Year: 1879

| Why do we prefer the free-gift system to the
pew-rent system of sustaining churches2
l. Because it is certainly Scriptural, and we
think the other has no Scripture authority either
expressed or implied.


2. Because by it a man gives in proportion to the
largeness of his heart and purse, and not accord
ing to the largeness of his family. Indeed, the
family that requires most sittngs for its accommo-
dation is, perhaps, on that very account the one
that can contribute least to the church.


3. Graduated pew-rents secure all the best seats
for the wealthiest families, which is most clearly
anti-Scriptural, being that respect of persons in
the meetings of Christian brethren which is dis
tinctly condemned. The poor brother rich in faith,
may be doing far more by his prayers and labors
for the church than the rich brother by the liberal
contributions of money and, therefore, poor, and
rich, being all equal in the sight of God, should,
be equal in church privileges and aceOmmoda-
tions.


4. Because rent is business transaction, an OBJ
legation which may be collected by law, whereas
the means of sustaining divine ordinances should
be derived from gifts to God.


5. Because rent is only paid yearly, half yearly
or quarterly, whereas the expenses of the church,
including minister's salary, ETC., are continuous,
and the Scripture is to give weekly on the Lords
day.


6. Because money is much more easily collected
when the people bring it willingly as an offering
to the Lord weekly, than it is when a sexton has
to be sent around quartely to dun delinquents for
pew-rent as a debt.


7. Because the voluntary gift system not only
yields revenus more regularly and continuously,
but also greatly increases it. A poor family which
would pay SO year with difficulty quarterly for
pew rents would willingly and regularly give 25
cents each Sunday to the church funds, being an
increase of one-third. We once knew q hard
workingman who gould not venture to promise 81
year for the accommodation his family required,
but who most gladly agreed to give ten cents a
week, being an increase of 80 per cent. A young
workingman who would only pay 81 year for
sitting, gladly gave ten cents a week, or two and
a half times as much.


In the pew rent system the father pays the whole
amount; in the voluntary offering system, each
member of the family should give something,
habit which would greatly benefit them all. Sup
pose a well-to-do family of father and mother and
four children attend church. They pay for good
fve-seat pew, say S25 year. Uuder the free gift
system the father and mother would probably give
quarter of dollar week each, and each of the
four children five cents, maIi--;,S~ 80 Giving and
aroaso of ncarlv aftv per cent. IN gN'H6 IH6aracter
of the family.


We have never known of case of failure where
the free gift system was fairly tried and fully ex
planned so that every member of the church and
congregation knew the responsibility resting on
them and all were left entirely free to themselves
There is usually some lack of faith, some halting
between two, some clinging in part to the old
method where there is a going back to pew rents
again, thing which we believe very rarely hap
pens.-Ne,o York Witness.