W^ 
 
 
 p 
 
 .■'«' • 
 
 /^,Jlt '/ii 
 
 ^.» *' 
 
 
 ^i! 
 
 fii'l 
 
 'Om 
 
 'vK: 
 
 r. 

 
 ALMSGIVING 
 
 OFFERTORY. 
 
 A Paper read at the Conference between the Clergy and Laity 
 
 of the Archdeaconry of Rochester, held under the presidency 
 
 of the Bislwj), in the Chapter Room of the CatJiedral, 
 
 on Friday, November 16th, 1866, 
 
 REV. C. E. R. ROBINSON, MA 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 
 
 GODFKEY JOHN BATNES, 61, HIGH STREET. 
 
 J. BRIDGE, 163, HIGH STREET. 
 
 [Price Threepence.]
 
 SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION. 
 
 "Private Charity and the Poor Law; How to 
 
 "ADJUST THE INDULGENCE AND EXERCISE OF ChRISTIAII 
 " PhILANTHROPHY, with the operation of SYSTEMATIC 
 " LEGAL RELIEF ? ThB RULE OF ALMSGIVING, ESPECI- 
 "ALLY IN RELATION TO THE WEEKLY OfFERTORY." 
 
 My Lord Bishop 1 My Eeverend Brethren 1 Brethren of 
 the Laity ! I have thought it better to write what I have 
 prepared, for this reason: that the subject as it stands seems 
 to present extraordinary temptations to diflFuseness, and I 
 am anxious to be exact. 
 
 I must appeal to the compassion of my audience, when I 
 remind them that I have to handle four such subjects as 
 " Christian Philanthrophy," " Systematic legal relief," "The 
 Eule of Almsgiving," and " The Weekly Offertory." 
 
 Let us plunge boldly in medias res. 
 
 Christian Philanthrophy, i.e., the love of your fellow man, 
 because of Christ's dear love towards you, is based on the 
 grand idea so familiar to us in the words of St. Paul, " 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."* The grandeur of 
 * 2 Cor. viii. 9.
 
 this idea lies in the self-sacrifice implied. It is one thing to be 
 eony for, i.e, to give sentimental pity to, or to shed morbid 
 tears over, other people's sufferings. It is another thing to 
 make yourself poorer that they may be richer. 
 
 Christian Philanthrophy then, or a love of man because 
 Christ first loved you, has as its basis a deliberate intention 
 to sacrifice yourself, to look round upon the world, to find 
 out who are poorer than they ought to be, and, having found 
 that out, to tax yourself in such money, such leisure, such 
 gifts of sympathy, such powers of Avork, as jovi possess, in 
 order to give them away. Do not deceive yourself with the 
 idea that you are either " indidgmg" or "exercishiff" (please 
 observe the words in the printed paper before you) Christian 
 Philanthrophy if you merely give away your loose cash in a 
 desultory manner. 
 
 It is always kind to give anything to anybody, but you 
 are not engaged in the "exercise of Christian Philan- 
 throphy " — far less can you be said to enjoy the " indul- 
 gence" of that holy luxury, of which the Lord Himself is 
 the great example — unless both you and your family are 
 conscious that j'ou are depriving yourselves of something 
 which would have been an indulgence to your lower natures, 
 but which now you cannot have. 
 
 I hope the quotation of this text, and the assertion of 
 this principle will not be taken as a common place. 
 
 "We may rest assured that unless the principle of real self 
 sacrifice for Christ's sake lies at the root of a benevolent 
 enterprize, a blight will rest upon it which it will not re- 
 cover. There may be a little warmth of kindly feeling to 
 begin with — but it will soon become so " lukewarm, neither 

 
 hot nor cold," that He to whom it is offered (to use His own 
 awful words) will " spue it out of His moutli." 
 
 So much then for the principle of Christian Philanthrophy ; 
 its " exercise " involves real hard work, perhaps painful 
 work, its " indulgence " implies the giving up of other lower 
 indulgences which might fairl}- be yours. 
 
 2. I pass to the second point. In looking around 
 you upon the seething mass of human suffering, you find a 
 certain beneficent institution established by law, the theory 
 of which is that no one shall lack the bare necessaries of 
 life. No wise man can fail to see that this is a great saving 
 of energy and of money, as far as your voluntaiy action is 
 concerned. 
 
 For supposing you had resolved like Jacob to give God 
 your tenth, or like Zaccheus to give God's poor your half, 
 or like S. Barnabas to give God's Church your all; still, 
 whatever it is — even a fabulous amount like £150,000 — 
 it becomes like a drop of rain when you think of a nation's 
 poverty. 
 
 The question therefore is pressed on your mind by com- 
 mon sense — how am I to utilize the agency already existing 
 and apply my alms to cases not touched by that, i.e., in the 
 technical language of the paper before you, how am I 
 " to adjust the indulgence and exercise of Christian Philan- 
 " throphy with the operation of systematic legal relief." 
 
 And this brings me to say a few words about the Poor 
 LaAV. My words must necessarily, if they are to be of any 
 use in this connection, be brief statements of principle. 
 The Poor Law seems to me then, in principle, to be a mag- 
 nificent and gigantic charitable undertaking. It may never
 
 have occurred to some of you to feel it so, but the money 
 you pay in poor rate is really alms given to Christ for the 
 support of His poor. If you have never regarded it in this 
 light I advise you to give it with this intention for the 
 future, and however prosy may be the manner in which 
 you have to give it, when it is paid I would counsel you to 
 say in your heart, " Lord of thine own have I given Thee." 
 If the Poor Law did not exist you would assuredly be 
 bound in conscience to create another immense machinery 
 to do the same thing. You would perhaps call it by a high 
 sounding title, (we are so fond of doing that now-a-days) 
 but it would be the same for all that — and if it was to be 
 BO gigantic in size you could not possibly prevent evils and 
 neglects fi-om growing up in it in the course of years. 
 
 This is the first point that in fact it is a great charitable 
 institution. I know that a Guardian has been heard to say 
 " We're not administering a charitable society, we are ad- 
 "ministering the Poor Law;" but the reprobation with which 
 every good Guardian would greet the sentiment proves 
 clearly that my statement is true, and that the Poor Law is 
 merely the largest and noblest of our relief societies. 
 
 But then, there comes another point. From the 
 nature of the case, from the incessant attempts at im- 
 position, from continual mixing with the scum of the earth, 
 and from a variety of causes which I have not time or 
 power to describe — it is manifest that this great relief 
 society must confine itself to the averting of the worst 
 forms of evil, and of the grander calamities of life. It must 
 avert starvation and all open forms of misery, and must 
 confine itself, speaking generally, to such limits. 
 
 The question therefore for you in looking round, how to 
 
 I 
 
 I
 
 apply your little tenth, and make it go as far as it can, is 
 to enquire in each case; "is this a case to be relieved by the 
 Guardians ?" If the Poor Law has done all it ought to do, 
 and still suffering remains which you can alleviate, then do 
 you begin your blessed work. On this some of you may 
 remark that you know of cases in which the Guardians will 
 not carry out the charitable intention of the Poor Law. 
 What are you to do ? 
 
 This opens a subject which might be taken up by some 
 speaker hereafter, but which I must dismiss for want of 
 time, with this obvious reflection: that in a country like 
 England if a great national institution is not doing its 
 work, each person ought to move public opinion to make it 
 do so: and that if any person is in a position to prove a 
 special neglect or incompetency, it is part of the Christian 
 Philanthrophy we are discussing to try with modesty and 
 kindness, but with courage, to set it right. 
 
 To sum up then this part of the subject, it is the duty of 
 a benevolent person when he comes across a case of suffer- 
 ing to consider whether the case is one which would be 
 dealt with wholly or in part by the relieving ofi&cer. If it 
 is such a case, to urge the sufferer or his friends to apply; 
 then failing this, to apply himself; then if it still fails, to 
 stir further as he shall find occasion. 
 
 To this end, if the person in question be a clergyman 
 who constantly comes in contact with such cases, it is de- 
 sirable that he should have a good understanding with the 
 relieving officer as to the details of their working together; 
 and if his parish is very large he would do wisely to have 
 some special arrangements which I need not touch on in 
 detail, such as the appointment of a sidesman, or lay reader
 
 or lay deacon, call it what you will, whose business it would 
 be to be constantly en rapport Avith the relieving officer for 
 such purposes. 
 
 But after all, when all is done by legal relief, it is obvious 
 that only a certain number can be dealt with fully by the 
 Poor Law — that a large number of cases must be only par- 
 tially relieved — and a certain number cannot be satisfac- 
 torily touched at all. As an illustration of this last, one 
 has heard of broken down professional men being subjected 
 to the tp'anny of pauper officials who have been convicted 
 of felony. Without going into the question Avhcther such 
 statements are true or not, one cannot help feeling a desire 
 that the " Christian Philanthrophy" of this country, which is 
 so abundant, could be so "adjusted" to the cases which are 
 calling out for it, as to prevent professional men from sinking 
 to such a bitter fate, as would render this possible. If our 
 conferences could lead to such results as the prevention of 
 such anomalies, our Bishop would not have called us to- 
 gether in vain. 
 
 Perhaps by a little business-like sifting of cases on the one 
 hand, and a little more self-sacrifice on the other, the thing 
 might be done. The various cases manifestly be3'0nd the 
 reach of legal relief might be dealt with by loving indivi- 
 dual Christian Philanthrophy. Each man might do what 
 he could — one might, privately, and with delicate tact, make 
 known the case of suffering to another, and so in an ideal 
 Christian republic (and why is Plato's to be the only ideal 
 republic ?) it would be possible to imagine that, while on 
 the one hand all the commoner cases of suffering were 
 promptly dealt with by the hand of a merciful law, — on the 
 other, all cases, where legal relief would inflict misery, 
 would be dealt with by individual love — and so the saying
 
 would be fulfilled, " He that had gathered much had nothing 
 over, and he that had gathered little had no lack." 
 (2 Cor. viii, 15.) 
 
 3 and 4. There remain the two last subjects, " the rule of 
 almsgiving and the weekly offertory." 
 
 We come now to regard almsgiving, not as heretofore, 
 from the stand point of the individual, but as a member of 
 the Church of Christ would look at it. 
 
 I am on delicate ground because the opinions of pious 
 and devoted men differ in the points to be discussed, and I 
 desire to speak with all modesty on disputed points. Yet 
 of what use is it to have an introducer of a subject if he 
 does not express an opinion when a debated point is dis- 
 tinctly (totidem verbis) put into his mouth. I say this 
 because, though I will try and state principles instead of 
 giving opinions, I know my bias is sure to be discovered. 
 
 Now the alternative from the weekly offertory (which is 
 the thing mentioned in the printed paper) is obviously the 
 subscription list. The question before us is, which of these is 
 the best. I must first ask you to take for granted that the 
 money, if collected from a congregation " on the first day of 
 the week," is collected in bags, or in closed boxes, or in some 
 other way which prevents your left hand from seeing what 
 your right hand doeth. (S. Mat. vi. 3.) The reason why I 
 ask you to grant this is, that the principle of a weekly offer- 
 tory is based on the evangelical precept of laying by in 
 store on the first day of the week as the Lord hath pros- 
 pered you. (1 Cor. xvi. 2.) Of course, in this pouit of 
 view, it will never do for your neighbour to see what you 
 put in. The answ^er to this is, that if you put in a sovereign 
 and your neighbour sees it — the example of your generosity 
 is both good in itself and contagious as regards him.
 
 10 
 
 Granted ! but then what become of the evangelical precepts 
 alluded to. 
 
 Again I think it must be taken for granted tlTat if you 
 have the weekly offertory, you must make it throughly 
 voluntary. Let there be no pressm'e of any kind. Leave 
 it all to the action of Christian principle, and if any man 
 even thinks it right to make clear to you, either as his 
 clergyman, or as his churchwarden, that he never gives in 
 that way, don't deprive him of any kind of privilege, 
 no not even of your smile, or your kind word, in conse- 
 quence of his mistaken view. 
 
 These two points being taken for granted — [I know they 
 are not conceded always — but you must kindly grant them 
 to me now for argument's sake, because I believe they be- 
 long to the essence of the evangelical principles I think in- 
 volved] — These two points being taken for granted — the 
 secret giving — and the entire removal of all pressure from 
 the giver. 
 
 Query — Which is the best the weekly offertory or the 
 subscription list ? 
 
 Here we must pause and make another enquiry. What 
 do you mean by the word " best ?" Do you mean which 
 secures most money in the end ? or do you mean which 
 does most good to the giver ? or do you mean which does 
 most good on the whole, taking into view the giver, and the 
 object, and the persons concerned in collecting ? 
 
 If you mean which secures most money ! That is one point 
 a subsequent speaker might take up. I dare say several 
 speakers will get up presently and tell us that the oifertory 
 is more successful in a financial point of view. I wish
 
 11 
 
 speakers would not persist in saying this so positively and 
 without limitation — for I am sure it is only partially true. 
 "When an offertory is substituted for a subscription list, the 
 whole basis of giving is shifted. The process may be gradual, 
 but it is certain. Let me give an instance of what I mean: 
 A very good fellow most kindly disposed to help me with my 
 charities, said to me when the cotton famine was pressing, 
 " "Well, if you have a collection in Church I shall give pro- 
 bably Is., whereas, if you have a subscription list, of course 
 I shall give a guinea." Here then you lose 20s. by the 
 oflFertory. But to set against this you would probably find 
 one man who for the love of Christ would give secretly £1, 
 because he felt you were obeying the instructions of Christ, 
 and you would also probably get from 30 to 35 people who 
 would give small sums. Now in some cases these would 
 more than make it up — in other cases they would do less 
 than make it up. Many advocates for the oflFertory persist 
 in saying that it is always better in the end. The true 
 statement to make is, I think, that it is generallxj better 
 where the population is large, and the conditions tolerably 
 favourable. Of course if 500 people subscribe £500 a-year 
 by subscription list, if they choose, they can subscribe the 
 same by the oflFertory. But ichat if they don't choose ? then 
 if the same amount is to be raised still, it can only be by 
 what I have described as the gradual shifting of the whole 
 basis of giving. This will sometimes be far more successful 
 financially — sometimes it will be otherwise. But to go 
 on asserting the certainty of its success in every case, is to 
 put the discussion on a false issue. 
 
 In my humble judgment the question is not " which is 
 most productive of money," but "which is most right — 
 which is nearest to the evangelical precepts." We clergy or
 
 12 
 
 pious laity are not like the taskmasters set over the children 
 of Israel. We have not a master who only looks to see 
 that the tale of the bricks is fulfilled; our master will not 
 ask us " how many thousands of pounds did you collect ? " 
 But "how did you teach 'the flock that was given to 
 thee, thy beautiful flock ?' " If you collect a few hun- 
 dreds less in your life time and do more good in the 
 process of collecting it — if you remove all pressure from 
 without, and leave people to be worked on by the love of 
 Christ, and the love of Christ alone in giving it, would you 
 not have done something for your Lord better than bringing 
 in material gold and silver into His treasmy. 
 
 Again I ask you to forgive the bias which exists in tliese 
 words. Perhaps I am almost bound, after using them, to 
 go a little into detail as to the faults I conceive to belong 
 to the system of the subscription list. 
 
 There is nothing like an example. A curate in one of 
 the richest West End London parishes told me the other 
 day that it would often happen that the collector would have 
 to call for a subscription 9 or 10 times. Have we not 
 many of us a good deal of experience not unlike this, which 
 however, we should be unwilling to reveal ? Do you not 
 see what hours and hours of weary work are here hinted at. 
 God forbid that the clergy should ever shrink from any 
 hard work in His dear service. " I had rather be a door- 
 keeper," said David, and " I had rather serve tables," would 
 every Christian minister say, " than be deprived of that 
 Holy office which, God knows, is my very life ! "—but oh ! 
 that the Christian laity would make enquiry how much of 
 the time of their clergy is thus employed ! Gladly, oh ! 
 how gladly I would we spend these hours over our Hebrew 
 Bible, or in thumbing the Fathers. " It is not reason that
 
 13 
 
 we should leave the word of God, and serre tables." (Acts 
 vi. 2.) Christian laj-men ! why do you educate us from 
 our A'ery boyhood in Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew '? why 
 do you look so carefully for the M.A. at the end of our 
 name, which proves to you that we have spent costly years 
 of careful training at those glorious universities which are 
 the boast of our land — if after all you use us to do the work 
 of tax gatherers and office clerks ? We do not refuse to do 
 it — but why do you not wake up and forbid it ? Why do 
 you suffer a blood horse to woi'k at the plough — why take 
 the keen blade of Damascus to chop wood for your fire ? 
 
 Again I ask you (knowing the diflPerence of opinion which 
 exists among good men) to forgive the bias which exists in 
 my words. 
 
 There is one point in this connection which I have not 
 touched upon. The oflFertory is, in my humble judgment, 
 more consistent Avith Church principles than the subscrip- 
 tion list. But I need say the less on this subject because I 
 am sure of this, that the true basis on which eveiy part of 
 our Church system should be placed is that hinted at in the 
 preface to our Prayer Book — conformity to the Scriptiu*es 
 and the mind of the old Fathers. And when you have 
 proved a thing to be throughly Scriptui'al, or throughly 
 primitive, you have at the same moment proved it to be 
 throughly in conformity with the principles of our 
 branch of the Catholic Chm-ch. 
 
 Lastly, it is my business to touch on the " rule of alms- 
 giving" with special reference to this subject of the offertory. 
 
 " The rule of Almsgiving !" If I understand these words 
 aright they imply that you do not give on impulse or ft-om 
 pressure, but give a fixed proportion of your income, which
 
 14 
 
 you previously determine from a solemn sense of duty — and 
 give a certain part to the offertory. 
 
 Of course you will enquire to what purposes the offertory 
 is devoted. The Churchwardens, if they be wise men, will 
 (with the co-operation of the minister) publish each Sunday 
 what was collected on the last Sunday, and every Easter 
 they will audit and publish the accounts, stating exactly 
 what was done with every shilling collected during the past 
 year, and what will be done (speaking generally) with the 
 money that is to be collected during the ensuing year. 
 Knowing then exactly to what purposes the offertory is to 
 be devoted, you will sit down and consider what other 
 objects have a claim on you, as in the sight of God, and 
 you will give regularly, periodically, (1 Cor. xvi. 2) and 
 (wherever you can escape from the tormenting and miserable 
 pressure of public opinion) you will give secretly. 
 (S. Mat. vi. 3.) 
 
 There is one point left, and that is the amount in pro- 
 portion to your income which you ought to give: this is of 
 course alluded to in the words " the rule of Almsgiving." 
 Speaking generally, hut only generally, it is to be accounted 
 a privilege, at which all would do well to aim, to give a tenth 
 of income to God. 
 
 But I must frankly say that I think a higher teaching 
 than this should be given from the pulpit. If the Saviour 
 had meant it to be a rigid rule He would have given it to 
 us in His sermons. 
 
 Suppose while you were preaching that a man should give a 
 tenth — there were someZacchseus listening to you who already 
 had reached so far in the Divine life as giving half. We 
 know that the laity are always thinking, while we are
 
 15 
 
 preaching, — "What does the Preacher do himself ?" — What 
 if this Zacchseus should be saying to himself, " the Preacher 
 has only reached as far as giving a tenth in subscription 
 lists, while I enjoy the privilege of giving a half secretly." 
 Would he not think this poor teaching ? What if the 
 mantle of S. Barnabas had fallen on some one who was 
 listening to you ? Has the spirit of S. Barnabas utterly left 
 our Church in these days ? I trow not ! AYhat would a 
 man think of your preaching who was in some very real 
 sense giving his all to God ? 
 
 No, I think this parcelling out of the exact amount — 
 when we know perfectly well that some men — ^the most 
 pious of our flock perhaps, can't give a tenth (we know it 
 because we have been privately helping them to enable them 
 to live at all) while others would not feel that giving even 
 a half was enough to satisfy them, is barren and meagre 
 teaching. 
 
 I venture to say respectfully to my reverend brethren, do 
 not let us say much about giving from the pulpit of wood 
 or stone, but let us say a great deal from the pulpit of our 
 lives. 
 
 And the true rule of Almsgiving we should teach, I 
 think, is this: 
 
 Give all thou canst! High Heaven rejects the store 
 Of nicely calculated less or more !
 
 GODFr.ET JOnX BATNES, PEINTER, niOS STBEET, 
 GBAVEaEND.
 
 ^":'H: