284 MONEY IN THE CHURCH. xxviii. 19.20; Acts ii. 41-42.) On the subject of the "eternal sonship" "the Brethren" are as orthodox as the Westminster Confession and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, though I hope they do not carry the matter so high as the Athanasian Creed, which declares this to be a part of the "catholic faith,' "which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." I would have preached with much pleasure on the Lord's-day for one of the Presbyterian ministers of Coleraine, but preferred an invitation from the Presbyterian minister of Portstuart. After officiating twice in the "church," I preached in the evening in a lecture room fitted up by one of the elders, and in which he himself holds forth the word of life every Sabbath even. ing. On Thursday evening I preached again in the same place, and on Friday returned to feed my own flock. May the Divine Spirit water the seed sown with the showers that descend from the celestial hills. JOHN BROWN. Conlig Manse, Newtownards, Ireland, 1st July, 1863. Harbinger, Aug. 1, '63. writer, no doubt, means Baptist churches. But a church with a distinctive name-be it Baptist or any other receiving to the Lord's table those for whose reception God's Word gives neither command nor example, or requiring in order to membership subscription to dogmas expressed in unscriptural terms, is not that institution designated in the New Testament "THE CHURCH." It may have many Christians in it, but as an institution it is not Christian, and ought not to exist. Then our good Brother Brown preaches for Presbyterian ministers. Paul, we have no doubt, were he here, would preach, if permitted, in St. Peter's at Rome, St. Paul's London, or in any Presbyterian chapel in Ireland, and so should J. B. and every preaching servant of the Lord. But Paul would do only as he did in the synagogues. He would no more preach in one or other of the places named in such a manner as to amount to a recognition of the Church of Rome, the Church of England, or the Presbyterian church as Christian than he would confound the Old Covenant with the New. And if our Brother Brown will preach the whole truth when he enters a Presbyterian pulpit, he will unchurch that church, denounce its baptism as an injurious superstition, and find himself without an invitation to return. If it be otherwise, we shall be most happy to make tour with him, preaching the primitive plan of salvation and church order in Presbyterian churches. The results of the revival are those common to revivals and such as we expected from what we witnessed in Ireland. OPEN COUNCIL. ED. SIR, I have perused the two able ar- | B. Hederic; and this may be justly ticles in the December number of your Anglicised by "sympathy." Out of these magazine, one from the pen of D. K. various renderings, the context alone and one from that of P. Cooke, and feel can be our guide as to what is meant persuaded that one source of the evil here, and this context appears to point complained of arises from a misconcep- to that friendly intimacy, that mutual tion of what is meant by kaì tỷ Kowwvia love, that sympathy which existed be(Acts ii. 42.) I expect that not only you, tween the members, like that which exbut a great majority of the brethren, isted between the Apostles, and menwill not coincide with me in this mat- tioned in Acts ii. 1, "They were all ter, but I shall not write in vain if I with one accord in one place." If it succeed in arousing enquiry respecting refers to temporal goods, it must refer it. Granted that ή κοινωνία means to a community of goods, v. 44, “ All "communion, participation, society, be- that believed had all things common;" neficence, alms-giving," it will fairly and unless brethren who regard κowwvia bear the rendering alliance, friendly in v. 42 as referring to temporal goods intimacy, relationship"-Giles; "inter- are prepared to advocate "communism, consortium"-liberty, equality, and fraternity," after 66 course"-Schrevelius; Harbinger, Aug. 1, '63. yea, 66 66 MONEY IN THE CHURCH. the fashion of Proudhon, I consider them inconsistent. That this community of goods was not a permanent institution, other parts of the New Testament shew, as 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18. Timo thy was required to "charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches," but they were to do good" with them, and to be "ready to distribute," willing to communicate," "to be rich in good works." He reminds them that trusting in them would be but trusting to a rope of sand, that they were at best uncertain. Uncertain he might well call them uncertain you find them on your side of the globe, but more uncertain here. Such an injunction as this would be unintelligible, if all were required to be on the same level in temporal things. Nay, communism is contrary to the whole genius of Christianity, for it requires voluntariness, free-will offerings, and this can never be if the donor have no power to withhold. If no one can be a follower of the Lord Jesus, unless he at the outset casts the whole of his worldly possessions into a common treasury, what can be the meaning of such an exhortation as Charge them that are rich," &c.? No, Sir, not thus, but Christianity requires him to give "as he purposeth in his heart," but reminds him that "God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. ix. 7)— and another portion of Holy Writ states that "There is that scattereth and yet increaseth, and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty;" and " The liberal soul shall be made fat; and he that watereth shall be watered also himself" (Prov. xi. 24, 25.) 66 But if kovovía in the sense of a weekly contribution had been an institution from the beginning, methinks Paul would have addressed the Corinthians differently on the subject. Respecting the breaking of bread he writes, 1 Cor. xi. 23, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks he brake it and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.' But with respect to a collection for the 285 poor, how differently does he write! In the same letter, xvi. 1, Hepì dè rîs λoyías τῆς εις τους άγιους, ὥσπερ διεταξα ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ταλατιάς, οὕτω και ὑμεῖς оinσate. 66 66 Now concerning the collection" "as I have given order" so do ye." This bears the impress of his having been written to for advice on this as well as on other subjects, (vide vii. 1) and that he was then replying to their queries. But if the Corinthians had understood the fellowship to be what the majority of our brethren appear to understand by it, what necessity would there have been for them to consult Paul on the matter? They would have known without this that they were required "upon the first day of the week,' every one of them" " to lay by in store as God had prospered him." And when he gave them this direction he did not tell them that it must be done at the exact time of breaking bread, but it would appear that these Corinthians would have obeyed the injunction of the Apostle if they had deposited their gifts in the treasury either when entering or when leaving their place of meeting. 66 66 Mistake me not, Sir, by supposing that I deny that kovovia has the meaning both of contribution and distribution, or that ʼn kowwvia should be merely good wishes, or that it should find its ultimatum in Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled" and yet not give those things which are needful to the body;" but I maintain that the context of Acts ii. 42 shews that ʼn kowwvia there is something higher than alms-giving; not merely a kowvwvía between those who have had to give and those who have had to receive, but a κowvwvia between giver and giver and receiver and receiver, as well as between giver and receiver. I would wish brethren for the season to leave mundane affairs below while they go up and worship the Lord yonder, and to enjoy that kovovía of recognizing each other as joint heirs with Christ travelling through this time state to a glorious immortality. Is it replied-What, then, would you neglect the sick and destitute members? By no means, for we are required as we have opportunity to do good unto all, especially-especially unto them who are of the household of faith. Yes, we must strive to do good to all, but in the highest degree to the household of faith (Gal. 286 MONEY IN THE CHURCH. vi. 10.) No, I would not neglect these, but I do not think that this alms-giving is referred to in Acts ii. 42. That is the question. While remembering this, we must strive after that κowwvía of which John writes in his 1st Epistle, "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship (kovovía) with us and truly our fellowship (Kowvwvía) is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. *If we say that we have fellowship (KoLvovía) with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship (kovovia) and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin." * Again, Paul's directions to Timothy appear to imply that the sick, the aged, and the helpless, but not the lazy, should if possible be provided for by their own families, and that only those should be chargeable to the church who are destitute indeed, who have no relatives in the church to whom they can look. “If any widow have children or nephews (ekyova) let them learn first to shew pity at home, and to requite (to render, return to) their parents." Allow me to remark here that this" shewing pity" must include the practical development of that which they who profess a love towards Jesus declare to be within them, and without this practical development all their profession must appear to others to be but an empty sound. Also, that the word "nephews" is not in our time a good rendering of the original. This is no fault of the translators-it was good enough in their day -but the word has been gradually narrowed in its meaning until now it has a comparatively limited signification. When our translation was made, nephews" was equivalent to the Latin "nepotes" or proles," and these to the Greek và ěkyova, so that all lineal descendants are included in the term. Hooker, Shakespere, Spenser, and other writers of the time thus use the word nephews." Now I think we may conclude from this that all those who were in this manner contributing to the sup port of their destitute relatives, could not have been expected, to the same extent as others, to contribute to the general fund for the relief of the poor, and would to that extent have been precluded from a participation in the 66 Harbinger, Aug. 1, '63. fellowship if we are to understand by kovovía alms-giving, but not if we understand that higher, more dignified fellowship, that Kowwvia for which I contend. The cognate words of Kowvwvia also shew that this is a fair translation. Let two instances suffice. 1 Cor. x. 20, "I would not that ye should have fellowship (Kowwvous) with devils- Eph. v. : 11, " Have no fellowship with (σvyko voveîre) the unfruitful works of darkness.' And the more we experience this high and holy relationship, the more shall we experience that the cup of blessing which we bless” is indeed to us "the communion (kowovía) of the blood of Christ," and "the bread which we break" is indeed to us 66 the communion (Kowvwvía) of the body of Christ” (1 Cor. x. 16.) 66 I have written thus because I fear that from a misunderstanding of this passage, and through the attention of brethren not having been directed to this point, they have not been so liberal as they otherwise would have been. What connection, it may be asked, can there be between a misunderstanding of this passage and a tightening of the purse-strings? It is this. Brethren have consoled themselves with the notion that they should only give to one common fund, and that if they give something to that, however trifling it may be, they have done all that is required of them. This assumption you have ably exposed, and I pray that it may produce its desired effect. We pro- | test against formality, but formality to a grievous extent has grown up in our midst. Looking around us it would appear that they who pay large sums quarterly for their one pastor, really give more towards the erection and maintenance of their places of meeting, and for the support of their various benevolent institutions, than those who do not have this heavy item. This thing ought not to be. I know the plea is that the various denominations collect from those who are not united in fellowship with them. Granted. But the salary of their one pastor is an equipoise to this, and we ought still to do as much as others towards a fund for the spread of the Gospel. There appears to be great danger of the brethren and sisters forgetting that under the Christian as well as under the Jewish dispensation, we are to honor the Lord with our substance, ין Harbinger, Aug. 1, '63. MONEY IN THE CHURCH. 287 B. were to exercise more thrift, he would be able to dispense with many of his excuses, and he would understand somewhat of the feeling of a poor woman in the State of New York, who, when a collector for a benevolent institution was in her neighborhood offered him 50 cents. which he was about to decline, thinking that from her deep poverty he ought not to take so much; she replied, be permitted to share in this good work?" Brethren should remember, that as they protest against the indiscriminate begging from the world, that not only does not this liberate them from giving, but on the contrary binds the obligation on them still more strongly. Those who have the most should give the most, but all should take a part. The Macedonian Christians were very poor-they were in deep poverty-they were in a great trial of affliction," and yet they gave very liberally; beyond their power they were willing of themselves, praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and the fellowship of ministering to the saints." May we each and all become more like these! and that we ought to do this liberally, cheerfully, and with a willing mind. Numbers when appealed to either excuse themselves from giving on the plea that they cannot afford it, (a very vague reply) or else after spending their income in a wasteful manner, manifest their zeal for the gospel by placing occasionally in the collection box a very small coin of the realm, which is to defray current expenses, be something towards" What have I done that I should not spreading the Gospel, and relieving the destitute. Mighty generous people, these! And if anything should prevent their attendance on the Lord's day, the meeting is not only minus their presence, but the collection box minus their contribution, for next Lord's day the officers of the church do not find a corresponding increase. But stop perhaps it is there, but of such ordinary dimensions that the officers are not cognizant of it. I am not writing of the really poor-of those who have not to give but of those who ought to give more than they really do-of those who drop into the box coins which they would be ashamed of were their giving exposed to the eye of all. The genus E. B. is unfortunately not confined to your side of the world. Various specimens of the individual are found here, and it would be well if they recognized their portrait, for it is evidently taken from life. There is one thing in which we find this genus very prolific, and that is in excuses. These will flow freely and in any quantity, but which if fairly looked at would not afford balm for an uneasy conscience. I would not contend for any fixed proportion of a person's income being set apart, for I am persuaded that under the free dispensation in which we live none is needed, but each one is required to give as “ God hath prospered him." But this requires that whether a man's income be 10s. or £10 per week that he give somethingSOMEthing. Under the old economy if the mother could not offer a lamb she was to offer a pigeon (Lev. xii. 6-8); and when the Israelites appeared at the three great feasts they were enjoined not to appear before the Lord empty," but "every man was to give as he was able, according to the blessing of the Lord his God which he had given him" (Deut. xvi. 16, 17.) And are we, think you, allowed to be " empty handed" now? If an individual of the genus E. 66 In conclusion, permit me to state, that if any one can shew me that I have formed a wrong opinion of the meaning of Kowwvia I am willing to be set right. But should any brother defend the opinion which I believe to be commonly entertained as to its meaning, distance will prevent me from replying to whatever may be in his letter faulty and illogical, and therefore should feel grateful to any brother in the United Kingdom who agrees with me to defend what he considers its real meaning. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, Μαθητὴς. Victoria, Australia, March, 1863. REMARKS UPON THE ABOVE. The above is evidently from the pen of a thoughtful brother, whose heart is in the right place. This money question needs further examination, and we at once admit that what is called "attending to the fellowship," is with many a mere sham a paltry substitute for Christian liberality. That some churches have even the smallest right to expect the blessing of the Lord is out of the question, and that many members have no reason to anticipate other than se 288 MONEY IN THE CHURCH. Harbinger, Aug. 1, '63. vere reprobation when they come to and as a solemn offering to the Lord. give an account of their stewardship is We cannot admit that Kowvwvia may be also certain. More-the cause is stand-"justly Anglicised by sympathy," and ing still in many localities on account that by so rendering it we can make of unfaithfulness in this particular, and the fellowship of Acts ii. to consist of unless it is remedied churches will be mere sympathy. Neither do we admire cleared away as unworthy a place "contribution" as a rendering. "Felamong the Lord's golden candlesticks. lowship" is perhaps its best represenWe cannot, however, perceive that Ma- tative in our language not that theetees has placed his finger upon the shake-of-the-hand fellowship which is cause or indicated a remedy for the evil, too common, but as the word, accorexcepting so far as he urges increased ding to Johnson, Walker, and others liberality. He thinks a misunderstand- implies, partnership, with a share in ing of Acts ii. 42 must bear the blame. the revenue. The Greek word denotes He would not attend to the contribu- " joint participation," "having in comtion as an ordinance in connection with mon." The word does not in itself inbreaking the bread, &c. but would leave dicate the nature of the possession the contribution to be deposited upon which is had in common, but it affirms going in or coming out. But this plan only the partnership, the rest must be has been tried and, in each instance learned from the context. known to us, the amount contributed has been less than when given in connection with the breaking of bread. Still it may be that the attempt to meet every church expenditure from the one contribution has considerably Rom.xv. 26, Contribution Phil. i. 5, Fellowship Acts ii. 42. Fellowship Eph. iii. 9, Fellowship reduced the amount which otherwise 1 Cor. i. 9, Fellowship ii. 1, Fellowship would have been devoted to the work x. 16, Communion iii. 10, Fellowship Communion Philem. 6, Communication of the Lord. But the removal of the 2 Cor. vi. 14, Communion Heb. xiii. 16, Communicate one fixed contribution would certainly not mend the matter. But what do the Scriptures put before us in regard to this important duty? It is admitted that when money was required for needing brethren Paul called upon churches to lay up on the first of the week as God had prospered every member and, it is generally admitted, that this laying up was not each one putting aside in his own possession what he desired to devote (as then there would have been collecting when the Apostle came, which was the thing he sought to avoid), but laying up in the treasury of the church. Dr. McKnight, therefore, reads it, "putting it into the treasury. Let us then deem it settled, by clear New Testament example, that so long as brethren need support, or help, every member is called upon to contribute every first day to the church fund for that purpose, and according to his prosperity. Of course, should any church determine that this be done as members come in or retire, or in any other way, in preference to handing round a box at the Lord's table, there is liberty to do so, but we know of no better way than that of giving in connection with the breaking of the loaf Kotovía is found in the New Testa- ! ment in the following instances only, and translated in the Common Version as indicated viii. 4, Fellowship 99 ix. 13, Distribution xiii. 14, Communion Gal. ii 9, Fellowship 1 Jon. i. 3, Fellowship Fellowship 6, Fellowship 7, Fellowship Bearing in mind that fellowship denotes I. FELLOWSHIP in material things, as money, food, raiment, and the like, procurable with money— Rom. xv. 26, "For it has pleased them to make a certain fellowship for the poor saints." 2 Cor. viii. 4, " Praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints." 66 2 Cor. ix. 12-13, For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God; while by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal fellowship unto them." |