FOUR LECTURES 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. JOHN HALL, D.D., 
 
 OF NEW YORK. 
 
 j Republished by the General Assembly 1 s Committee on Systematic 
 Beneficence of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 CLEVELAND, OHIO: 
 
 LEADER PRINTING COMPANY, 146 SUPERIOR STREET. 
 1883. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The following lectures were originally delivered in i8jy y 
 under the auspices of the Rochester (Baptist) Theological 
 Seminary. By kind permission of the author , they are now 
 republished , without expense to the church at large , for cir- 
 culation among Presbyterians , by the General Assembly’s Com- 
 mittee on Systematic Beneficence. 
 
 The hope is entertained that these words , from a well- 
 known pastor , — scattered among our candidates , ministers , 
 elders , deacons , communicants , — may become largely useful in 
 the furtherance of intelligent , proportionate, methodical giving. 
 
 It has been deemed best to reproduce the lectures precisely 
 in their original form. In this fact will be found explana- 
 tion of certain special and local allusions noticeable. 
 
24 I 
 H M-P- 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS USE OF PROPERTY. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Some difficulty might be anticipated in the discussion of this topic 
 before an audience of students and of the general public. For stu- 
 dents a certain academic style may be deemed requisite ; and precisely 
 that style may be unsuited to the friends from without who show their 
 interest in the Seminary, and in the theme, by their presence. I ven- 
 ture, however, to speak to the Christian judgment of average religious 
 people; and if that form of address is not intelligible to the academic 
 mind, so much the worse ..for its training. But Academic and Semi- 
 nary training is not meant to suppress, but to train and develop native 
 common sense; and I have not the least doubt that candidates for the 
 ministry who have to deal with ordinary men and women all their lives, 
 will receive without offence what is spoken in the fashion in which — if 
 they are to be useful — they must speak in their future professional 
 duties. 
 
 The subject of these addresses is the religious use of property. The 
 President and Trustees of the Seminary will bear me witness that when 
 they honored me with an overture on this subject, I stated frankly that 
 I had no special aptitude for its discussion, and that all I knew on it 
 could be put in a very few Lectures. They took the responsibility of 
 arranging for them ; and I have only to express the hearty satisfaction 
 I feel in co-operating in this service with a branch of the Church of 
 Christ outside my own, and with the generous founder of the lecture- 
 ship, and to hope and expect that the blessing of God Almighty will 
 render this effort useful to the glory of our common Lord. 
 
 If this were an abstract, or speculative matter, if as with some his* 
 torical themes, its interest lay in the past, or like some prophetical, 
 only in the future, it would hardly be worth our while to employ 
 special agencies for drawing to it public attention. 
 
 But if the Divine word enjoins anything on this matter, we have 
 daily opportunity to obey or to disobey, and it is a theme for the dis- 
 cussion of which there is present, urgent need, as will appear from the 
 following considerations : 
 
 (a.) The present opportunities for employing Christian agencies are 
 unexampled. All over the world, doors are open that were formerly 
 closed. Freedom, which owes so much to Christianity, is repaying 
 the favors by giving opportunity for Christian teaching. All North 
 America is open and inviting. All Europe is open. South America 
 is, for the most part, accessible as never before. Of India, China, 
 Japan, we need not tell the familiar tale. For the “barbarous Turk” 
 it is claimed that he is the friend of missions within his territory, 
 though it is probably only of missions to other than Mohammedans. 
 
4 
 
 But we must admit that the field is open as never before; and facilities, 
 other than money, are abundant. An enterprising and ubiquitous Com- 
 merce pushes its way in an unprecedented degree. The traveller dares 
 to explore whatever is most hazardous and least known. Our English 
 tongue is spreading with extraordinary rapidity. Our Saxon pride 
 keeps us from learning others’ languages, and we feel a kind of com- 
 miseration for any who cannot understand us. But we are a good 
 people to deal with. It is worth the while of Continental hotel-keepers 
 and shop-keepers to know English, and it is worth the while of Japa- 
 nese, Chinese and Indian young men to learn it for the sake of trade 
 and employment, and I am of those who hope and believe that it is to 
 be the medium by which many tribes and nations are to learn of the 
 wonderful works of God. 
 
 But confining our attention to our own land, we have the loudest 
 call to the practical study of this subject. Here is a young nation, in 
 its formative state, with a broad Continent for its home, and with enor- 
 mous material advantages. Our religious institutions have to be set 
 up, extended and maintained. We have, so far as all Church expense 
 is concerned, declined any aid from the State, and assumed the burden 
 as Christians. The voluntary principle is on its trial among us. In 
 every discussion on the subject of Establishments, in Europe, the 
 standing reply to voluntary logic is the production of some American 
 document. Some clerical Jeremiah is weeping over the sons of the 
 prophets, and their sufferings, and it is so easy to say, “There is the 
 way you find things in one of the richest and most prosperous coun- 
 tries in the world.”* There is present need to discuss this question. 
 
 (A) For it must be admitted that the supply of means is deficient 
 even in our present standard of working. How many societies are 
 crippled, no matter how cautiously the advances are made. If there 
 is one class of Christian men that is required to see how the wind 
 blows with a view to their sowing, it is the Secretaries of Boards and 
 Committees ; and with all their caution, how often is there a discour- 
 aging debt! Nor is this for foreign fields only; for at home at our 
 own doors, too often labor is restricted by the limited means to sustain 
 it. Take our church edifices. I do not know how it is here in West- 
 ern New York, which I have long held to be one of the most prosperous, 
 comfortable and presentable sections of this continent, and in which I 
 presume, in all things, and especially ecclesiastical things, you “pay as 
 you go,” but in the region from which I come, we have plenty of debt 
 on our church edifices. He will be a courageous man who will lend 
 money on churches, as things threaten to go. Nor is it only for the 
 cost of erecting buildings — but even for the cost of sustaining them, I 
 hear of difficulty where one would least expect it. Cries of distress 
 go up from “feeble churches” in “financial troubles,” and while stores 
 
 ■ Of course we do not admit the sufficiency of the rejoinder. A principle may be, like the doc- 
 trines of Christianity, of undoubted goodness, and yet fail to be adequately lived out by its accep- 
 tors. Considering the brief history of the American nation, and the disadvantages under which the 
 Christian people have had to prosecute their work, the results reached have been encouraging in the 
 extreme, and the fair argument would be — if a young nation engaged in “subduiug the earth" has 
 done so much without State aid, how much easier it ought to be to dispense with it in old, rich, and 
 long-settled communities? But the fact that we are unconsciously contributing toward the settle- 
 ment of one of the most stirring and most momentous questions in the churches of Europe, is to 
 be considered as a stimulus to fidelity, and enlightened public spirit. 
 
5 
 
 and companies thrive and prosper, churches, as they say, “cannot pay 
 their running expenses.” 
 
 (c) And this leads to another evil — deeper far than any hardship to 
 an individual, or to a class. The church is the salt of the earth, the 
 light of the world, the best conservator of truth, morality and purity on 
 earth. (As a minister in succession of three large congregations, tor 
 a quarter of a century, I never had a parishioner in a prison !) Now it 
 is a real calamity to the community if the salt lose its savor, if the light 
 be dimmed. But this deficiency of means tends in that direction. For 
 example, churches are led to unworthy, unfitting, undignified devices 
 for raising money. I will not. specify, for I might seem to reflect on 
 individuals who are to be pitied rather than blamed, who are suffering 
 from the vices of a system they cannot amend ; but I will say I have 
 known things done in this connection by churches, which I think 
 hardly honest ; and woe be to us, and to the country when the Church 
 goes down to the employment and the sanction of the tricks and 
 devices of small and unprincipled traffic. 
 
 In the same way the reversal of the Apostolic rule is brought about. 
 The poor come to be of small account, and the rich an acquisition, 
 because they can pay. This is pre-eminently bad for the rich. Their 
 follies are condoned ; court paid to their wealth they take as due to 
 their worth ; prominence, or pre-eminence, is gained by other than 
 moral and spiritual qualities ; and I should not wonder if rich men are 
 so soon met at the door of the house of God with the subscriotion-list, 
 before grace has renewed their hearts and reversed their money-loving 
 habits of mind, that they are deterred and thrown back under the im- 
 pression that the Church wants not them, but theirs. A false standard 
 of judging >is introduced. “My son,” wrote an old clergyman to a 
 son, also a minister, “take care of the poor and God will take care of 
 you.” But the poor become a burden to churches that are living on the 
 very edge of their income, and they are tempted to think the minister 
 successful in the degree in which he can draw in contributors. A 
 friend of mine described to me an incident in a church-meeting where 
 it was decided to be for the divine glory that a most valuable and faith- 
 ful minister should be invited to resign. He was in middle life, had 
 served them many years, and was blameless in every way. With a 
 magnificent sweep of his arm one of the members said, “Brethren, 
 them galleries has got to be filled.” The grammar, in my mind, was 
 not the worst part of that speech ; the evil lay in the depraved idea of 
 ministerial usefulness. By pyrotechnics, by tricks of trade, by stand- 
 ing on his head (figuratively, of course,) a man may fill the galleries 
 and the floor too, without making any solid contribution to the real 
 strength of a church, or to the numbers in the Jerusalem above. 
 
 By the operation of the same causes ministers are made to suffer. I 
 forewarn you, gentlemen of this Seminary, that some of the hardest 
 trials in your future life and work will come to you on the side of 
 deficient sense of duty, in money matters, among your people. I do 
 not tell you this to discourage you, for the work is w T orth enduring for, 
 but to impress you with the importance of this theme, and of thorough 
 instruction upon it. Changes in the field of labor become far too fre- 
 quent. The fifth year of a true man’s labor in a place ought to be 
 
6 
 
 worth more than the first and the second together. He knows the 
 people and the people know him, and the tenth year ought to be twice 
 as good as the fifth. But on this system — which yet is no system, for 
 it is not regulated and provided for, as among our Methodist brethren — 
 into which we are drifting, a minister has hardly had time to take the 
 measure of his people and learn their wants, and come into personal 
 sympathy with them — until from “prudential” reasons on his side or 
 on theirs, a change is desirable. It is not meant that this is the only 
 occasion of change, but it is so frequent, irritating, discouraging and 
 mischievous, as to entitle it to account.* In part through failure in 
 this department of duty, the ministry as a class is depreciated. In- 
 stead of pastoral settlements, we come to a too large proportion of 
 stated supplies, and the stated supply is in danger of being regarded 
 too much as “a man hired to preach for a year,” and too little as a min- 
 ister of Jesus Christ, placed by Him who holds the stars in His right 
 hand. If this is bad for the ministry as a class, it is perilous to the 
 people. You cannot degrade the teacher in the eyes of the pupils, the 
 parents in the eyes of the children, the rulers in the eyes of the gov- 
 erned, the ministry in the eyes of the laity, without pupils, children, 
 people and the church being injured. To lessen the number of those 
 objects to which to look up is an injury to us; and there have been 
 many who were helped along by having faithful, consistent ministers 
 watch over them from childhood, who formed to their minds a stand- 
 ing argument for religion, when they were plied with considerations on 
 the other side. 
 
 In the same connection it may be proper to say that in an age of 
 great commercial activity like ours, there is need to discuss this ques- 
 tion for the spiritual welfare of individual Christians. It is a dreadful 
 thing for the mind to be for long, indifferent to one great class of duties, 
 to be allowed to take its set, and form its habits in disregard of them. 
 One sometimes meets with men converted late in life, and from whom 
 you do not expect such victories over self and such expansive benevo- 
 lence, as from those who grew up under gracious influences. Even so 
 with men — even Christian men — who began with perhaps little means, 
 whose success is the result of innumerable small economies and trifling 
 gains, whose practical creed in money matters was in three words, get — 1 
 keep — increase — it is only by patient painstaking, practical instruction, 
 that a habit of mind, old and consolidated, is broken through, and 
 giving five hundred dollars can be reconciled with the life-long rule of 
 saving or making five cents, where it is honestly practicable. And 
 how much men miss — good men who will praise God for their salva- 
 tion in heaven — how much they lose here and there, from not having 
 learned the blessed art of laying up treasure in heaven, and making 
 friends of the mammon of unrighteousness ! 
 
 *The settlement of a minister is usually by and through an association of ministers, elders or 
 deacons, called by the name of Presbytery, Association, or Council. The details and condition of 
 settlement pass, with more or less form or significance, under the eye of this body. Two anoma- 
 lies seem to attend the current administration. (1) The sufficiency of the means provided for the 
 minister appears to be affirmed, oil what ground it would often be difficult to say, and (2) the bond 
 so solemnly formed is too often dissolved in such a way as to render the Presbytery or correspond- 
 ing body only a cumbrous Bureau of registration, at least in appearance. 
 
7 
 
 One other consideration may fitly close this part of our statement. 
 The age magnifies material success. All the activities of multitudes 
 are embarked in the effort to make money. The church is to bear 
 her testimony on this point, and to interpose with divinely-appointed 
 checks on this tendency. But her testimony against the love of 
 money, the greed of gain, the excessive pursuit of riches, the over- 
 valuing of wealth, the undue reliance on possessions for happiness, 
 and the corrupting tendencies of large means, is sadly weakened if she 
 herself does not understand and act upon right principles in regard 
 to “this world’s goods.” Here her testimony ought to be strongest. 
 It will be a real calamity if it be weak and inadequate. And just here 
 the world’s eye may be expected to be on the Church, as on the disci- 
 ples who were watched when they plucked the ears of corn and rubbed 
 them in their hands and did eat, and duly reported. So the world 
 which can judge of, liberality, or of parsimony, of generosity or of 
 selfishness, better than of principles and of orthodoxy, will be sure to 
 justify its attitude by the course of professing Christians. We must 
 beware lest we be weak when we should be strong, and weak where 
 our weakness can be most readily detected and exposed. 
 
 Now, if the point has been made out that this question of the con- 
 secration of property is practical and urgent at this moment, we pro- 
 ceed to say that if it is to be discussed, ministers must undertake the 
 task. Not they only indeed, for we look for the time when Christian 
 merchants, lawyers and physicians, will take their share in this practi- 
 cal reform ; but for the steady, patient, continuous, consecutive teach- 
 ing of the Church, the reliance must be on the minister. If the holy 
 oracles have anything to say on the subject, are we not bound to de- 
 clare the whole counsel of God ? Is not the Bible a book of truth, 
 and of truth with a view to duty ? Are we not after the example of 
 Peter, Paul, and John, to tell men not only what God is, and whaf 
 man is, but what duties God requires of man ? Is not property one ot 
 the talents ? Are we to be silent anywhere if the Lord speaks ? Is 
 not the messenger to deliver his message, as the printer reproduces his 
 manuscript, and the telegraph operator gives out in San Francisco 
 1 what he gets in Rochester ? Are we the judge of what it is wise to tell 
 the people, or is the Lord? We are bound to explain, enforce and 
 apply this truth in the place and in the proportion it has in the divine 
 revelation. *Nay, more, it may happen that a particular tendency may 
 have such strength, the mind of a Christian community may be so far 
 perverted on a particular point, that it may be proper to emphasize the 
 correcting truths. until the evil is modified.* 
 
 - And if ministers are to instruct on this subject, they ought to under- 
 stand it. Two difficulties have to be overcome in the effort. Business 
 
 * If the Sabbath is threatened with desecration, we preach the Sabbath law and privilege with 
 special emphasis. If intemperance becomes a national sin and disgrace, we teach, preach, speak, 
 organize against it. If doctrinal error creep in, we enforce the revealed truth. If the Galatians 
 misplace circumcision, how energetically Paul sets their error forth, and throws on it the light of 
 free justification by grace through faith ! So there is a “present truth,” and the attention now 
 turned to business affairs, the pressing needs of the Church, and the special danger to her mem- 
 , hers from the growth and diffusion of wealth, make this a fitting theme for special enforcement. 
 It may be said indeed that the “bad times” are unsuitable for the discussion of such a theme. 
 What if the “bad times” be God’s retributive dealing with us, and a call to repentance in the mat- 
 ter of property ? , 
 
8 
 
 men have always nursed a pleasant belief that ministers do not know 
 much of monetary affairs, and would not know what to do with the 
 money if they had it. And under the impression that devoutness and 
 capacity to manage money matters do not go together, ministers have 
 sometimes acquiesced in the idea. But I see no presumption in favor 
 of it. Ministers may be supposed to have had fair common sense to 
 start with, and many of them have learnt the value and use of money 
 through as sharp a life-battle as have business men. And in point of 
 fact I do not see that ministers are conspicuously more foolish in money 
 matters than their lay friends of the same opportunities.* It does not 
 at all follow that because a man is religious and spiritual, he is weak 
 minded or a simpleton. One would not like to give the world any 
 countenance in a superstition it is anxious to cherish. 
 
 It is common to be witty, in a weak, antiquated way, over ministers 
 winding up earnest spiritual appeals with a call for money ; but the 
 objection lies against the Apostle of the Gentiles’ as strongly as it can 
 do against any gospel minister. Was there ever a more animated, in- 
 spiring and elevated piece of eloquence than that with which the Apos- 
 tle Paul closes the fifteenth of first Corinthians ? He did not break 
 his epis.tle into chapters. That was the work of a later and a feebler 
 hand, and in immediate sequence to that swelling climax of sacred and 
 exultant triumph, he proceeds with the words, “Now as concerning 
 the collection.” (i Cor. xvi: i.) Let us only have his cause, his zeal, 
 his objects at heart, and we need not fear criticism any more than he 
 did. 
 
 * It has been my privilege to be in the homes both in Europe and in America, of many ministers 
 of all the leading Protestant denominations, many of them with exceedingly slender incomes, and 
 the comfort, and thrift without meanness, and elegance without show, there observed, do not sug- 
 gest incapacity to manage money, but the contrary, and rather call for the liveliest admiration of 
 them, and of the sharers of their life. They more rarely fail, miscalculate, compound, and break 
 down, than the same number of men in any other condition of life. The idea of their childlike 
 ignorance of common things is a mischievous illusion. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 We saw that the unprecedented calls upon the Church for effort, the 
 embarrassments produced by insufficient resources, the injury accru- 
 ing to the ministry and to the Christian community, and other similar 
 considerations give to the subject of the religious use of property a 
 present and profound interest. We now address ourselves to the ques- 
 tion, Are there materials for forming fixed and definite convictions on 
 the subject, or must it remain in the region of sentimental impulse, 
 and occasional good feeling ? 
 
 The question must, in the main, be determined by an appeal to the 
 Scripture. “In the main,” for there are certain general considerations 
 that bear upon the duty of the Church, and of the individual, in the 
 very nature of the case. A Christian man has a business side to his 
 life, like any other man, and he is specially bound to be “blameless 
 and harmless” on that side. A good man should “guide his affairs 
 with discretion,” if for no other reason than to show that good sense 
 and true religion go hand in hand. The impression that religious per- 
 sons are usually weak-minded, is noxious in the extreme, and every- 
 thing calculated to make it, is bad. There are multitudes of persons 
 who think “God’s silly people” fair game for their selfish purposes, 
 and who believe that only their silliness explains their piety. “If they 
 knew as much as we do, they would not be carried away with re- 
 ligion.” A pious man on that side of his life in which he stands along 
 with his fellow men is bound to be high-minded, generous, just, capa- 
 ble, and efficient. The Church also has her business side, and the 
 same principles apply to her as to the man. On the human side more- 
 over, the Church is the Christian party, and like any other party must 
 be expected to give effect to her convictions. Their strength and 
 depth will be gauged by men, by the efforts she puts forth to maintain 
 and diffuse them. There have been, and are now, persons who have 
 a kind of belief that the lower creatures are immortal ; but they do 
 nothing in consequence in this land, and the inference is a fair one, 
 that the conviction is not very strong or practical. But the Church 
 believes that men are immortal ; that they are in danger of being suf- 
 ferers ; that there is a way of escape ; and moreover that it is best for 
 them, and for the world, that they should enjoy the hope of safety 
 now, and feel its moral power. Now the world will estimate the 
 strength of these convictions by the efforts put forth to give them 
 effect, to diffuse and perpetuate them. We are not fatalists. We be- 
 lieve that God’s work proceeds through appropriate instrumentalities. 
 We are a great party. We have party duties, so to speak. No sane 
 person blames honest Democrats or honest Republicans for pushing 
 their views and plans, so long as the means used are honest. We 
 should doubt their sincerity if they were inactive, and so precisely the 
 Christian party may be expected to exert itself in all fitting ways to 
 carry its convictions, and advance its objects. But this effort implies, 
 
IO 
 
 and involves the use of property. I should not wonder if many adhe- 
 rents of one or other political party spend a larger proportion of their 
 means on party objects than Christians are expected to do for Chris- 
 tian purposes. There are, accordingly, auxiliary antecedent considera- 
 tions, which go a certain length to show the duty of the Christian 
 people in the matter of money. For the Church to be apathetic in 
 this would — on the common principles by which men are influenced — 
 nullify her own testimony. 
 
 But the authoritative decision must turn on the Divine word, and 
 in proceeding to examine its teaching, there is a historic fact on which 
 it is proper to dwell for a moment. All men know to what an enor- 
 mous extent the organizations of the Christian religion had possessed 
 themselves of property before the Reformation. A great proportion of 
 the money, the precious metals, the buildings and the land of the Chris- 
 tian countries had come into their hand. The truth had been per- 
 verted. Men were led to believe that they could be “redeemed with 
 corruptible things such as silver and gold.” The coarse and licentious 
 freebooter set over against a life of lawlessness the surrender of his 
 plunder from a dying hand to the Church. Dev.out men were led to 
 believe that exemptions, and spiritual gains for themselves, or for those 
 whom they loved, could be “purchased with money.” Hence, as it 
 has been said, “Multitudes found themselves beggars because their 
 fathers had been saints.” Now errors commonly spring up in the 
 neighborhood of great truths, get sheltered under truths, and hang on 
 to them, and like the ivy on a tree, suppress and kill that on which 
 they depended. Hence, when the errors have to be swept away, the 
 truths they concealed, often get swept away along with them.* Error 
 is bad all around. It conceals truth ; it traverses it ; it perverts it ; it 
 raises prejudice against it ; and it often drags it down in its own fall. 
 
 It was eminently so in the Reformation. Salvation had come to be 
 “by works.” Protestants were inclined to make little of “works,” in 
 consequence. Giving money or other form of property made a great 
 element in “the works,”, and hence Protestant teachers, thinking of 
 the error “farthest from it is best,” said little on this subject. Duties 
 and privileges of which our Lord speaks unhesitatingly were slurred 
 over, lest there should be any of the sordid scheming of a corrupt cor- 
 poration. Any child can find either end of a line : it takes a process 
 of measurement to determine the exact middle. A truth is not always 
 the diametrical opposite of an error. Protestantism has suffered in 
 many things, and among pthers in this, from the bad odor in which 
 Romish caricature and perversion placed many doctrines and duties of 
 the inspired word. It is for us to disregard the extremes into which 
 the human mind swung in violent and passionate reaction against the 
 grasping ambition of a great corporation, and to endeavor to learn and 
 do the will of our Father, in the more free and felicitous circum- 
 stances, in which through His blessing on the courage of our fathers, 
 we stand. 
 
 * This iiea is presented and illustrated with his usual copious eloquence, by T. Bicney, in his 
 work on “Money , ” pp. 10, 11. Any student of the times before the Reformation will recall the 
 extent to which church-building, the endowment of religious houses and the like, became a quid 
 pro qxio—a, present investment for gains in the unseen world, and what an important part the erec- 
 tion of St. Peters’, Rome, played in bringing about the great religious revolution of the sixteenth 
 century. 
 
In a very good collection of Essays entitled “Gold and the Gospel,” 
 the writer of one of them begins his collation of Scripture texts on the 
 consecration of property, with Abraham’s gift of the tenth to Melchi- 
 zedeck. But surely we may begin further back, if we desire to know 
 the divine estimate of property as a means of glorifying God. But 
 we are met with a protest on the part of some against any employment 
 of Old Testament authority in the matter. They object to all that is 
 “Mosaic”: they want to go by the new law. But let us consider dis- 
 passionately how the Old Testament stands to us — a point on which 1 
 humbly think, there is need for revision of many public utterances. 
 The Revelation given to men in the earlier periods of human history 
 is not necessarily superseded by the lesson that came later, any more 
 than the teaching at a Seminary contradicts and supersedes the teach- 
 ing of godly parents, or the training of a college sets aside the spell- 
 ing and the grammar taught at school. The Old Testament gives us 
 the language and figures of the New. In some books of early date 
 like Shakespeare, or abundant provincialism like Burns, we find a 
 glossary in foot-notes at the end, to render the language intelligible. 
 Now, with the Bible, the glossary comes at the beginning, and the lan- 
 guage we use freely and familiarly in the New Testament, has its mean- 
 ing fixed by the Old. Why, the very word “consecration” we apply 
 to property, comes to us from the Old Testament. The “priest,” 
 “altar,” “sacrifice,” “atonement,” “reconciliation,” “intercession,” 
 “the Sabbath,” the “holy convocation,” the “psalm of praise,” the cry 
 of “supplication,” all come to us from the Old Testament. For good 
 and sufficient reasons the forms of the Levitical economy having done 
 their work are withdrawn, not because destroyed, but because fulfilled. 
 As for our Christian Churches, the more scriptural they are, the nearer 
 they come to the Jewish Synagogue, in which Jesus Christ worshipped 
 and taught, “as his custom was on the Sabbath,” and into the forms 
 and usages of which the Apostles introduced the warmth and power 
 of evangelical truth, which was not the denial, but the development 
 and expansion of the Gospel offered in type and symbol to the earlier 
 race. The light at noon to-day was not the antithesis of the light at 
 six in the morning. It was the same light, only more of it. And the 
 light of the New Testament is not opposed to that of the Old, but only 
 an addition to it. Nay more, many things are not enjoined in the 
 New Testament, because their knowledge is assumed from the instruc- 
 tion of the Old. The erection of places of worship, for example, is 
 nowhere enjoined in the New Testament, for the sufficient reason that 
 out of the religious life of the Old Testament Church the custom had 
 naturally grown, and was an accepted and established arrangement in 
 New Testament times.* 
 
 With these suggestions, rather than formal arguments, to break the 
 force of the current unreasoning disregard of the Old Testament, let 
 us look into the Paradise in which God put man in the beginning. All 
 
 *Is it not on the same principle that it is to those who go to found churches among- Gentile peo- 
 ples, that directions are given as to the choice of elders? The order was already known and 
 defined among Jews, and passed over naturally into the churches of which the earlier elements 
 were Jewish converts. For the extent to which the Christian congregation is the lineal descendant 
 of the synagogue, Vitringa may be consulted with advantage. 
 
will agree that it gives the ideal of a perfectly happy people ; the con. 
 ception up to which we should strive to rise, to make earth approxi- 
 mately happy again. But man did not there possess everything. He 
 was under a fixed series of limitations; not every day his, but a sev- 
 enth for the Lord; not everything his, but his life sustained by the 
 labor of dressing and keeping the garden ; not every tree in it his, but 
 a reserved and forbidden tree in the midst of it. He has a Sabbath 
 for his soul; holy marriage for his social affections ; honest labor for 
 his bodily sustenance, and divine restrictive law for his conscience. 
 It sometimes happens that owners of land, meaning to give the use of 
 it to others, without alienating it, impose a nominal rent — a quit rent, 
 the passing of which acknowledges the recipient as owner, and the 
 occupier as tenant. This is understood in all lands. In many an old 
 English “deed,” “three barley-corns,” “a fat capon” or a “shilling,” 
 is the consideration which permanently recognizes the rights of lord- 
 ship. God taught man by the forbidden tree that He was the owner, 
 that man was Occupier. He selected a matter of property to be the 
 test of man’s obedience, the outward and sensible sign of a right state 
 of heart to God; and when man put forth his hand and did eat, he 
 denied God’s ownership, and asserted his own. Nothing remained 
 but to eject him. Now we argue for the perpetuity of the Sabbath 
 from its appointment in Eden. It was “made for man.” Why should 
 there be reserved rights for God in the matter of time, and his rights 
 in the matter of property be ignored ? Is he not still testing and edu- 
 cating men in the matter of possessions ? 
 
 Then in the next generation of our race we come to Cain and Abel, 
 (Gen. iv : 3, 4,) offering of what they had to God. You look into the 
 commentaries and you find that two questions occupy them, on this 
 part of their history. One is the origin of sacrifice. How did men 
 learn to sacrifice ? Some will recollect the old idea to which Dr. 
 Trench has given recent currency, that the skins of which Adam’s 
 first clothing was made were of beasts slain in sacrifice, and that he 
 was thus taught that he was to be protected, through a sacrifice that 
 would give him righteousness. One might use it as an interesting 
 speculative illustration; it hardly amounts to an established truth. 
 The other question respects the difference between Cain’s offering and 
 Abel’s. But surely a great question lies behind these. How did the 
 sons of Adam come to know that a gift of property to Him would be 
 acceptable to God, the absolute owner of all ? Is it not as fair an in- 
 ference that God must have taught them this, as that He taught them 
 how to sacrifice? They must have learnt somehow that God had 
 rights; that His claims should be acknowledged; that such acknowl- 
 edgement would be well-pleasing in his sight. Let us make the same 
 acknowledgement, and in Abel’s spirit, bearing in mind that it is the 
 blood that secures for us acceptance in the Divine presence, that “tt> 
 us and our offering” — our persons first, and then our gifts — the Lord 
 will have respect. 
 
 When Noah, (Gen. viii: 20,) came out of the Ark, with a small 
 stock of living creatures for the re-population, so far as he knew, of 
 the world, he offered a sacrifice of living, clean beasts, and of every 
 clean fowl. It must have seemed imprudent to sense, but it was no- 
 
loss to the eye of faith. God blessed the remainder, and the sacrifice 
 "was followed by the purpose not to renew the curse on the ground for 
 man’s sake; by the promise of seed time and harvest; by the formal 
 gift of animals for food to man; and by renewed blessing on Noah 
 and on his sons. How many times curses would be averted and bless- 
 ings brought down by consecration of what we have, however little it 
 may seem, to him ! 
 
 Now we come to Melchizedeck — the providentially prepared type, 
 not of the Levitical priesthood, but of Jesus Christ. He did not get 
 his office from his father, so far as the histoiy goes , like the Levite, nor 
 transmit it to his son, so far as the history goes : hence he is said to be 
 without father, or descent. So far he resembles and foreshadows that 
 greater King of righteousness, whose priesthood, underived from man, 
 is incapable of transmission, who by one offering perfected forever all 
 them that are sanctified. To this Melchizedeck, in recognition of his 
 priestly character, and we may be sure from the use made of it in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, under divine guidance, the patriarch gave a 
 tenth. Everything about it — the mystery of the man — the chivalry of 
 Abraham in battle — and his magnanimity in victory — gives interest to 
 this transaction. Our Roman Catholic friends have pushed the type a 
 little too far in alleging that the bread and wine brought forth stand 
 fo: the Lord’s Supper. If so, it is a Protestant Communion with the 
 cup for the laity that is pre-figured ; but the main point is that the tithe 
 of the spoils is given to the recognized representative of God. The 
 principle of this gift was embodied in the later Levitical law, as you 
 will see by the examination of Lev. xxvii: 30; Numb, xxxi: 28; and 
 2 Sam., viii : ii. 
 
 There is a strong prejudice against Jacob, who never forgot his 
 4 ‘duty to himself ;” and that prejudice extends to his vow at Luz, as if 
 he made a sordid bargain with the Lord, conditioning his giving by the 
 Lord’s. A study of the passage, however, shows that this is unjust to 
 Jacob — God first spoke — made the overtures and promise, and his 
 “if” in reply is not of doubt, but of certainty. If — “seeing that God 
 will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give 
 me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my 
 father’s house in peace ; then shall the Lord be my God : and this 
 stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house ; and of all 
 that thou shalt give I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” He pro- 
 ceeds on the usual way of grace. God has promised and performed, 
 therefore we serve him. It is the same principle as the Lord’s word 
 to Israel, “I brought thee out of Egypt, therefore love me.” Man 
 would reverse this, and love God on condition of being delivered. 
 Jacob’s tenth was not only in devout imitation of good precedent; it 
 was in the spirit of all true giving to the Lord. 
 
 For, passing on to the Mosaic economy, it is well known that tenths 
 or tithes were enjoined upon the Hebrews. The Levites received a 
 tenth of the produce of the land ; and of this, (for clergymen are not 
 exempt from the duty of systematic giving,) they again in turn gave a 
 tenth for the purpose of the high priesthood. (Numb, xviii : 2 1-28. ( 
 One other tenth was paid by the Hebrews for the purpose of the festi- 
 vals, and the great educational and moral influences connected with 
 
14 
 
 the mingling of all the people in the metropolis well repaid the out- 
 lay. The testimony of Josephus, and of the apocryphal book of 
 Tobit, i: 7, 8, is conclusive on this point. Besides this fifth, every 
 third year another tithe was paid, regarding the uses of which some 
 uncertainty exists, the balance of opinion being in favor of it as a pro- 
 vision for the stranger, the widow, and the fatherless. (See Deut. xiv : 
 22-27.) 
 
 Now, I confess, I do not feel much interest in determining the 
 amount and designation of these contributions. The main thing for 
 us to consider is that in this early time, when God was organizing a 
 church on the earth, as a great visible community, and impressing upon 
 it the characteristics which He intended to mark His people in all time 
 to come, the regular, systematic, proportionate giving of property to 
 vHim was enjoined and enforced compliance with this rule was fol- 
 lowed with blessing; and on the other hand, disregard or evasion of 
 it, was attended'by conspicuous tokens of the divine displeasure. 
 
 There is one aspect however of the amount well worth considering. 
 On all hands it is admitted that the Christian dispensation has enlarged 
 our privileges and added to our obligations to gratitude. Now, are we 
 to believe that while it has lifted the believer to a higher level in all 
 other things, it has lowered the rule in the matter of property ? The 
 infant church was taught by definite rules, and habituated by them to 
 the working out of great principles ; are we to believe that the drop- 
 ping of the rules, when the period of pupilage has passed is the aban- 
 donment of the principles ? Assuredly not. We are to give, to give 
 systematically, to give on principle, to give proportionately, and to 
 give under the impulse of a great fact that has colored and glorified all 
 our lives. “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 become rich.” (2 Cor., viii: 9.) 
 
 Rules and fixed proportions, it is sometimes thought, must check 
 liberality. Let the only other portion of the Old Testament to which 
 I shall in this connection ask your attention, be the rejoinder to this 
 assumption. The Temple is to be built. David’s own eyes are not to 
 see it, but on it his heart is set. He can at least provide for it. He 
 was a capable administrator. Various ways were open to him to raise 
 the needed money. He could, if it had been in our time, have issued 
 bonds, or mortgaged the revenues for a few years, but he adopted a 
 better plan. His impelling motive is “because I have set my affection 
 to the house of my God.” His contribution is on this wise “of my 
 own proper good,” and this over and above what he had “prepared 
 with all his might” “for the house of his God.” See 1 Chron., xxix : 
 I_ 3- 
 
 We reserve for another lecture the New Testament references to this 
 subject, and now we plead without fixing the proportion, for regular 
 and proportionate giving. 
 
 To estimate your means, so as to know what you have and can give, 
 would itself be a great gain in multitudes of cases. To have a Be- 
 nevolent Fund would amazingly simplify and sweeten the process of 
 collecting and bestowing. Who has not seen the embarrassment of a 
 Christian man, with a cause before him, of which he owns the good- 
 
5 
 
 ness, while he is fighting the battle with his own selfishness, talking, 
 perhaps, for talk’s sake, but really with his mind running in other 
 directions, till at length the decision is reached, the victory is won, and 
 he becomes frank, at his ease, affable and happy. 
 
 Do not say you do not like arithmetical proportions. Alas ! you 
 cannot escape arithemetical proportions, while in the world. You may 
 reduce the fraction, and give a fifteenth or a twentieth, but it is still 
 arithmetical. We want it to be in some fair proportion to what you 
 ought to give. Do not say you are “always being asked.” That is 
 not the point. In the present loose method, or no method, one is apt 
 to put together the cases of refusal, and of giving, and the refusal is 
 the more likely of the two to remain in one’s mind because it some- 
 times troubles conscience. Remember you are always receiving from 
 goodness, from mercy, from grace. 
 
 Do not say that you have had losses, and can give nothing. The 
 proportion may be altered by this, but until you have lost all and have 
 nothing, the claim remains. Why should we charge the losses wholly 
 to the benevolent fund ? Is there not a comfort fund, a luxury fund, 
 a saving fund ? We smile at the little English boy who devoted one 
 of the two sixpences given him on a holiday to the heathen, and on 
 losing one of them congratulated himself on the fact that it was the 
 one he had devoted to the heathen. But do we not charge losses in 
 precisely the same way to the Lord? “Time is money,” say business 
 men. Well, in the matter of time, you give a seventh to the Lord, 
 and as much more as you can in the closet, family, prayer meeting, 
 and Christian service, and you find it better to have six-sevenths for 
 yourself and one-seventh for God, than the whole for yourself. Why 
 not do so with money — one-tenth at least to Him, and as much more 
 as you can, and you will find the nine-tenths for yourself better than 
 the whole for self, for God’s blessing hallows and conserves the re- 
 mainder. 
 
-LECTURE III. 
 
 In the opening lecture it was shown, we trust, that there was need — 
 present and urgent — to discuss among Christian people the subject of 
 Christian stewardship ; and secondly, that for thorough and systematic 
 teaching on the subject, the ministry must be largely responsible. 
 
 In the second lecture, attention was called to the general and mis- 
 chievous tendency to displace the Old Testament ; to its teaching on 
 •this subject among the rudimentary and fundamental religious ideas; 
 ideas which the New Testament no more sets aside in their obligations 
 than the higher mathematics may be thought to set aside the multipli- 
 cation table. The law of Eden, the course of Abel and of Cain, the 
 sacrifice of Noah, ^and the tithe-giving of Abraham were passed in 
 review, and we saw how they showed that while men were learning 
 the first principles of the knowledge and service of God Almighty, 
 •and the church was receiving, through manifold and necessary ar- 
 rangements, a language in which to express religious truth, in the very 
 heart of all her vows, services, and worship is .the consecration of 
 means upon a definite and calculated plan, unto Jehovah. Jacob was 
 ■vindicated from the charge of a mercenary and sharp bargain -maker 
 with the Lord, and it was held that he did precisely as we do. Be- 
 cause the Lord promises so much, he in his turn gives gratefully to the 
 Lord. The Mosaic tithe system was vindicated against the charge of 
 fettering spontaneous giving, by the splendid liberality of David in 
 giving beforehand for the Lord’s house. We now proceed to consider 
 New Testament principles, and the lessons they teach us. 
 
 For it would carry us far beyond the necessary limits of this course 
 to enter upon multitudinous references in the later Old Testament 
 Scriptures to the honoring of God by property. How fondly the 
 Psalms dwell on the sacrifices to be given to the Lord, and the joy of 
 coming into his courts and bringing an offering ! Yet how clearly they 
 discriminate between God as a receiver, and man as a beneficiary. 
 Does He need our gifts, to whom belong the cattle on a thousand hills ? 
 If he were hungry would he tell us ? How entirely it is of His grace 
 and for the showing forth of His glory that we offer to Him thanks- 
 givings and pay our vows! With what scathing directness do the 
 prophets rebuke the sordid shifts of Israel to keep the letter and evade 
 the spirit of the law ! How fearful are the judgments denounced 
 against the favored nation that treated its Jehovah with contempt of 
 which the blind devotion of the heathen was a rebuke ! and how ex- 
 plicit and precious are the promises of God’s blessings poured out like 
 the rain-floods, where all the tithes are brought into the store-house, 
 and his ordinances are duly and amply provided for ! On these we 
 may not dwell, except to emphasize one point. We are too apt to 
 think of the prophets of the Old Testament as only the predictors of 
 future events, and their value in the economy of grace mainly to lie in 
 providing beforehand for one department of evidence in favor of the 
 
17 
 
 Divine origin of Revelation. But surely we must not overlook the 
 fact that they were the teachers of their time, doing the work of pub- 
 lic instructois, reproving sin and calling to repentance.* * What they 
 did by direct divine guidance, we ministers have to do on the author- 
 ity of the word. The theme which so frequently engaged them we 
 may not overlook. It should have in our preaching, to say the least, 
 a place proportionally as large as it has in the holy oracles. By the 
 laws and customary arrangements of churches in America, ministers 
 have little to do with the finances of the churches — as far as erecting 
 and sustaining churches is concerned. But with the whole business 
 of benevolence they have the closest connection, and here they have 
 opportunity, and are under obligation, “to reprove, rebuke and exhort 
 with all long-suffering and doctrine.” In addition to giving for them- 
 selves, as they can, they can set forth the divine testimony on this 
 great theme : and as a general rule the people will be as they are 
 taught. If a minister holds his peace as to foreign and home missions, 
 lest the demands so made on the people should cripple the immediate 
 church finances, lest the people, urged to generosity, should not be 
 just, he will find them in time indifferent to foreign and to congrega- 
 tional objects also. He will be punished in the way of his sin, for 
 church members that err in one direction will be ready to err in an- 
 other. To train a narrow-hearted, selfish people, who will calculate 
 to a nicety on just how much a minister can exist among them — how 
 many children he has — and such other nice points as only come into 
 reckoning with the clerical profession — you have only to keep them in 
 ignorance of truth and duty regarding the claims of missions. But 
 on the other hand teach men to feel that “Jesus is worthy to receive 
 riches,” and interest them in the field which is the world, and they will 
 be all the more ready to “provide for their own,” and to secure the 
 maintenance of divine ordinances among themselves : and if any one 
 demand authority for doing such work, let him turn to the pastoral 
 epistles. Paul enjoins upon Timothy,* “Charge them that are rich in 
 this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, 
 but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that 
 they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, 
 willing to communicate ; laying up in store for themselves a good foun- 
 dation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” 
 
 Nor is it only in the abstract enforcement of privilege and duty a 
 minister is to lead a people to liberality. The collection for home or 
 Indian missions is to be taken on a given Sabbath. The pastor reads 
 his sermon through to the end, without one scrap of information, one 
 statement of the need, one glimpse of the work, and then adds at its v 
 
 ' We ought not to disregard the suggestive fact that as we advance in the Old Testament, the 
 priest, in the usual sense, loses his importance, and the prophet, as the preacher, comes into promi- 
 nence, so preparing the world for the dispensation where God’s ministers should be emphatically 
 preachers, and in no sense sacerdotal officers. Even so the “synagogues in the land,” prepared 
 for the Christian congregations scattered over all lands and without any such visible centre as the 
 temple at Jerusalem afforded. To the Temple, from the division of the kingdom, the captivity, 
 and the frequent disturbances, the habit of repairing must have been sadly interrupted for long 
 periods. Then the synagogues rendered good service in keeping alive the knowledge of the sta- 
 tutes of the Lord. 
 
 *1 Tim. vi: 17, 18, 19. At that time not many Christians were “rich” in the American sense of 
 that word. But “rich” is a relative term, and a proportion can be taken from a thousand dollars 
 as truly as from a million. 
 
8 
 
 close, “the collection will now be made.” Surely the incongruity and 
 inconsecutivenes$ must be felt. Collection for what ? But suppose he 
 had made his sermon like the epistle to the Ephesians — one-half of it 
 full of sublime doctrine, and then proceeded with a vivid, earnest, in- 
 telligible statement of that which was being attempted and effected, so 
 that the field should be before the people, as in some sense theirs, their 
 brethren on it in their name and in Christ’s, sowing the seed with tears, 
 and the sheaves to be, in some sense, theirs also, and the loving, 
 pitying eye of Jesus over all, and then closed with “now, breth- 
 ren, we are to give our portion to carry on this work,” in what a 
 different attitude the whole case stands! I know a church where 
 members often put in their cards, and the amount marked on 
 them is called Tor during the week. A gentleman had filled up his 
 card beforehand for $500. In the course of the sermon he was ob- 
 served to get it out, and after some fumbling for a pencil, and some 
 use of it, it was found that the card was put in with the “5” scored 
 out and a “10” in its place. He saw the nature and magnitude of the 
 work and the motive to give was evoked. Why should we insult our 
 people by supposing that they are to do their Christian work on our 
 dictation ? It is no adequate reason for a man’s denying himself to 
 give that the pastor and deacons resolve on a “collection.” Christian 
 men are entitled to be told why and wherefore they give their money, 
 and to get information as to the use made of it. Thus giving is to be 
 intelligent, that it may be a sacrifice well-pleasing unto God. 
 
 If it be said that ministers would find it hard to prepare and preach 
 such sermons, I had almost said, more shame for them ! Why should 
 they find it hard ? Is there want of information ? Is the subject with- 
 out interest to them ? If I had met a United States officer at any time 
 between i860 and 1864 who did not know how the war was going, I 
 should have wondered what right he had to his uniform : and ministers 
 are officers in the great Christian host, and may be expected by fur- 
 nishing of suitable intelligence to the people in the church, and to the 
 young in the Sabbath School, to stimulate, educate and direct, so that 
 sympathy shall flow, prayer be offered, and money be given, as all 
 true praise is given, with the understanding and with the heart. 
 
 But without dwelling on a thing so obvious, when fairly considered, 
 let us turn to the New Testament and see in what aspect our topic is 
 there presented. Our Redeemer opens his commission in the sermon 
 on the mount, in which he clears the original law from the glosses and 
 misinterpretations in which the Rabbinical casuists had concealed its 
 true spirit, and sets it forth in connection with that gospel of grace and 
 holiness of life, of which He, in His person and work, is the means 
 and the foundation ; and a section of this discourse goes to almsgiving — 
 which He found among the people — which He endorses and clears 
 from the ostentation and pride of a corrupt and formal church. Give, 
 He says, as to God, for His sake, and not for man’s, nor your own.* 
 
 *“ Let not thy right hand know what thy left hand doeth” (Matt, vi : 1-4,) is commonly regarded 
 as simply meaning “do not blazon abroad your gifts ; do not talk about them to others.” But the 
 left hand and right hand both belong to the man himself. The meaning is— do not indulge self- 
 complacency , do not applaud yourself ; do net commune with your own heart- about what you 
 have done. A man may be too proud to speak of his givings to his neighbors, while nursing a 
 most offensive self-satisfaction before the eye that searcheth the heart. 
 
9 
 
 It is not needful to theological students to enter in detail into the 
 words of our Lord, and the incidents of His life that bear on this sub- 
 ject. You will recall the widow who attracted His notice and com- 
 mendation, with her two mites— her all. You will find many a man 
 doing shameful violence to her memory as he offers his “mite,” and 
 quietly appropriates to himself her place, when he has not the least 
 right to it. You will remember how He taught by the forethought of 
 the unjust steward the lesson to saints “make to yourselves friends of 
 the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive 
 you into everlasting habitations.” (Luke xvi : 9.) Money is like fire — - 
 a good servant, a bad master. Do not let it be your master. If you do, 
 it will blind your mind, harden your heart, hurry you into divers and 
 hurtful lusts, and consume your life. If you make it your servant, use 
 it aright, it can be transmuted by your wise and holy employment of it 
 into a friend, a comfort, a reward in the world into which you enter 
 when you cease to live in this. For, that morbid fear of the idea of 
 reward, unhappily bred in us in violent reaction against a salvation 
 by mercenary working and giving, does not once appear in our Lord’s 
 teaching. He does not fear, and His apostles do not fear, to speak 
 of it in the plainest and most emphatic language — a “great reward in 
 heaven,” (Mat. v: 12) “openly” given, (Matt, vi : 4) — how openly the 
 judgment delineated in Matt. xxv. may show — a “prophet’s reward, 
 (Matt, x: 41); a “righteous man’s reward,” a reward that shall not be 
 lost, (Matt, x: 42; a reward to “every man according to his works,” 
 (Matt, xvi: 27.) These are among our Lord’s utterances on earth. 
 And when He had been in His glory, and is announcing to the be- 
 loved disciple in Patmos His second advent, it is with this feature : 
 “I come quickly; and my reward is with me to give to every man 
 according as his work shall be.” If these words mean anything they 
 imply that while entrance into His kingdom is by grace, and in it here 
 we are kept by the power of God, that place in it hereafter shall be 
 affected by our fidelity, or otherwise, in His service on the earth. 
 
 And the acts of Christ are in the same direction as his words. 
 How freely He gave ! He keeps nothing back— from the five loaves 
 and two fishes, all that was on hand for His whole company — through 
 gifts of healing, up to His own “life a ransom for many.” 'A woman 
 brought out her stored ointment and poured it on Him. The covetous 
 Judas grudged the money’s worth so wasted; and some of the disciples 
 shared in the exception. How Jesus vindicated her! Even the plea 
 set up for the centurion by the Jews, “He loveth our nation and hath 
 built us a synagogue,” which a right instinct brought before Christ, He 
 does not spurn in disregard. 
 
 So the future bearing of talent, consecrated to Him, the apostles 
 plainly recognize. They exhort us not to be “beguiled of our reward,” 
 (Col. ii: 18); they counsel us to the doing of such work as will “abide 
 the fire, that we may receive a reward,” (1 Cor. iii: 14); they define 
 the reward as of “the inheritance,” (Col. iii: 24); and most justly, for 
 it is as children and heirs we get it; they credit Moses with having 
 “respect to the recompense of the reward,” (Heb. xi: 26), and they 
 encourage us to have the same, and look for “a full reward,” (2 John 
 v: 8). Now it is of no use, or even propriety, to say we are not to 
 
20 
 
 dwell on all this, lest it be abused. The true protection against abuse 
 is not to slur over and keep back part of the divine testimony, but to 
 tell the whole of it. There never was such a thoroughly balanced 
 system of moral checks and county-checks as we have in the gospel,* 
 and if we only let divine truths all stand out in their place and pro- 
 portion as they are in the word, the devout soul will be kept in the 
 right way. 
 
 We do not wonder, therefore, that when the spirit is poured out on 
 the believers at Pentecost, one of its earliest manifestations should be 
 in the free employment of goods for Christian use. The attempt has 
 been made to identify this display of unselfishness and generosity with 
 communism, but on most insufficient grounds. Communism declares 
 property a crime. Christians did nothing of the kind. “While” the 
 land was unsold by Ananias and Sapphira, it was their “own,” and, 
 when sold, the money was in their “own power.” It was not that no 
 one owned anything, but in overflowering, overmastering love, and pre- 
 occupation with other and higher things, no one said that anything he 
 possessed was his own; and, when occasion arose, believers, like 
 Barnabas (Acts iv: 35-37), turned real estate into money for common 
 Christian uses. 
 
 We are apt to modify our estimate of the example the apostolic 
 church here set, by reference to the peculiar circumstances. The love 
 of the believers was fresh and ardent; they felt the vivid joy of a new 
 discovery; the baptism of the Holy Ghost was' abundant and miracu- 
 lous; there were special needs created by a body of persons remaining 
 in Jerusalem, and possibly many anticipated the introduction of a state 
 of affairs when property would be useless. Yet our right to turn away 
 the point of this case from our consciences is not so strong as we may 
 suppose. The spirit of God is not limited as a gift to us; we have 
 more for which to be thankful than the Pentecostal believers, in our 
 free condition, and as the heirs of all the preceding Christian ages; 
 there are wants to be met now, and work to be done now, not common 
 to this band of believers 'and ourselves; and, in point of fact, are we 
 not all approaching a time, which may come to any of us momentarily, 
 when property, as such, will avail us nothing? j* It is mainly the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost we need to bring us under the power of the 
 world to come, and to teach us to use the world as not abusing it. 
 
 Of the importance attached by the apostle Paul to the right use of 
 money, the references he makes to the Church at Philippi, give us the 
 means of judging. How cordial, confidential and appreciative is he all 
 through the epistle to that church! It was the first he founded, — the 
 
 * How complete is the illustration of this truth in the case of a believer’s assurance. An on- 
 looker, without experience, might say, “Why, if a man is assured of his final safety, he has not 
 the natural restraint from sin ” But let a believer try the principle of sinning because he is 
 safe, and the very idea of it obscures his view of his safety. So far as his assurance is based on 
 the testimony of his spirit, and God’s spirit with his, it is lost, with the loss of holy purposes. 
 
 t Without regard to death, many occasions arise when to give money away would be to save it. 
 There are persons who, had they sold their real estate three years ago, and used half the proceeds 
 for Christian ends, would have been richer than they are to-day, even in money. The “shrinkage” 
 of three years would have paid all the churfch debts and replenished all the empty benevolent 
 treasuries. A good man, whose property the war swept away, used to point with devout gratitude 
 to God to a minister he had carried through college and seminary in the time of his prosperity, as 
 a part of his wealth that would not be lost. 
 
first church in Europe. (See Acts xvi: 9-12.) When he was a prisoner 
 in Rome, and had not a few difficulties surrounding him, the warm- 
 hearted believers remembered the apostle, and once and again sent to 
 his need in money, or in comforts. . He “rejoiced in the Lord greatly.” 
 It was not the first time, (Phil, iv: 16), but on the other occasions he 
 was comparatively near. He counts their liberality “fruit that abounds 
 to their account.” For he looks away from himself. He thinks how 
 the service is regarded from the Lord’s side, whose servant he is. It is 
 “an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God,” 
 (v. 18) and it shall not go unrewarded. God, not Paul, is the pay- 
 master. He “shall supply all you need, according to his riches in 
 glory by Christ Jesus.” (v. 19.) We hear to-day many a Macedonian 
 cry. Oh! that we had in response Macedonian liberality! For the 
 Philippian believers had like-minded fellow-givers elsewhere in Mace- 
 donia, as we learn from 2 Cor., chapters viii. and ix., when the efforls 
 were made on behalf of the poor saints at Jerusalem. They gave 
 abundantly, though they were the poor of a poor province, and they 
 did not require to be entreated, but they, on the contrary, entreated 
 the apostles to take their money and use it for the benefit of the poor 
 - saints at Jerusalem. Indeed, it is impossible to find more elevated 
 views of Christian giving, or more inspiring presentations of the grace 
 than in these chapters. 
 
 It is in the same connection that Paul had already given an “order” 
 as to the best and wisest way of raising the money for the “Collection 
 for the Saints,” (1 Cor. xvi: 2): “Now, concerning the collection for 
 the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do 
 ye. * Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him 
 in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when 
 I come.” We think, in some instances, undue stress is laid on this 
 passage, as if it were meant in its terms for all churches, and for all 
 time, and as if it enjoined a contribution to God’s cause every Lord’s 
 Day. Whatever may be said for this on other grounds drawn by infer- 
 ence from this passage, it does not directly so teach. All that is 
 enjoined is that, as the money was to be raised, and raised without 
 friction, or pressure, or anything to destroy the fine aroma (“sweet- 
 smelling savor,”) of a gift of Christian love, the Corinthian Christian 
 should, on the first day of the week, lay aside, for this end, such a 
 portion of his means as God’s blessing had given him; in order that 
 the whole might be placed in the proper hands when Paul came for it. 
 Undoubtedly the principle of this is wise and widely applicable. 
 “Every one” is exhorted to give. The standard for every one is “as 
 God hath prospered him.” The time of consecration is “the first day 
 of the week,” with all its memories and associations of blessings. On 
 that day God is worshiped and served with the heart, the lips, the 
 time, the body, as it is bowed before him. Why not also with the 
 means He has given? When can the struggle with native selfishness 
 be more hopefully entered upon than on the day of the Son of Man, 
 who, though He was rich, for our sakes became poor? (2 Cor. viii: 9.) 
 The spirit of this direction — which we may be sure is given in perfect 
 adaptation to man’s nature, his difficulties, and the helps he needs — 
 would be carried out apparently by laying aside at such times as we 
 
22 
 
 come into possession of our means of living, as weekly, monthly, 
 yearly, or annually as at stock-taking, of what in our prayerful and 
 conscientious judgment we should give to the Lord, so that, as stated 
 in the last lecture, there be no need to fight the battle, or divide in 
 haste, and perhaps in unfavorable conditions,* when the appeal is 
 made to us. 
 
 This would lay the foundation of habits of systematic beneficence , which 
 is not giving when “in the humor,” when asked by persons whom we 
 are willing to compliment, or unwilling to refuse; not giving “now and 
 then;” for what important cause can be so sustained? Nor is it giving 
 one great donation at death, when the suspicion is always liable to be 
 raised that we kept it as long as we could and only surrendered it to 
 the Lord when we could do no better. Nor is it giving a trifle, how- 
 ever regularly, but “as God hath prospered.” 
 
 There can be laid down no absolute and fixed rule for adjusting the 
 claims between self and God. No mechanical arrangement, no arith- 
 metical proportion can be perfect and satisfactory in all cases. Selfish- 
 ness can evade in some instances. The pressure of any rigid rule may 
 be unequal, but the difficulty of adjusting a rule for an income tax, 
 and the admission that no plan was absolutely perfect, do not touch 
 the right of imposing it in emergencies and its general obligation. The 
 precedents in scriptures — Old Testament or New, we do not press as 
 formal injunctions and authorities as to amounts, but as examples; we 
 do not allege that they are to be servilely imitated by us, but that 
 Christians who feel that the Lamb, their Saviour, is worthy, should catch, 
 in their higher place, the spirit of the same, and wishing to glorify Him 
 in their prosperity, should follow these precedents until they find a 
 better plan demonstrated on all the lines of argument, scripture, ex- 
 perience and observation. 
 
 These are the objects for which Christian people may lawfully make 
 money. They may be defined sharply. The first is giving. Does that 
 startle you? Think of the advice given to a converted thief by an 
 apostle, when we would have advised, first of all and most urgently, 
 to earn an honest living: “Let him that stole, steal no more, but 
 rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, 
 that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph. iv: 28). How 
 godliness draws out by appeals the best part of man to the noblest 
 uses! How many think l)f their first fruits as for the Lord? How 
 often the first earned money is laid out unworthily ! How many would 
 be unable, as they think of the uses to which spare money goes, to say 
 with the devout Israelite, “I have not taken away ought thereof for 
 any unclean use.” Let God’s portion come out of the front of the heap. 
 The gift will consecrate the remainder. 
 
 The second, object which men may lawfully contemplate, is increase 
 of capital. Every man is warranted, if not bound, to consider this. 
 
 * It is easy to see how contingencies are encountered in our present hap hazard, desultory way of 
 proceeding. A case is to be “ presented;” shrewd calculations are made as to the best men to pre- 
 sent it; another set cf calculations follows as to the time, and place, and way. One must discover 
 the mollia teinpora fandi. The expected donor may be ruffled in temper, or have had disagreeable 
 letters, or made a loss, or been vexed by some professing Christian, and if the allocation of a por- 
 tion of his property is then and there to be deliberated upon, how little hope is there for the right 
 decision 1 . Is this the way in which the Lord’s cause should be upheld? 
 
The man who lays by five dollars is a capitalist — a truth forgotten by 
 the brawling missionaries of discontent, who denounce the rich in a 
 spirit of fanatical socialism. This capital may go to enlargement of 
 business, insurance of life with provision for old age or sickness, or 
 for dependents. Religion and good sense go together, and it were 
 well for us in America if we remembered in this particular their joint 
 counsel. 
 
 The third object for which money may be made is for the present 
 comfort of one’s self and of those dependent upon us. Nature and 
 revelation are at one again as to this obligation. All men know the 
 worse than infidelity of the “loafer,” idler, roue or drunkard, who 
 does not provide for his own. The three may be concisely stated as 
 giving, saving, spending. Most persons devote too much to the last 
 object; a smaller number overrate the second. The smallest number 
 do anything like justice to the first, and even good men do not generally 
 put the objects in this order, but the reverse, spending, saving, giving. 
 But there is danger here 'of “robbing God,” of coming to Him as no 
 pious Jew would come, “empty.” They do not “honor the Lord with 
 their substance and with the first fruits of their increase.” 
 
 Now, the scripture precedents have this use to us, that they may aid 
 us in determining God’s proportion. They give us a good starting 
 point. Let no one plead in extenuation that such a course is not 
 formally commanded. Will you be good enough to search your Bibles 
 for a formal command to pray ? The first formal command is in Psalm 
 cxxii: 6, many hundred years after the founding of the Jewish Church 
 — and it is for Zion. Prayer was offered and accepted in innumerable 
 cases before this. So these offerings, though not formally commanded, 
 were offered and accepted, and, in proper circumstances, regulated by 
 the divine appointment. Leviticus calls new machinery into existence, 
 but it affirms the old principle of a proportion for God. The New 
 Testament modifies the machinery, but it does not abrogate the prin- 
 ciple. 
 
 Now we plead for this systematic giving, albeit it is disliked by the 
 covetous, who deem all lost that is given away; by the heretics, who 
 think we may do what we will with our own; by the lazy, who dislike 
 the trouble of examining and deciding; by the double-minded, who wish 
 to have a by-way by which to escape duty somewhere between ‘ ‘ God 
 and their own conscience.” We plead for it because of the evils of 
 our present experiences. Men are liable to group what is in the spend- 
 ing department with what is in the giving. The burden laid on Chris- 
 tians who try to raise money is too hard. The plan we have works 
 unequally. The favored few in a great city are permitted to do a 
 disproportionate part of the giving, and the object is too often estimated, 
 not by its merits, but by the dignity of him who presents it; a lady, 
 particularly if good-looking, is supposed to succeed where one of the 
 other sex would fail. A major-general would get more than a colonel, 
 and I presume a bishop of the modern sort more than an ordinary 
 clergyman. Men have to be coaxed, manoeuvred, sometimes bullied 
 into giving. There is competitive giving. The cheerfulness is too 
 often lacking, and the worldly wisdom, which is spiritual foolishness, 
 brought into use to obtain money, I should fear would drive away the 
 
24 
 
 blessing of the Holy Ghost. We would introduce a new kind of pro- 
 j:>ortion; for proportion has been introduced. How often men will 
 give “as much as my neighbor,” which sometimes means a rival in 
 trade, or “as much as any of my neighbors.” We would do away 
 with all those unspoken and sometimes unutterable reasons for pub- 
 lishing the names of subscribers, whether to please them or to stir up 
 others, and for which there is sometimes no reason that would not be 
 equally good for printing their secret prayers. We would avert the 
 common catastrophe of men growing greedy for want of some principle 
 of giving; we would save rich men from the nervous fear they now feel 
 at times of bringing on them benevolent collectors. We would, by 
 this principle, check at once early extravagance, and aged men’s nar- 
 rowness. We would have something at the credit of the Lord’s cause, 
 on which it would be pleasant to draw. Too many hearts are now 
 like the feet of Belshazzar’s image, in this regard, “part iron and part 
 clay.” We would have them hearts of flesh, compassionate, gentle, 
 pitiful and realizing the one certain traditional word of the Lord and 
 Master, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.’*’ 
 
 These words may fall into the hands of some who have no need to 
 save, who have capital enough and ample provision for all their wants 
 and for those who come after them also. To them, let it be said in all 
 kindness, in the name of Him who giveth us all things richly to enjoy, 
 Give according to your means, or He whom you offend by failure therein 
 may make your means according to your giving. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 The question may be asked : To what uses should we put the means 
 obtained by systematic and generous giving on the part of Christians? 
 
 In the answer to this question, it is hoped there may be not only 
 some guidance to sincere Christian persons desirous of doing their ut- 
 most for the welfare of their kind, but also by necessary implication, 
 some further arguments for the consecration of property. For let us 
 not forget the relation in which we stand (a) to the Giver of all we pos- 
 sess, ( b ) to the kingdom of grace He has set up in the world, ( c ) to our 
 fellow subjects in that kingdom, and (d) to the world around us. Our 
 Lord has suffered in our nature, and entered into his glory, the glory 
 of a Conqueror, of a Peace maker, of an Administrator, of a Teacher. 
 He is King in Zion. David the man of successful war, and Solomon 
 the man of prosperous peace, taken together, represent Him as our 
 king of righteousness. This glorious person is not inactive in his seat 
 of honor. This “ priest upon his throne ” is building the temple of the 
 Lord, (Zach. vi: 13). Already by His grace subjects of the kingdom, 
 we can be fellow workers with Him — necessarily become so when we 
 are reconciled. We en;er into His aims, are baptized with the Spirit, 
 and catch His inspiration. There is a glow of enthusiasm kindled by 
 the apprehension of this kingdom. It is world-wide by right, and shall 
 be world-wide in fact: “Yea all kings shall serve him,” (Ps. lxxii: n). 
 It is beneficent in its character. “He shall save the poor and needy.” 
 It is perpetual: “ His name shall endure for ever.” It is just in its 
 administration. “In his days shall the righteous flourish, and abun- 
 dance of peace so long as the moon endureth.” This is the spirit of 
 the kingdom to which we belong. It is foreshadowed in the seventy- 
 second Psalm — an ode which for completeness, elevation and grandeur 
 of conception, is without a rival even in the Psalms themselves; the 
 theocratic rule of David and his son forming the starting point whence 
 inspiration rises to the delineation of Messiah’s world-wide and everlast- 
 ing kingdom. He who occupies its throne died — died to lay the foun- 
 dation of the kingdom — died to conquer the last enemy in death.. “ I 
 am he that liveth, and was dead, and I am alive for evermore.” If this 
 Psalm was — as many have alleged, and the postscript seems to suggest — 
 David’s death song, with what point and emphasis does he say “He 
 shall live, and to Him shall be given of the gold of Sheba — prayer also 
 shall be made for him continually (“My kingdom come”) and daily 
 shall he be praised.” Other kingdoms are maintained by the taxation 
 of their subjects ; they desire the welfare and success of that which 
 they enjoy in common ; and they feel that the glories of their sovereign 
 are in some sense theirs. And so, contrary to the expectations of them 
 who crucified the Lord of glory, it is with Him. And the grouping is 
 significant. Gold, and not the “gold of Ophir,” which would have 
 been the term if its mere excellence were in question, but gold of Sheba, 
 the strangers’ gold, foreigners’ gold — gold from those who, like Sheba’s 
 queen, are drawn by His wisdom to Him — this gold is linked with 
 prayer and praise, as the things to be given to Him. The divine plan 
 is to reconquer what has been used against His kingdom. Gold has 
 been the tempter of multitudes. It is not bad in itself. Like every 
 creature of God it is good. It is the inordinate love of it that is a root 
 of evil, not the aurum , but the auri sacra fames of Virgil, the accursed 
 hunger for it, that has wrought the ruin. Aaron and the people can 
 
2 6 
 
 make it into a golden calf that shall dishonor God, but Moses can em- 
 ploy it to frame the mercy seat; a wedge of it may ensnare Achan,* 
 but none the less it may be the honorable badge of high office around 
 the neck of Joseph. With gold the god of this world can dazzle, and 
 blind, and ruin his subjects ; with gold the Saviour of mankind can be 
 honored and served. To Him, as His subjects, we are pledged. 
 
 In what ways, theft, can money be given to Him? In the Old Tes- 
 tament and in the New, objects like the following have been urged 
 upon the Lord’s servants : 
 
 i. The Care of the Poor. They were commended to the kindness 
 of the ancient church in various ways. The fields were reaped with 
 regard to them, something being left on the corners for the gleaners. 
 The festivals were framed with regard to them, a portion to the poor 
 being included in the rejoicings of (Jod’s happy servants. The Sabbat- 
 ical year contemplated them, and gave them some share in the products 
 •of the earth that year. Loans were to be made to them without interest 
 and without their garments as a pledge. Portions of the Levitical tithes 
 were set apart for their use. Their permanent bondage to any one was 
 forbidden, the Jubilee setting the embarrassed free, and giving them the 
 right to re-enter their land if it had become alienated. The scrupulous 
 payment of their wages is everywhere enjoined; and in a word it is 
 impossible to think of a kinder, wiser or more humane legislation for 
 the poor than we find in the Mosaic arrangements. It is impossible to 
 explain this on any other theory than their divine origin. How other- 
 wise should the Hebrews, just freed from a degrading bondage, have 
 risen at a single bound, to the framing of a social code a thousand years 
 in advance of the most civilized nations around them ? 
 
 We pass into the New Testament, and the goodly tradition runs on 
 into the Christian Church. Special officers are chosen by the Christian 
 people for the care of the Christian poor. The Deacons of Acts vi, 
 contemplated the systematic care of the widows. To “remember the 
 poor ” was a charge to Paul and Barnabas when sent out to the Gentiles, 
 (Gal. ii : io,) and systematic provision for poor widows was a part of 
 the machinery of the primitive church, (i Tim. v : 3-10) They con- 
 stitute the wealth of a church in the eyes of ancient saints, who regarded 
 the Saviour as meaning what He said (in Matt, xxv: 40), “Ye have 
 done unto me what ye did for the least of these my brethren.” One of 
 the greatest curses mediaeval corruption inflicted upon men, and for 
 which it ought never to have forgiveness, was the turning of gentle, 
 scriptural, holy, generous charity into a penance and the price in a 
 bargain with the Almighty, who is bought off with so much goods flung 
 to Him, sometimes from a hand stiffening in death. Charity was an 
 angel from heaven. Superstition degraded her into a chaffering par- 
 don-broker, negotiating purchases at the cheapest rates of homesteads 
 and possessions in the heavenly Jerusalem. 
 
 But this must not blind us to the truth that the aid of the poor is one 
 of the uses of money for Christ. Of course their claim upon us is not 
 uniform. Our kindred first, is the Bible rule ; then our own church, 
 our own city, our own country — such would probably be the order both 
 of nature and of grace. The problem of the poor threatens to be a 
 
 'It is surely a significant warning against covetousness among God’s professing people, that 
 Aci an, at the entrance of the people into Palestine, and Ananias and Sapphira, at the planting of 
 the Christian Church, should have been made such signal examples of God’s hate of this sin. 
 
27 
 
 grave one in this country, and we are in a great degree unprepared for 
 it. It would be a step in the direction of its adjustment, if we made a 
 clear division of them into two classes — those who are in church con- 
 nection, and those who are not. The former the churches could and 
 should look after. The latter have only the claim of citizens on the 
 State and should be sustained by taxation. Both Church and State 
 would have, on this plan, the strongest reasons to limit the number of 
 idle dependents. For when it is said “ the poor shall not cease out of 
 the land,” it is not meant that the same individuals and families, from 
 generation to generation, shall be in poverty, but that from various 
 causes persons will become poor and helpless. The aim of the com- 
 munity ought to be as of the church by its nature, to lift up out of 
 poverty and raise to intelligence and independence. The gain to the 
 poor would be great in making it their interest to be in real connexion 
 with the church, for human virtue is so weak that it needs to be “shored 
 up” to the utmost possible extent; and in the degree in which churches 
 provided for their own, in that degree would the burden be lightened 
 upon them, in common with the community, and church influences of 
 the right kind would constantly diminish the number of the poor — on 
 the one hand by their preventive, and on the other by their elevating 
 tendencies. We say “preventive,” for a true church wages incessant 
 war with the improvidence, idleness, drunkenness, uncleanness and 
 like vices, which are the too fertile producers of our pauperism. 
 
 It may be thought the burden of our poor would be too heavy on 
 many congregations. Where is the evidence ? Where the effort has 
 been honestly and wisely made it has been successful. If a congrega- 
 tion is poor, then associate sister churches and make the object a com- 
 mon one. Cases in point could be produced. I have pleasure and 
 pride in reporting of the Irish Presbyterian Church with some six hun- 
 dred congregations, and by no means the richest part of the commu- 
 nity, that she has provided within a few years, a fund so administered, 
 that no orphans of her deceased members shall lack Christian care, 
 provision, and education. In point of fact comparatively few of her 
 members ever obtain public relief, and I have no doubt, with a little 
 organization, she could take care of them all. I shall count it a good 
 day when such shall be the avowed policy of the American churches.* 
 
 2. The maintenance of Divine ordinances and of the plans and the 
 persons needful to that maintenance requires our means. You do not 
 need to be reminded how the gifts of the people furnished means for 
 the costly tabernacle in the wilderness — wonderfully costly — considering 
 their position, if the estimate of Prideaux be near the truth, namely, 
 $1,220,600. Nor do we need to recall the munificence of king and 
 people in providing the temple. Solomon found the means, and was 
 
 * Self-defense ought to stimulate effort in this direction. Appalling crimes are too common. All 
 sorts of fanatical “issues” find favor among the ignorant. Do not these poor dupes and wretched 
 criminals cry in their misery for light and saving Christian influences? Even in things natural and 
 physical there is a voice from their wretchedness How much need there is of preventive help to 
 come and save the sufferers from the merciful hospital, which otherwise will be needful by and by? 
 Here is a half-naked child, laying the foundation of consumption, and to be a burden on the com- 
 munity. There is a poor drunkard getting ready for paralysis— yonder an over-wrought mother 
 preparing for “the incurable here a damp, unsavory den, is generating fever for the inmates and 
 for the better-lodged neighbors hard by; and these, more pitiful still ! the profligate and polluted 
 group, beside and around which the decent poor cannot but live, the young to be steadily contami- 
 nated by them and made ready for the police court and the prison, for infamy and misery. We 
 have not, indeed,— except in some of our great cities— such masses of poverty and ignorance as 
 amaze and terrify in the old world, but the present is our opportunity, while the evil is manageable, 
 to ward off such calamities from the country of the future, and meantime “to do good and to com- 
 municate ” on the lar a esc scale. 
 
28 
 
 able to pay for the work as it advanced, though it is estimated that the 
 royal contribution was $90,000,000, and the people’s $150,000,000. 
 When dedicated it was a clear offering to God. The sacred edifice was 
 at once God’s and the people’s. They could truly call it “our holy 
 and beautiful house,” and yet the temple of the Lord. There were no 
 builders’ liens upon it. Hiram had no mortgage upon it for his part of 
 the work. What a gain it will be to religion in ways that are on, and 
 in ways that are under, the surface, when the same plan is pursued 
 with all Christian churches ! 
 
 The Jewish law provided for the men for the temple service. Sus- 
 tained by the rest was a whole tribe whose members were distributed 
 in part through the land — educators, priests, Levites, among the peo- 
 ple, of them, with common ties, cares, interests, family sympathies ; 
 for a celibate priesthood was not provided. 
 
 In the New Testament the same principle — that the servants at the 
 altar should live by it — is forcibly inculcated. Purse and scrip were 
 forbidden by Christ to the disciples, (Matt, x: 9, 10) whom He sent 
 out, (Luke x: 4-9). Paul reasons out the question carefully as to the 
 obligation of the recipients of spiritual things to minister of their carnal 
 things, (1 Cor. ch. ix), though for prudential reasons, in some instances 
 he did not avail himself of his right. 
 
 The ministry of the word, in all churches, Protestant, Roman Cath- 
 olic or Jewish, in churches established by the State, or in churches act- 
 ing on the voluntary principle, it is acknowledged on all hands ought 
 to be supported. 
 
 This implies the training of ministers, the requisite preliminary educa- 
 tion in colleges and seminaries. Elevation of ministerial support will 
 gradually diminish the calls on the churches at this end, for when the 
 temptation to well-to-do young men to stay away from the hardships 
 and poverty of the calling, is removed, they will in far larger numbers 
 be educated at their own- or their families’ expense. 
 
 Now it may be said that if clergymen fix the standard of their living 
 too high, that is their own affair, and there is no obligation on the 
 Christian people to come up to it. This objection is so natural and so 
 plausible that it ought to be dealt with at a little length. In point of 
 fact, it is not the ministers but the people who fix the scale of the min- 
 isters’ outlay. You- can see this yourselves when you stop to reflect. 
 Let any congregation in this State call a minister, and is it not well 
 enough known beforehand in what kind of home he should live, what 
 sort of establishment he should maintain !* Let him fall conspicuously 
 below the estimate and he is censured; and he knows that. Let a min- 
 ister in this city appear on the streets in conspicuously bad attire and 
 would not his people soon say “ it is a shame “it is a disgrace,” 
 namely, to them. He reflects dishonor on them. Now all clergymen 
 well know this, and they sacrifice much rather than sacrifice moral 
 
 *Here is one great advantage of a mini iter being provided with an official residence, call it “Par- 
 sonage,” or “ Manse,” the English and Scotch terms, linked with many a blessed memory and 
 hallowed association, or by any other name you will. He is s ived the discussion of most perplexing 
 questions just at the time when all his energies ought to be free for taking up his work; and his 
 wife is saved a world of trouble. If the house is in a fashionable quarter, his numbler people can- 
 not complain as if he were “taking airs on him,” nor the richer, as if he rivalled them. If it is in 
 an unfashionable end of the town, the richer members cannot find fault with him for forgetting 
 what is due to them by their pastor. If the wife of a rich deacon or trustee feels it awkward to 
 drive to a very “ shady ” quarter to see her past r's family, it is not the minister, but her husband 
 and his friends who settled the location ; or, if the minister himself feels that the h use is more 
 showy or expensive t.ian his moans warrant, it is a little consolation to know that he did not make 
 the se ection. 
 
influence. It was cruel in Pharaoh’s court to require the Hebrews to 
 make brick without straw, and it is a more refined and less excusable 
 form of it in our Christian congregations when they require ministers 
 to conform to all the requirements of what is known as a gentleman on 
 the income of a mechanic. There are ministers in abundance in this 
 State who must be men of education, character and ability, watchmen 
 on the walls of Zion, whose financial position would be improved if 
 they were watchmen on the streets of New York city, and the moral 
 •qualifications could be dispensed with. Even the ministers best sup- 
 ported in our largest cities in multitudes of cases eke out the means 
 needed to supply ordinances to their congregations — on the scale and 
 .according to their standard of the congregations — by the money they earn by 
 their pens, or otherwise, or by the money which belongs to their fami- 
 lies, and ought to be transmitted. They thus become, in point of fact, 
 the largest contributors to the maintenance of ordinances in many con- 
 gregations.* 
 
 The claim of the ministry is not upon charity, but upon justice ; and 
 to put the contributions in this direction among “charities,” is hardly 
 fair to the ministry, nor true to the truth of things. Lawyers, on proper 
 occasions, attend to our secular interests and aid us ; doctors of medi- 
 cine to our bodily ailments; clergymen to the moral and spiritual 
 instruction of our own and our children’s children ; and it is hard to see 
 why the one should have a just and the other only a charitable claim. 
 In all these cases the parties are called to the work, and in all of them 
 there is a certain honorable delicacy that forbids a bargain beforehand. 
 The difference, however, is that members of the other two learned pro- 
 fessions can send in their accounts, while ordinarily the minister has a 
 contract beforehand, in which, however, the same delicacy on his side 
 is intensified by other considerations peculiar to his profession. 
 
 I do not think myself singular in the opinion that there is need to 
 discuss this question before our thoughtful Christian people. It is 
 attended with this infelicity that the men who know the case best are 
 precluded from expounding it, by a feeling that is creditable to them — 
 an unwillingness to seem to plead their own cause in the Lord’s name. 
 An impression also exists that though ministers’ salaries are small in too 
 many cases, so numerous and valuable perquisites come to them that 
 they are enriched. On this, two remarks may be made, (a) The 
 whole system of perquisites is of doubtful worth. In political,, com- 
 mercial, professional life, there is always danger, from the very weak- 
 ness of human nature, of turning the eye towards the uncertain element 
 of perquisites, since the fixed part of the income will be available at 
 any rate. It is to me a grave question whether it would not be a wise 
 thing for clergymen to forego all special privileges — in bookstores, on 
 railroads, and so forth, and insist on paying their way like other gen- 
 tlemen, and being supported accordingly. Whenever such things 
 come in to eke out an insufficient salary, they make consciences easy 
 that ought to be troubled, and they can hardly help carrying some taint 
 
 *Take a case. A minister is called to a charge on a salary of $2,500. Before he settles, his con- 
 gregation take a house for him, at his expense, at $1,500. The balance of a thousand dollars and 
 his own means are expected to secure to them a sufficiently respectable ministry. This is a very 
 aggravated fonn of the evil. But if a minister, as any one can see, can only maintain his place at 
 a cost of three thousand dollars, and his people give him but two, or in the country at a cost of 
 $ 1 , 500 , and they give him a thousand, he has to make up the balance or be in debt ; and, in either 
 case, there is loss, first and heaviest to the congregation, then to the minister in a vexed and 
 •depressed spirit, then to the whole church, and then to the community. 
 
3 ® 
 
 of humiliaion to the recipient. Are not “ donation parties” the laugh- 
 ing stock of intelligent people, the “ pious frauds” of Protestantism? 
 
 (b) There is great danger of ministers suffering from the exagger- 
 ated popular estimate of the irregular additions to their salaries, as 
 from wedding-fees and the like. I heard a number of clergymen of 
 the richest congregations of New York talk of this thing, and every 
 one of them would willingly have commuted all such for less than 
 five hundred dollars a year — not a large sum to a clergyman’s family 
 in a great, city. 
 
 3. The diffusion of the light of the gospel is another of the objects 
 for which money is to be used. No Tract Society, or Bible Society, 
 or mission enterprise can be maintained without money. There are 
 gains in security, peace, commerce, prosperity, and above all in moral 
 and spiritual benefits from these outlays : but there are not gains in 
 kind to the giver. His work is one of faith. Men often buy and lay 
 aside stocks that are cheap now, because paying no dividend, but of 
 which they believe ‘ ‘that they will come up.” They are not certain 
 when, but they are willing to wait. Faith in Jesus Christ when it 
 gives does not look for dividends now, but they will come, and often 
 sooner than from the earthly investments. It is not laying out but 
 laying up. The Christian is making — if in the right spirit — an invest- 
 ment in a new world which is sure to pay him a hundred fold. 
 
 Here we come upon ground on which conviction is sufficiently clear 
 and duty is generally acknowleged. It is not needful to linger upon 
 it. Rather let what remains of this lecture occupy itself with some 
 further reference to the way of giving, and the reasons for right prac- 
 tice in this matter. 
 
 Is it necessary to emphasize willingness as a mark of true giving? 
 What an example the poor returned captives of Ezra’s time set ! They 
 were not above forty-two thousand, and not rich, but they laid out 
 half a million of our money on the temple (Ez. ii: 68, 69), and instead 
 of having to be solicited they offered freely. “The Lord loveth 
 a cheerful giver.” Sometimes a gift is marred in the giving to a fel- 
 low-man as it detects some feeling in the act that wounds, or humili- 
 ates him, or shows it to be constraint. Now the Lord looketh on the 
 heart. No ease or grace of manner can deceive Him. How can we 
 attain to this willingness? Only by remembering how Christ gave 
 Himself for us, and that we voluntarily gave ourselves to Him. 
 
 Is it needful to revert to unostentatiousness as a feature of true giving? 
 To God, not to the church, or to the society, or to the world, is the 
 gift bestowed. When the motive is “to be seen of men,” all claim 
 upon God is annulled. Common delicacy indeed prevents refined 
 persons from sounding a trumpet before them, “as the. hypocrites 
 do ; ” but agents and collectors and secretaries find out what is palatable 
 and do it after them. There are times when donations ought to be 
 public, but of course giving as an advertisement, as a means of bol- 
 stering up credit, of making a name, of paying for an honor, or for a 
 place, need not be named among us. These transactions are not 
 Christian “giving” at all, but barter, dishonorable to one party and 
 sometimes to both. 
 
 Is it needful to say that we should give under the conviction that 
 we are ste 7 vards ? Can we meet Him whose stewards we are and give 
 account to Him ? Shall it be with joy and not with grief? We heap 
 
3 1 
 
 odium on men unfaithful to their trusts,* and so we should, for fidelity 
 and honor lie at the basis of all confidence and comfort in commercial 
 life, and in family relations. How shall we stand before the owner of 
 all who has entrusted much to our hands ? Rich speculators are some- 
 times heard of as “unloading” stocks whose depreciation is imminent. 
 And many men would do well to “unload” that which they might 
 have turned to glorious uses, but which in a little time will be to them 
 useless, if not worse. 
 
 And why should you give? It is one of the evidences of character. 
 We know men’s tastes, desires, aims, by the objects on which they lay 
 out their money. Men of artistic tastes purchase costly works of art. 
 The man of enterprise pushes new industries. The voluptuary pays 
 enormously for his pleasure of palate, or of lawless passion. The 
 politician gives for party aggrandizement perhaps with a view to per- 
 sonal advancement. The humane and benevolent find their appro- 
 priate and congenial objects. There are known rich men in most 
 cities with plenty of money of which they make no use, before whom 
 if you put a religious cause they would tell you “it is not in their 
 way.” They recognize the character that is in giving. A subscription 
 from some of them would surprise the community almost as much as 
 a donation to a race course from prominent Christians. This test is 
 universally recognized. Here, therefore, is one of^ the ways of con- 
 • fessing Christ. You sing, pray to Him, praise Him. This is good. 
 Mind and body do Him homage. Estate remains — the third element 
 of your life. It is said that when the Emperor of Russia lately called 
 for a loan it was promptly subscribed, and a reason given was the 
 personal popularity of the Emperor. But our King is warring always 
 for truth and goodness — against all evil. How shall we prove our 
 loyalty and devotion to Him if we withhold the gold which He has 
 put into our hands ? 
 
 Giving is a needful discipline, a salutary check on selfishness. When 
 Job protests his integrity (in ch. xxxi: 24), one of his disclaimers is, 
 “If I have made gold my hope, or said to fine gold thou art my con- 
 fidence.” Not many men happily acquire a sordid love for it, in itself. 
 Many, however, with splendid features of character, do become fas- 
 cinated with the making of it, and are so busy in it that they let it lie 
 in heaps unused behind them, like the hunters on the plains who used 
 to shoot the buffalo, not because they wanted them, but for the excite- 
 ment of shooting. Such need to conquer themselves and educate 
 themselves until they feel it to be more blessed to give than to receive. 
 God could do without our giving, but we cannot. 
 
 If we fail in this matter of stewardship we shall be reminded of our 
 failure by the God of providence. He did not allow Abraham, or 
 Jacob, or Isaac, or David, or Moses, or Hezekiah to escape the tem- 
 poral consequences of their respective sins. Nor can we count on 
 such escape. Nor has He any lack of ways of taking vengeance of 
 our inventions. If we sin as to means He can withdraw them from 
 us. A fire, a panic, a war, a shrinkage can come in His providence. 
 No more rapidly did Jonah’s gourd wither than our possessions melt 
 away ! Men fail to realize that all is in His hand. Or he can leave 
 
 * It is curious and suggestive that from the Latin maleficentia we get through the French the legal 
 word for unfaithful stewardship, mal-feamncz. The antithesis of maleficentia is beneficentia. 
 
3 2 
 
 3 0112 058799179 
 
 them with us, without their yielding us any comfort. Some of the 
 richest men are not at all happy men, their very wealth in many cases 
 burdening their minds, embittering their closing years, and in the 
 quarrels over it when they are gone, exposing the least lovely portions 
 of their lives. Or leaving our means with us and allowing us to enjoy 
 them in some degree, He can leave us and ours to ourselves so much 
 that the means become a source of envy, jealousy, wrath and strife, 
 and bitter quarrels among those who ought to be bound together in 
 love. Nor does it require you to be a millionaire to realize this. All 
 wealth is relative. Family jars can be called out over a thousand dol- 
 lars as easily as over a million. The apple of discord was of gold. 
 How often the gold that was hoarded, against duty, conscience and 
 generous impulses, becomes an apple of discord among men and 
 women of the same flesh and blood ! The law-courts sometimes let in 
 light on the hateful, pitiful, spiteful war, and the poor, as they read it 
 or hear of it, thank God that no one will fight over their spoils when 
 they are gone! ~ * ' 
 
 Or He can turn our means into a curse to those who inherit them, 
 for a curse can cling to property. How many men, aye, and women, 
 stumble in the race of life, not because they were poor, but because 
 they were rich. The profligate spendthrift is the scourge God often 
 lays on the back of the ambitious father, who meant to found a house 
 and leave a family rich, and who sees him a roue and a wreck. I have • 
 never seen more bitter tears than those that overflowed an aged father’s 
 eyes in just such circumstances. “I have toiled, and slaved, and have 
 been counted a miser, and it was all to make him a man ; and he tram- 
 ples over- me, and wishes I were dead that he might be free to waste 
 
 all.” 
 
 And now in closing these addresses, in hearing which great numbers 
 have shown great patience, let me speak a concluding word to any 
 who have never made the original consecrating act of themselves to 
 our Heavenly King. Oh ye, who are yet uncommitted to this King- 
 dom, let me beg you to come to His side for all you need. Come to 
 His cross for pardon. Let Him speak to you. Speak to Him, “ Lord 
 remember me.” Listen to His word, “Thou shalt be with me in para- 
 dise.” Come to His throne for grace, strength, patience, help. “ My 
 grace is sufficient.” With His strength perfected in your weakness 
 what cannot you do ? Come to His table for spiritual nourishment. 
 You wrong yourself if you believe and yet stay away. Remember 
 Paul in the storm and tempest beseeching the sailors to take some 
 meat. (Acts xxviii: 32, 33, 34.) Oh friends, the storms of life, its 
 temptations, sorrows, are many and severe. I pray you to take this 
 meat of the Lord’s providing, and be of good cheer and doubt not 
 that He will bring you through. 
 
 And as for you who have believed and are living to Him — giving 
 gold, prayer, praise— you are on the way to another land. How much 
 of all that men count dear here is taken to represent its glory, crowns 
 of gold, harps of gold, the very streets of pure gold, like unto clear 
 glass. “And the gold of that land is good” — never tarnishes ; is never 
 lost or stolen ; never fails to satisfy ; never rusts so that the rust of it 
 eats the soul ; never hardens the heart, nor petrifies the feelings. t Go 
 on your way gladly; the rest is near, and it is glorious.