.%.

o^ \^^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

141 1^

- m

" m

1.4

IIM

2.0

1.6

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

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/

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

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.

THE

GOSPEL TO THE POOE

VERSUS

PEW EENTS

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 *

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

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.

,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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[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

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.

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

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.

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

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. .

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

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 ?

*■!»«>■

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.

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.

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,

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.

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

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

i' 'n

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<M*WfMH»««l«^IPWH

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

and indulgences, the prejudices and the pride of the
various classes of society, and, so far as may be without
the sacrifice of principle, she is to become all things to
all men, that she may gain all. Even that which is
perfectly harmless in itself should, under the impulse of
divine love, be sacrificed if it make a brother ofiend.
If pew rents were entirely reasonable, just and scrip-
tural, in place of the reverse, the church ought to
abolish them rather than place a stumbling-block in
the way of so many people in attending divine worship.
While human nature is what it is, multitudes of
people who feel themselves unable to pay pew rents
will prefer, from mistaken notions of what is becoming
and right, to sit at home and read the newspaper rather
than voluntarily subject themselves to ejection from a
rich neighbor's pew, or class themselves with the
paupers of the church. The Rev. W. S. Rainsford, in
a recent address in Toronto, said very truly : " People
do not like to come into a pew church without some
particular corner they can call their own, and to which
they can bring their children." John Brown, the lab-
orer, feels himself just as good a man as Jonathan
Smiles, the liquor dealer, and when the Church gives
Smiles an " uppermost " cushioned seat in the sanctu-
ary, and offers him a plain bench in the gallery, he
may or may not condemn the unscriptural distinction
made, but he will very likely stay at home under the
impression that the church is for the " monied men." *

* Can any one wonder at this prevalent opinion of poor people
when such facts as the following find their way into the public

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

iiiili

I, . I

That this impression is common among the poorer
classes there can be no doubt, though it may readily be
admitted that pew rents are not the oijly cause. The
style of dress common in church, the natural timidity
of poor people, and, above all, the great tendency every-
where apparent in human society to form into circles
and coteries, as well as the pew system, are responsible
for this widespread and exceedingly hurtful impres-
sion on the minds of the poor. On this very
account the Christian Church should exercise' double
caution, lest by any unfortunate method or enactment
she render the heavy burdens of the poor heavier. A
religious paper of recent date says : —

"Christian people need to exercise a deal of wisdom
lest the people who are in poverty, and who from that
cause need to have the Gospel and its consolation
specially brought to them, will be estranged from the
Church and its ministrations. People of wealth natur-
ally associate, as do literary people, and on the same
principle the poor naturally blend their interests, and
because people of wealth and education attend church
and form their own social sets, the poor feel practically
that they are invited to hold themselves aloof. There
is no more Christ-like work than for people whom the
Lord has blessed with the comforts of life and the
advantages of intellectual training, to make those

prints :—" A pew in Dr. Hall's Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church
was recently sold at public auction for $1950. The first bid was
$1000. There were half'a-dozeu bidders, and the contest between
them was spirited ?"

■wwww^wi—

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

i<l

whom misfortune has visited with any humiliating
circumstances feel the truth of the text that to the
poor the Gospel is preached."

Some of those who are repelled by our unscriptural
pew system are poor in this world's goods, but " rich
in faith and heirs of the kingdom of heaven," and
when church officials adopt a system of seating the
people that puts the rich rogue, drunkard or de-
bauchee into a cushioned seat in front, and gives the
poor saint, because he is like Christ in his poverty, a
bench in the corner, will not Christ say in the judg-
ment, " Ye did it unto me ?"

Pew rents repel many a sincere seeker after truth.
" Let us suppose," says a correspondent of the Chicago
Tribune, " that a man who has been a nonattendant
at church becomes, in the providence of God, awak-
ened to a sense of his lost condition, and his constant
inquiry is. What shall I do to be saved ? He gropes
in anguish, he reads the Bible, he tries to pray, but
finds no permanent relief. He is impelled to seek
instruction concerning salvation in the Church. Where
else should he go ? He summons coi age to en* :^' the
house of God. Being early, he stands at the entry ten
or fifteen minutes, '" liile the self-satisfied and the gay
among the pew-renters rush past him. At the proper
signal he and other discouraged non-pew-renters are
distributed among the vacancies. He is seated in the
pew of a late comer whom it would be indiscreet to
incommode, and he is bowed out and seated in another
pew. Here, by the contemptuous glances of the occu-

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

pants, he is given to understand that he is an intruder.
Now, here is a man who is regarded from heaven by
angels and archangels with bated breath, waiting to
announce that another soul is saved through the blood
of Christ and the ministration of His Church, but
who, through the perverting effects of the practice of
pew-renting, is being outraged in his application for
religious instruction, and whose soul is thus being
really jeopardized by professing Christians. But let
us suppose that this man perseveres, nevertheless, and,
like Bunyan's Pilgrim, is anxious that his wife and
children shall accompany him, and he takes them on
the next Lord's day to church with him. Then his
feelings would be outraged indeed. This, too, is the
discouraging treatment accorded to members of the
Church and other professing Christians who are unable
to rent pews. But aside from this man whose case I
have cited, there are among us thousands of working
girls and working boys, not to mention heads of fami-
lies and their children, who, instead of being drawn or
influenced toward the Churches that they may become
awakened, are embittered by the repulses they are
subjected to, which repulses, as I have shown above,
are inseparable from the practice of pew-renting. Let
it be remembered that these persons who are thus
repulsed are those for whom Christ died, and over
whom God in His compassion is yearnijig, and for
whom the Holy Spirit is making intercessions with
groanings that cannot be uttered. Then will not the
wrath of God be kindled toward His professed people

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

if they persist in a practice which shuts these persons
out from the feast which has been provided for them
at such great cost ? "

But, again, the system we are condemning is charge-
able with rendering the Church exclusive in placing
needless difficulties in the way of the attendance of
strangers and travellers at church. This latter class,
from the increasing railway facilities and our grow-
ing population, is destined to continually increase.
Strangers are made to feel ill at ease in a church where
pews are rented, on account of the very natural desire
pew-tenants have for peaceable possession of their law-
ful property. A stranger is shown into a vacant seat
by the ushf'r who vainly hopes that Mr. B., the owner,
will not be at church to-day, and finds that he is no
sooner seated than his right to possession is disputed
by the presence of the owner, whose eloquent looks
and manner say, " My pew, if you please," or, " What
right have you here ? " or, " Don't you see I'm wait-
ing ? " He in confusion rushes into the nearest vacant
pew, conscious by this time that every eye in the
church is upon him, and behold his mortification to
find that here also he is an intruder !

A stranger, it is said, recently visited a popular
church in New York, and after being ejected in suc-
cession from two pews, walked out and asked the
sexton at the door, " Whose church is this, sir ? "
" This is Christ's Church," responded the sexton. " Is
He at home ? " asked the man, as he walked away.

Is it any wonder if men who spend a large portion

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

lli!

I ^1

i^i^l!

of life in travel come to ignore the public worship of
God, conducted under such an exclusive policy ?

If proof of the existence of a large class of persons
unreached and unevangelized by the ordinary church
services were needed, the marvellous success of the
Salvatiofi Army movement furnishes it in abundance.
Starting without wealth or cultui'e, it commenced
carrying the Gospel to the poor and neglected in their
homes, and in a few years' time it has extended over
Christendom, won its trophies for Christ in nearly every
country of Europe and America, and is now making a
successful attack upon the dark masses of heathen-
dom. This movement is becoming to Methodism what
Methodism was a hundred years ago to the Establish-
ment — a quickener of spiritual life. It is not neces-
sary to commend every feature of the movement, nor
to approve everything in connection with its public
services, in order to render unqualified praise to its
zeal and devotion, and to that Christ-like spirit that
prompts its adherents to seek out of the highways
those who sadly need but are unable to pay for the
Gospel of Christ.

It is easy to criticise and condemn — and certainly
the Salvation Army movement is open to many criti-
cisms — yet if any have the right to criticise and con-
demn this movement, they are not those who have by
an unscriptural and iniquitous method of church man-
agement built up a mighty barrier between the poor
and the Gospel. 4

The simple facts seem to be that large numbers of

i.i

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

the poor cannot pay pew rents if they would, and
others would not if they could. The former class,
must stay at home, or humiliate itself publicly, which
is hardly to be expected of unsanctified human nature.
The latter class will never take kindly to a system
that gives the rich man every advantage merely on
account of his wealth. If every man were sufficiently
enlightened and religious, there would be less objection,
perhaps, to a fixed assessment on seats, but there
would also be less necessity for the Church and for
preaching under any conditions. As it is, pew rents
are a bar and hindrance to all evangelizing of the
masses, and entirely out of harmony with the catholic
spirit of Christianity.

Let the candid reader judge how far the policy of
churches in the matter of pew rents is in accord with
that zeal and earnestness that should ever characterize
Christian people in evangelizing the masses, in " com-
pelling " all men to come into the Church and into the
kingdom of God.

( i

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

;;!i !

!lhl

iii'l 'IP-

I 'I

CHAPTER IV.

PEW KENTS CHEATE UNWISE AND UNSCRIPTUKAL

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RICH AND POOR

IN THE HOUSE OF GOD.

" The rich and poor meet together." — Solomon.

" Bear ye one another's burdens." — Paul.

'' "?or 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 respect for him that weareth the gay clothing, and say
unto him, Sit thou here in a good place ; and say to the poor. Stand
thou there, or sit here under my footstool : are ye not then partial
in yourselves ?" — James.

IF no other charge could be urged against pew rent-
ing than that it gave the rich '^an in church
certain advantages and privileges solely on account of
his wealth, and put the poor man under serious disad-
vantages solely on account of his poverty, surely this
should prove its utter condemnation. And who can
deny that this discrimination exists in favor of the
rich, or that it is made solely on the ground of wealth ^
What other qualification than the possession of mou y
is required for securing the best seats in our churches ?
And what other reason than his poverty is there for
making the poor man a vagrant in church or putting
him under the rich man's footstool ? Distinctions exist

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

in human society, and seem, indeed, necessary to it,
but they are entirely out of pla,ce in the Church of
God. Here all distinctions should be laid aside, for
they avail nothing in divine worship. A man is none
the better for his wealth nor the worse for his poverty
in the sight of God, who is no respecter of persons.
Under Judaism repeated cautions and commandments
were given against respect of persons in judgment :
the poor man was not to be ignored nor the rich
favored. Solomon assures us that to have respect of
persons is not good. Jude condemns those who have
men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
James assures us that if we have respect of persons
we commit sin and are convinced of the law as trans-
grensciors. , /

The pew system, if it has not respect to persons, has
very great respect to purses, for it places the disposal
of the very best seats at church in the hands of those
who have the most money.* Thus men who manage
the temporalities of the church, sanction a regulation
that puts more value upon the possession of money than
upon character. The man who has money, whether he
obtained it honestly or dishonestly, even though it be
the price of blood, is given the most honorable seat,
while the man who is too poor to pay pew rent, though
his life and character may be a thousandfold more

*In Mr. Beecher's church, a few years since, one of the costliest
front pews was bought at the annual auction by an agent of a noted
prostitute, who insisted on taking her seat of honor until well paid
for her relinquishment of the seat by the trustees.

^iil I

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

:i! !

.;!; !

valuable to the Church and world than all the gold of
the millionaire, is put in the " poor corner," or crowded
out altogether.

Had St. James been gifted with prophetic vision to
behold this rise of the modern Church abomination, he
could scarcely have described the evil more graphically
or condemned it more severely than he has. The man
with gold ring and goodly apparel, that is the man of
wealth, is seated in the " good place " by this one-sided
pew rent system, and the poor man must stand or sit
under a footstool. Is :iot this respect of persons ? Is
not this " having men's persons in admiration because
of advantage ? "

This system is an equal injury to rich and poor, for
while it gives an advantage to the rich so far as honor
and comfort are concerned in hearing the truth, it
mightily hinders their reception of the truth by pam-
pering their pride and vanity. The power of wealth
to engross the thought, win the affections, inflame the
pride, and build up in every man's heart a feeling of
self-sufficiency, has been fully portrayed in sacred writ,
and our Lord declares, How hard is it for them that
trurt in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God.
Surely men possessed of this world's goods encounter
danger enough from the smiles and adulations of men
through the week and from the deceptive character of
their riches, without receiving from church officials in
the sanctuary on the Lord's day the homage the world
pays to wealth. Here, during the solemn hours of
worship, and in the presence of his Maker, the rich

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

man ought to forget his riches, ought to strip off from
himself all the adventitious circumstances that birth
and fortune have brought him, and, on the same foot-
ing as his poorer neighbor, worship the common
Father. The Church by the pew rent system per-
petuates the distinctions of the mart, the shop, and
the home, in the house of God. Men who enter our
pew-rent churches on Sabbath find enough to remind
them of the fact that some of them are still million-
aires and some of them paupers ; some still masters,
and some servants. Worshippers are not there simply
as worshippers, as men seeking a common pardon and
a common salvation ; they are there divided up into
classes and groups, according to the size of their bank
accounts.

This giving of the best pew to the wealthy man is
but one of many similar favors accorded the rich in
our large and fashionable churches, all of which are
calculated to pamper pride and a feeling of self-im-
portance that is extremely deleterious to the favored
class, as it is to the Church itself. The warmth of
greeting given the wealthy pew-holder, the deference
paid to his views in the church councils, the kind con-
sideration of his feelings that is often apparent in the
public preaching, are quite as effective as the choice
seat in giving him the impression that he is a very
important pillar in the church, and that his views and
feelings are entitled to a very great deal of attention
and respect.

Is it anything but justice to the spiritual interests

•i Mf i gr aiiif^wi igr aaaas st i ^JiJi^iuaixuuiLiilliaK gBBBHMBlB^

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

;i!

of the man who encounters through the week the
awful dangers arising from wealth, that the Church of
God should, as far as possible, insist rigidly upon abso-
lute equality, in the treatment of rich and poor on the
Sabbath ? Would not the unwritten history of many
of these large churches fully prove that this pampering
of the rich on the part of church officials has not
tended to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bonds
of peace ?

Here, too, in the public worship the poor man ought
to be graciously permitted to forget his poverty. He
should not be made to occupy an inferior position and
thus reminded of his inferior social scale. He should
enter the Church of God not as a servant, or a
pauper, or an inferior in any sense, but as a man,
and rejoicing in the equality of the divine invitations
and provisions of mercy, find himself among " brethren
beloved." How is it ? He finds our pew-rent churches
imitating the railroad companies and the owners of
opera houses and theatres, by providing first, second,
and third-class accommodations, and as the " reserved
seats" are beyond his reach he sinks by necessary
gravitaticT> 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.

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

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.

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

MHWHHHMtll

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.

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

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

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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. .

<■;!!

;JM

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

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

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

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-

rTirH > > ii . .

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

1^9

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

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-.

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.

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 , \

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

'-^^■4-idt. iL. *rw

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.

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

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

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

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

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

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

Ihe

)ld

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

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.

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.

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 \ •

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.

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 ■

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.

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

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.

I! I

oni-
any
in-
he
e of
tly
dto
,tion
tion
any
are
,al-
alth

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

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.

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" ■::

19'!

if "

II*'

1 '

liSi

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

; 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.

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; ft 111
1, i

m I'l

.fS ii

hiis

mmmsmamaaB

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.

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.

s
if I

iIlM "

:lf 'I

'I ^ :

iili

'111 i'l

.M III

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.

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

;;

11.3

I 1-

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.

■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

iiilj

ill
i 1

if i!

'if HI
ill '"

111
III I'l

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.

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
lUli

■,'i>.

^^>-

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

J 50

112.8

IIIM

116

1.8

1.25

1.4

1.6

"• 6" —

►

%^.*
W

^ '

■%

>!^

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

-^^

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 873-4503

'^^;

<!f^

•f'.

ri?

Wx.

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

dignity of character cares to intrude upon the privacy
of a rented pew. Those of us who by mistake have
been piloted to the pew of some naiTow-minded church-
man and were made to feel how unwelcome we were,
will never forget the miseries of the experience. We
can sympathize with the unfortunates who, by reason
of their poverty or shabby dress, feel doubly the frigid
reception they get when shown into the pew which
they know belongs to some one else. Imagine how
the poor, seedy, wayfaring sinner feels as the service
goes on. He spends his time in wondering, with fear
and trembling, whose pew he is in, when he should be
thinking of "The peace of God which passeth all
understanding." He looks at the people who sit star-
ing frigidly at the strange person in Squire Smith's
pew, and he thinks of the unkindness of the rich in-
stead of " The exceeding richness of *His grace in His
kindness towards us." Instead of thinking whether
he will get thrown out of Heaven (if he ever gets
there), he spends his time in reckoning up the chances
as to whether the usher will leave him alone or lead
him out by the ear. Instead of remembering the
frown of an offended God, he is appalled by the scowl
of Squire Smith, who glares at him from the far end
of the seat. He imagines that even the preacher has
spotted him as an intruder, and when he hears the
denunciation of those who got too near the head of
the table and were ordered out, the poor stranger
glances over his shoulder at the door and wonders if
anyone would kick him if he tried to escape. He

.::s.,,-.

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

hears of him who went to the wedding without a
proper garment, and as he sadly surveys his second-
hand clothes he forgets the judgment-day, in the
agony of being found at a fashionable church in some-
body else's clothes and somebody else's pew. No, the
rented pew system does not tend to attract strangers
to divine service. Every rented seat is an anxious
seat to the one who sits on it without paying the
rent.

As to question No. 3 there is no doubt. The volun-
tary system is the only true way of raising money for
the support of churches. It would tend to the spread
of true religion, because it would not drive the poor
away from the doors. There will be no pew rents in
Heaven, unless we have been incorrectly informed,
and it has always been our idea of a church that it
should be run on a heavenly rather than on a busi-
ness basis. The poor have enough to contend with
in this world without erecting barriers which tend to
keep them from that which was given without money
and without price.

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

•■.r

IV.

PEW RENTS.

The following Questions concerning the Pew System and Editorial
Answer^ are taken from the New York Christian Advocate :

Do you believe in pews ? Is it not a godless way of distinguishing
the rich and the poor in God's house ? Does not the curse of Al-
mighty God fall on any church that does it ? Did any body ever
hear of a great revival in a church where the seats were not free ?

WE suppose you mean in renting pews in churches
for the support of the Gospel. Where the
Gospel can be supported, and the social and family life
of the church sustained, we prefer free seats to pews.
But for free-seat churches, we believe in ushers, and
not in people coming in at random, sitting in little
thickets about the church when the house is not full,
or wandering about looking for a seat when it is quite
full.

It is not necessarily, though it sometimes is, a god-
less way of distinguishing the rich and poor in God's
house. The auction system we look upon as evil. We
have seen a worthy man, who had met with temporary
misfortune, and whose wife and children loved their
church and seat, when he had strained every nerve to
bid $1 premium, ostentatiously outbidden by one who
had suddenly got rich ; and we have seen the crushed
and broken spirit of the whole family, and said, in-

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

wardly and outwardly, " These things ought not so to
be." But where pew rents are moderate, it is not
necessarily a godless distinction. The curse of God
does not light on all that rent pews. There have been
many great revivals in churches where the seats were
not free. Some of the very greatest revivals known
have been in churches where the pews were rented.
But this will we say, that we have never known a
great revival to occur in a church where the pews
were rented and the spirit of the people was such that
they would rather sit in state in their own pew with
two or three empty seats than to have the church filled
with decent people, rich, medium, or poor.

In large cities most churches should be free.
Methodism has won its greatest triumphs and drawn
its greatest congregations under free seats. It requires
great wisdom to manage pews so as not to repel the
people. Free seats also have many incidental evils.
We have seen pew churches that we thought would
have been improved by being turned into free seats,
and free-seat churches that were cured of parsimony
and discord by having the pews rented. * ♦ ♦ Do
you say, "You are writing on both sides of this
question ?" You have hit the point. We are on both
sides. In some places we are for pews ; in others, for
free seats. Where the work can be better done in one
way than another, we prefer that way.

But we do not think that an increase of pew
churches promises as much for Methodism as an in-
crease of an equal number of free-seat churches of
equal membership.

■MM!

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

THE WORD OF GOD AT PUBLIC VENDUE— A STING-
ING CRITICISM ON THE AUCTION SYSTEM.

The following letter from an unknown correspondent of the Brooklyn
Eagle, although relating to a local discu^aiony has yet so many
points of general interest that we insert U almost entire. The
italics are ours. '

ONE of your readers, at least, was surprised at your
approval of the premium plan in auctioning off
pews to-day. Irrespective of the difference it bears to
the former views of the Eagle on the same subject, it
places you on one side of the question and the majority
of the Christian people on the other. You speak of it
as the only fair plan of distributing a certain number
of seats among a much greater number of people, all
of whom have an equal right in the premises. Such a
sweeping and exclusive eulogy transcended all the
necessary limits of compliment. If it is a plan that
makes anything else than worldly prosperity, the mea-
sure of a man's right or opportunity advantageously
to hear the gospel, I would like to know what it is.
That a man who can contribute more in gross than
another (each contributing in the same proportion to his
means) has, therefore, a better right to hear preaching
to a better advantage than that other, is a proposition

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

111

LS
g

which rates churches, theatres, and musical academies
on the same pecuniary basis. If the basis be sound,
that is no objection. It is not the sound one for
churches, because churches are morally entitled to tax
sittings only on the hypothesis (and to the extent)
that it will render them self-supporting; whereas
theatres and the like are intended to make money
over and above the expenses. Where the premium
plan prevails, the rental fixed on is always up to the
figures of actual expenses, and the premium is safely
relied upon as an appeal to personal vanity that finds
its highest expression in the sensational bids of Chris-
tians against one another. I believe the plan is inde-
f ensible in equity and morals. I know it to be demor-
alizing in effect. Moreover it does violence to the
feelings of such Christians as do not like the dollar to
be the standard of preferment of the man by the
church. It makes aristocratic in the bad sense the one
institution that should be alwa;y' purely democratic.
"The highest-priced pews hold those to whom pastors
and other ofiicers pay the most attention socially and
religiously, to whose weaknesses and crimes they are
the most lenient, and the occupants of such seats
speedily form into rings that either run or divide the
church." 'These are facts, and are not capable of
denial as being facts, or of refutation by any logical
look at the |iendencies of the system in itself. The
system of rental — leaving the premium abomination
out altogether— is one to which churches give a re-
luctant assent — simply because for a long time it

Il!i

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

seemed the only one that would render churches
surely self-supporting. All churchmen everywhere
have felt that the gospel should he free, if it were possi-
ble to make it so. Declarations to that effect have
been repeatedly made by the official Courts of Catho-
licism, Episcopacy, Methodism, Presbyterianism, and
others. Whether the premium plan is the only just
one or not, may be left to facts. Two churches in the
United States alone adopt it, that I am aware of. The
rest of the 200,000 odd either have free seats or rent
them at a fixed rate. It is depressing that the 199,999
have got at the wrong tack. In at least 10,000 of
them, too, the certain number of pews have to be
divided among a greater number of people, and it is
done by holding continuous services on Sunday, on
which different people attend at different times. You
may be aware of it, but this premium business results
in speculation, in certain ones bidding-in pews and
holding them for a rise, and in many families abso-
lutely stinting themselves of necessaries at home, in
order to keep up the appearance of affluence in church.
I know cases in proof of every one of these state-
ments. If this be not the fault of the system, it is
the fault of the effect it produces on poor human
nature. A system, which grades people according to
circumstances, and discriminates in favor of the rich,
is no part of the religion of Him who tva^ no respecter
of persons. I am no demagogue. I believe the rich
need the gospel as much and more than the poor;
their temptations are greater. But it only requires

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

lin

lis

\to
A

\QS

this premium plan to be carried out to its utmost pos-
sibilities, to make poverty incompatible with church
privileges altogether. . . .

Churches should be free or should disband. Where
enough people cannot be got together who will agree
voluntarily to support the Gospel, excuse for preaching
it does not exist. For one man to know how much
another contributes to the Gospel — a contract between
man and his Maker as it were — is wrong. For a con-
cern calling itself a Gospel Church to say to any man,
' Unless you pay so much or so much you shall not
hear," is simply monstrous. For appeals by sermon
or circular, to be made to people to cultivate the grace
of giving, and to give all their consciences and re-
sources assure them they can, leaving the amount
known only to the donor and his God, is right, and
where unselfishly and earnestly done it will succeed.
Those who complain that the free plan simply results
in a few well-to-do making up big deficiencies at the
end of each quarter, will find the explanation in the
poor quality of .the pastor's preaching, or in the
frivolous, inconsistent tenor of his life. Even the
rental churches find their instalments to foreign and
home missions, to educational, poor and incidental
funds amply met by voluntary contributions. Their
running expenses can be met in the same way, if the
man in the pulpit be not a blockhead or a charlatan.
All needed is the courage to try. Trial fairly made,
the systems that inevitably discriminate against the
poor and in favor of the rich will appear sacrilegious.

^t I

100

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

A Protestant, I am free to admit that our Catholic
brethren are in the right in this matter and we alto-
gether in the wrong. They have no religious poor-
houses named mission chapels, to which the poor are
hustled off, but in their churches the rich md poor
meet together to worship the Lord, who is Maker of
them all.

Doubtless, by the course I advocate, churches would
not take in so much money. But that would be a
good, not an evil, and instead thereof they would call
out more hearers, getting the many who do not come
because their poverty is discriminated against, and the
many more who stay away because of disgust at the
prostitution of the powers of the pulpit to the purpose
of squeezing as much money out of pewholders as can
be obtained. Excuse the length to which the question
in its entire bearings has led, and allow me to differ
from you in the same spirit of courtesy that makes all
your correspondents your friends.

Very truly yours,

A Brooklynite.

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

101

VI.
PEW RENTS.

The following letter from a gentleinan well known in Toronto may be
taken as an indication of the views many conscientious laymen
hold concerning Pew Rents.

Toronto, February 13, I884.

B. F. Austin, B.D.,

Principal Alma College:

Dear Sir,— A few weeks ago I noticed an article in
the I^ewa of this city, which was prompted by a circu-
lar from you to the leading clergymen and editors ;
and although I cannot be classed under either of these
heads, I desire to state a few facts, of which you can
make such use as you may deem proper. Allow me
first to say, that with the I^ewa' article I am in full
accord, and shall be glad to know that it is to receive
a more permanent place in the literary products of our
country than the columns of a newspaper.

I shall not attempt to argue a qi^estion which seems
to me to be entirely clear to any thoughtful mind, but
will simply relate my own experience in connection
with the pew-renting system.

Some thirteen years ago I left my native town and
came to Toronto to live, and on the recommendation of
a friend I took up my residence at a large private

Jil!

102

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

boarding-house, where the majority of the inmates
were members of some branch of the Christian Church.
On the first Sabbath morning after my arrival I was
invited by a member of the Church of my choice to
attend service with him, which invitation I gladly
accepted. He also stated that there was one vacant
sitting in the pew, and asked me if I would take it.
I replied that I would, and matters moved on smoothly
for some time. Gradually changes took place in the
personnel of the occupants of the pew, until finally I
became the senior lessee, and responsible for the pew
rent. I had no difficulty in keeping the surplus sit-
tings rented, as the Church at that time was in a most
flourishing condition — sitting-room being at a pre-
mium. I was continually reminded, however, by what
constantly came under my observation (owing to the
favorable position of my pew for the purpose), that
the different grades of society were found as distinctly
separated in the church as they are in the outer
world. This caused me a great deal of anxious thought,
and finally became a subject of earnest and daily
prayer that God would raise up some man who would
point out to the people the terrible evil of the pew-
renting system. After a few months the question
forced itself upon me : How can I expect an answer
to my prayer, while I myself patronize and support
the system ? I thought as well might a man expect
an answer to his prayer for the adoption of a total
prohibitory liquor law, while he himself never passed
a hotel without stepping inside for his glass of whis-

4 -i-r

.'l.K-.'
"'it:

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

103

key. Th«re was, I felt, but one course for me, and I
took it— I gave up my pew. I became a total abstainer
from pew-rentinor. It was then that I began to realize
the enormity of the evil. And let me here say to
those who affirm that there is no evil in connection
with the pew system ; that it is no hindrance to any
to attend divine service: "Just give up your pew for
three or six months, and I will guarantee that if you
have the slightest regard for veracity, you will never
again make such an assertion." During my subse-
quent attendance at that church I felt terribly uncom-
fortable, and at times almost regretted that I had
taken such a step. But while sitting in a pew (no longer
my pew), and having a feeling somewhat akin to envy
towards those who could walk straight to the best
sittings in the church, this divine promise was brought
forcibly to my mind : « Blessed is he that considereth
the poor : the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble."
At that time I had no trouble, either present or pros-
pective ; but I was comforted with the thought that I
had the Master's approval. A year or two passed by,
when I began to see trouble looming up before me. A
man to whom I had entrusted a large sum of money to
be paid to a third party, appropriated it to his own use.
On the advice of friends I placed the matter in Court
only to find out that the man was bankrupt. This
was a very serious matter for me, as I had just settled
down in life, and found my income barely sufficient to
meet my necessary expenditure. One day I !hought
of the promise, and I laid the whole question before

III

104

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

God, pleading His promise. A few evenings after, on
my way home from business, I had a strong inclina-
tion to make some purchases, but the thought occurred
to me that I must dispense with every seeming luxury
in order that I might be able to pay my creditor. On
arriving at the store the temptation became stronger,
and I yielded. While I we being served I picked up
a small book that was laying on the counter, and be-
gan running the leaves between my thumb and index
finger, when I noticed three or four lines of a page
printed in large capitals. Naturally enough, I turned
back to see what was the important sentence, when to
my delight I found it to be the aforesaid promise. I
felt that it was for me, the more especially since I had
never before nor have I since, seen a book in the store,
although dealing there constantly. On reaching home
my wife and I got into conversation about our loss,
when she stated that we would r3ver again see
a cent of the money. I told her we would get every
cent of it. She laughed at the apparent absurdity of
my statement; nevertheless, I assured her that it
would come out all right. A short time after, a rela-
tive of the bankrupt told a friend of mine that my
money should be refunded, no matter whoever else
lost by the failure ; that if the estate did not yield
enough, she would pay it out of her own pocket.
There was not the slightest acquaintance between the
lady and myself, so that no motive of friendship
prompted this declaration. A little later, on the case
being mentioned to the father of the bankrupt, he said

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

105

lit

he would have to try to pay the amount, although he
had already lost heavily by his son's failure. To my
glad surprise, he entered the office one day and asked
me for a statement of my account ; and on being in-
formed of the amount, he immediately paid me in
cash and notes. On presenting a check at the bank
by way of payment of one of the notes, I overheard
one of the clerks say to another, " That man," meaning
the bankrupt's father, "has had a terrible pulling
down of late." Yet he did not even suggest, as he
might reasonably have done, that I accept something
less than one hundred cents on the dollar. Why was
this ? Was it not because God had promised to deliver
me in the time of trouble ? And do not the above
facts bear me out in believing that the promise was
made specially applicable to my case, in consideration
of my having given up my pew rather than support
a system which does so much to hinder the progress
of God's Kingdom in the earth ? And am I not now
seeing, in the work you have undertaken, an answer
to that part of my prayer that God would raise up
some man who would be the means in His hands of
opening the eyes of the people to the terrible evils
attending the pew-renting system ?

What the liquor traffic is to the State, the pew-
renting system is to the Church— the greatest j)resent
evil ; and both are supported and perpetuated because
of the revenue derived therefrom, and because thev
appeal to everything that is base and selfish in man's
nature. I have never yet heard one argument ad-
8

I'f

106

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

a i

vanced in favor of pew-renting that would not, if
weighed in God's balance, be found wanting in every-
thing of a holy or divine character. The thing is
either an evil or it is not ; and if the former, who will
preach the doctrine, "Do evil that good may come?"
Nay, rather, let us as congregations pursue our
Christian life as halt and maimed, rather than have
fine buildings, grand organs, etc., only to have a name
to live while we are dead.

Lover of a Free Gospel.

VERSUS PEW RENTS. •

107

VII.

TRIALS OF MEN OF LIMITED MEANS IN THE

CHURCH.

The following editorial from the New York Christian Advocate hm
a direct bearing upon the discussions of this volume. It shows
clearly one of the great dangers of the Church of to-day, and
the duty of adopting a catholic chiirch policy.

A GREAT deal depends, as is well known, upon the
il. spirit with which strangers are received, when
they settle in any locality. A Christian ha^^ing his
certificate of membership appears and presents his
credentials. If he be a merchant and in a prosperous
business, a banker, a professional man having a large
income— in a word, a man of known social position-
he is sure to be received with great courtesy. His
house will be overrun with callers. The pastor will
show him marked attention. The wives of prominent
men will call upon his family, and every means will
be used to make them feel happy in their new home.
But if he be a person of limited means and compara-
tively unknown, in many cases the pastor may delay
to call. But if he performs his duty, few and far be-
tween will be the calls which his family will receive
from the prominent members of the society. The
prosperous man will be brought forward, even if he
wish to live a retired life. The man in obscure cir-
cumstances must often push himself forward.

108

THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR

It is not the distinction between the rich and the
poor that is now under consideration, but the differ-
ence between the treatment of the very prosperous
and persons of moderate means. Yet some of these
may have stood very high, and have been of very
great service in the churches whence they came, and
the contrast between the chilling reception given them
and the warm manifestation of affection which they
received on leaving is hard to endure.

The money question, of course, is very important to
churches in debt, to churches having a small congre-
gation and large expenses, to churches which aspire
to a higher social position than their resources as con-
gregations can sustain without continued and arduous
efforts. Where money is necessary it must be sought,
but this necessity can never justify public manifesta-
tions of greater cordiality to one class of strangers
than to another. In such a church the pastor should
be rather the more anxious to show attention to the
man of limited means, and the leading members should
be zealous in endeavoring to make those persons feel
that they are none the less welcome because they are
not able to hire the most expensive pew, or to rival
those who make the largest subscriptions.

St. James uttered some stern words concerning hav-
ing respect of persons, and declared that those who
did so, especially with regard to new-comers, commit
sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Even in the worldly point of view, upon the lowest
plane of practical prudence, such conduct is unwise,
for a man of limited means may, by his zeal and

VERSUS PEW RENTS.

109

enthusiasm and joyful contribution of all that he pos-
sesses, do more for the church by attracting others,
and even by the amount of his gifts, than many pos-
sessed of more means but in an indifferent s.bate.

It is to be fea ed that in some of our churches only
the very rich and the very poor are sure of a cordial
reception. It is also to be feared that many of the
very best men and women in country and village
churches, or in the less wealthy parts of cities, remov-
ing from the country to the city and from one part of
the city to another, are alienated, grow cold, become
inactive, or even backslidden, because they see that
when they arrive they are weighed in the balances, and
if found wanting in worldly possessions are allowed,
unless possessing peculiar personal attractions and
much energy, to sink out of notice.

We raise a note of warning in the hope that, where
needed, it it will do good. Certainly, where not needed
it can do no harm. It was said by a Christian of
more than six by years' observation, that "good men
of. limited means need double grace to z'^&y in the
Church." Conceding that they are often exposed to
strong temptation, and having in their behalf en-
deavoured to protest against the evils under which
they suffer, wt urge them to consider that whatever
grace they may require is accessible, and that of all
things the most perilous and unwise for them and for
their families is that they should stand back and
neglect their duty because others "do not fulfil the
law of Christ."

110 THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR VERSUS PEW RENTS.

VIII.
POVERTY AND PEW RENTS.

ITERE is an item for the commonplace books of
X "free and open church" advocates: — Parson:
" 0, Smith, I don't see you and your family at church
now. What's the reason?" Smith: "Well, to tell
you the truth, sir, times is bad, and my wages low for
more'n a year. So we can't afford to pay pew rents,
and the wife she couldn't bear to sit in them free seats
'cause it would sort o' advertise our poverty, so we
just stays away." This authentic incident affords a
little argument for free and open churches. We need
a strong mission in Canada against pews. The citadel
is weak, for the majority of churches have free seats ;
let us then attack the fort all along the line. The
cause commends itself to common sense, true instincts
of religion, and the glorious freedom of the Gospel.
Churchmen, fight for it, and the victory is yours ! —
Church Guardian.

NEW BOOKS.

The Methodist Pulpit ;

A Collection of Original Sermons from living Ministers of the
United Methodist Church in Canada, with Introduction. Rev.
S. G. Phillips, M.A., Editor. 12mo, cloth, 178 pages; Price $1.25.

►-«♦►-«

AMMUNITION FOR THE " SCOTT ACT" CAMPAIGN I

The Old Vice and the New Chivalry.

By I. Templkton- Armstrong. 12mo, cloth, 178 pages, Illus-
trated. Price, 75 cents.

->■<•►■«

' 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.

(