach of the common people now, for only the comfortable and contented classes are to be found in the great majority of the church pews. The explanation of this is, that the churches of the present age have become a luxury, and the toiling masses, to whom every dollar is a consideration, can- not afford to contribute towards their support. Con- trast the churches of^ to-day with what they were twenty or thirty years ago, and observe the difference. The churches of to-day are splendid buildings and handsomely upholstered and fitted up with every con- sideration to comfort. The poor laboring man does not feel at home in them. He feels, in fact, that he has no business there, and so he stays at home. It costs a great deal of money to erect these fine churches, put in grand organs and maintain a pastor. Those who work hard for their living from one week's end to another and have a family to bring up, very often cannot afford to take a pew, and rather than be under obligations to those who have pews they sit about the VERSUS PEW RENTS. 87 house and read or smoke. This is not a good example to set to the rising generation, but it is a true picture of many houses in Toronto. The laboring classes are beginning to say, when asked why they do not attend religious service, that the churches were not made for them but for the better classes, and the proof of what they say is made apparent to any person who looks about him and observes the well-dressed occupants of the adjoining pews. The churches are largely the luxury of the well-to-do. What is to be done ? The laboring classes have souls to save as well as their more fortunate fellows. Little or no effort is made by the churches to go out into the highways and byways in search of sinners, and the result is that the sinners are left to themselves, and the ranks of the criminal classes are being steadily recruited. The abuse of liquor is one of the most crying evils of the age. Nine-tenths of the offences for which persons are brought before the courts are directly or indirectly the outcome of intemperance. Yet it is seldom that the occupants of the pulpits raise their voices against this growing evil. Why is this ? The fact is, that the liberal use of liquor is common wfth the well-to-do classes who patronize and support the churches, and wealthy persons who are interested in the liquor traffic have their pews, and so the pulpit is dumb. The first thing to be done in the regeneration of the toiling masses is to do away with the idea that so commonly prevails that the churches are not for the masses. Every church door should he open to all who ;; i 11.3 H I 1- 88 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR luiah to enter, and every church should make an organ- ized effort to seek out the non-church-goers and 'prevail on them to attend the stated preaching of the Gospel, whether they can afford to contribute toward the sup- port of the church or not. The spirit of unbelief is abroad, and people who would shrink from declaring themselves as atheists or infidels, or even unbelievers, take refuge in the ranks of the agnostics (who may be described as the Don't-Knows of Keligion), and frankly admit that their faith is not as strong as it used to be. The churches will have to bestir themselves, or the result will be that the pews will be abandoned to the women and the children. As it is, the churches of all denominations are in danger of falling victims to the twin sins of lethargy and luxury. ^B9X^ 1 ;lte VERSUS PEW RENTS. 89 <\ ■4 TIL PEW RENTS. An Editorial taken from the News, Tororito. 1. Can pew rents, as ordinarily carried out in town and city churches, be scripturally defended ? 2. Does not the pew-rent system make an unwise and unscrip- tural distinction between rich and poor in the church ? 3. Would not the substitution of the voluntary system for pew rents tend to larger church attendance and the spread of true religion generally ? ^ THE above questions, addressed in circular form to the News, elicited the following editorial reply: — Theological topics are not exactly in our line, but having been asked three straight questions, we will give straight, unequivocal answers, which, though not dressed up in pulpit style, will be ii^eant to express the opinions of the News. . . , The writer of the above questions will not accuse us of irreverence, if, in en- deavoring to present the matter in a strong and truth- ful light, we travel a little outside of the ordinary lines of theological discussion. This paper believes in the Christian religion, in supporting churches and minis- ters, but not in pew rents, tax exemptions, or State aid of any kind. 7 1 iiilj ill i 1 if i! 'if HI ill '" 111 III I'l 90 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR hm: In answer to the first question, " Can tlie pew-rent system be scripturally defended ?" there can be but one answer, and that is " No." It is possible that those learned in the text of the Bible, and the tricks of sophistry, may garble and distort a few verses into an apparent defence, but it doesn't seem hard for an honest layman to show that the pew busiress is op- posed to every precept and example in the New Testa- ment ; it outrages the spirit of Divine teaching ; it is in direct violation of the example of Him in whose actions Christians should find a model. Imagine for a moment the Sermon on the Mount having been preached to people in rented pews and reserved seats ! Think of the Master opening His sermon, and looking at those in the front seats as He said, " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." Imagine Him saying, as the usher turned out a man, who, in his anxiety to hear His words, had got into a rented pew, " And if you salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? Do not even the pub- licans so ?" Think of the fashionable ushers collaring some tramps, and running them off the mountain while the Preacher is saying, "Take no thought of your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?" How would it have seemed if, when Christ went abroad " Throughout all the cities and villages, teach- ing in the synagogues, and healing every sickness and disease," the legend had been hung on the doors and VERSUS PEW RENTS. 91 ib- lain Inot itr walls of the places of worship, " Seats free in the evening only." As to the second question, " Does not the pew-rent sj^stem make an unwise and unscriptural distinction between the rich and the poor in the church ?" there is but one answer; that is emphatically "Yes." It would seem to the ordinary thinker that any distinc- tion between the rich and the poor in the church would be unscriptural, and, if opposed to Divine pre- cept and example, unwise. Let us look at it as the Great Teacher looked at it, and remember that the great climax of His mission was the good tidings of great joy, that " The poor have the Gospel preached unto them." This is shown by His reply, when John wondered and sent two of his disciples to ask, " Art Thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Jesus answered, " Go and show John again those things which you do hear and see : The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the Gospel preached unto them." Last, but greatest of all. He seemed to place the fact that the poor had the Gospel preached unto them. It is not .so in the churches run on the pew-rent system. The rich have cushioned pews and padded benches on which to kneel, while the poor must climb into the galleries or stay outside. This system makes the poor stay away from church e3, and drives them into Salva- tion Armies. It frightens self-respecting strangers away from a church, for no man or woman with any !i i lUli ■,'i>. ^^>- IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I J 50 Ui 112.8 IIIM 116 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 "• 6" — ► ^ <^ /a A * %^.* W ^ ' ■% o / >!^ Photographic Sciences Corporation iV ^< -^^ i\ \ 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 873-4503 % V '^^; ■<•►■« ' P^^^^ ES^AY OX MISSIONS. The Heathen World ; Its Need of the Gospel and the Church's Obligation to Supply It. By Rev. George Patterson, D.D. Price, 12mo, cloth, 293 pages, 70 cents. Deeply impressed with the condition of the Heathen World, of its need of the Gospel, and of the obligation of the Church of Christ to supply that need, a gentleman ottered a prize of 100 guineas for the Best Essay on this important subject. The competi- tion was open to the Dominion of Canada and the Island of New- foundland. The following were the adjudicators : — Rev. Wm. Cavan, D.D., Principal of Knox College. Rev. J. H Castlb, D.D., President of baptist Theological College. Rev. Skptimus Jones, AI.A., Professor, Wycliffe College. Rev. Hknry D. Powis, Pastor Zion Congregational i hurch. Rev. W. H. WiTUKOW, D.D., Editor Canadian Methodut Magazine. -♦-<•►-♦-- » The Macedonian Cry; A Voice from the La' d of Brahma and Buddha, Africa, and Isles of the Sea, and a Pie for Missions. By the Rev. John Lathern, D.D. Price, 12mo, Cloth, 280 pages, 70 cents. The Toronto Mail says :— " The style of Mr. Lathern is a vigorous rsadablo s^'le, a practical style, and e pecially a good pulpit or platform style; and no one who begins this volume will drop it because it is too dry." Address — ^VILLIAM BRIGGS, Publisher, 78 A 80 KING STREET EAST, TOKONTO. C. W. COATES, Montaeal, Que. S. F. HUESTIS, Halifax, N.8. NEW BOOKS. The Life of " Clifneao " Gordon, R.E., C.B. With Portrait on the title-page. By Charles H. Allen, F.R.G.S., Secretary of British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Price, post-free $0 05 •• He got the nickname *' Chinese " Gordon from his splendid vic- tories in China, in what is cal' ^d the Great Tai-Pinc Rebellion. . . . Occasionally when the Chinese Officers flinched, he would quietly take one by the '.rm and lead him into the thickest of the enemy's fire, as coolly as though he were taking him in to dinner. He was the means of saving thousands of lives, but he left China without takings a penny of reward." " A GREAT BOOK." The Natural Law in the Spiritual World. By Henry Drummond, F.R.C.E., F.G.S. 414 pp. New Edition Ready. Price 1 75 " This is every way a remarkable work, worthy of the thoughtful study of all who are interested in the great question now pending as to the relations of natural science to revealed religion. . . A mine of practical and suggestive illustrations."— Ziimn^ Church. SttwOOO TllOUgllts. Being extracts covering a comprehensive circle of Religious and allied topics, gathered from the best available sources of all a^es and all schools of thought; with suggestive and seminal headings and homiletical and illuminative framework ; the whole arranged upon a scientific basis, with classified and thought-multiplying lists, comparative tables and elaborate indices, alphabeti* cal, topical, textual, and scriptural. Edited by the Revs. Canon H. D. M. Spence, M. A., Joseph S. Exell, M.A., Charles Neil, M.A., with an Introduction by the Vert Rev. J. S. HowsoN, D.D. 8vo, cioth, 640 pp. Price .. 3 90 Rome in America. By Justin D. Fulton, D.D. With a Portrait and Sketch of the Author. By the Rev. R. S. MacArthur, D.D., New York. 12mo, cloth. Price .. 90 The Dance of Modern Society. By William Cleayjcb Wilkinson. 12mo, cloth. Price 70 Father Lambert's Notes on Ingersoll. Paper, 30 cts. ; cloth 60 " It is a masterly refutation of Ingersoll. It should be widely cir- culated."— Bkv. T. G. Williams, President Montreal Conference. •J SALVATION ARMY SERMON BOOKS: Ag^essive Cliristianity. 12mo, cloth, 60 cts. ; paper .... 35 Godliness. By Mrr. Catharine Booth, with Introduction by Daniel Stkele, D.D. 12mo, cloth, 60 cts. ; paper . . 35 WILLIAM BRIGGS, 78 & 80 King Street East, Toronto. C. W. Coaxes, Montreal, Que. S. F. HuKbTis, Halifax, N.S. (