ART. VII.-FREE SEATS.

OUR friend of Pews, who took the field once more in the October number of the Review, in reply to our advocacy of Free Seats in July, complains that our "blows, however hearty and vigorous in themselves, are feeble in effect, because badly aimed." We shall try to come a little nearer to the mark this

time.

Our ground, in July, was clearly and definitely mapped out, and formed one consistent whole. We undertook to investigate whether of the two systems was to be preferred,-Free Seats? -or Pews? We began, therefore, by disentangling the discussion from its several side issues, as to having a part of the seats free," as to "large plate collections," and as to "courtesy;" showing that these, being points common to both, must be omitted from a consideration of the comparative claims of each, as rivals of each other. In this we acted on a simple mathematical principle, the correctness of which no one who has ever studied algebra as far as equations of the first degree, can question for a moment.

We then proceeded to lay down the definition of the two systems, in clear and precise terms. The testimony of History was examined, and found to be in favor of Free Seats, as the plan upon which the Church had gained her first growth and strength, and which had been her main weapon of conquest in mediæval and modern times also, even down to the middle of this nineteenth century. We looked then to the history of Pews, and followed out their working, showing that they lead to the gradual starving and deadening of the best life of the Church, the diverting her streams into strange pastures, and the making barren the garden of the Lord.

We next examined the excuses given for the Pew-system ;that it is "convenient," and that "it keeps families together," and found no substance in them. We showed that the soul of the Pew-system consisted in its exclusiveness,-the power to keep others out-and that this was the quid pro quo in the bargain by which the use of a pew was bought for so much a year. We proved that it set up a wrong standard of Christian liberality, one which went far to neutralize the solemn warnings and exhortations of Holy Scripture in the Offertory. And finally, that the general result of the system in supporting the

Church in this country, was such that from one end of the land to the other, there was one continuous cry about the starvation of the clergy.

We gave a number of facts, from existing Free Church enterprises, showing that the principle could and would succeed, even on the low estimate of returns in dollars and cents,—an estimate, however, the justice of which we denied. We then examined the essence of the principles on both sides, according to Holy Scripture. We demonstrated that the support of the Church ought to come, not from bargain and sale, settled before the preacher can begin to preach; but from the fountains of faith and love in the breasts of true believers. And we found that Pew-rents, being the proceeds of mere bargain and sale according to a worldly standard, could not be rightfully regarded as the offerings of faith and love. We showed, moreover, that growth was the first and greatest law of the Church's practical life. She must go on conquering and to conquer, until the knowledge of the Lord covereth the earth as the waters cover the sea. We appealed to that which is now an admitted axiom on all sides, that the true life of the Church is in her Missionary work. For the success of this Missionary work, we proved the Free Seat plan to be absolutely indispensable. And we closed by an appeal, based upon the position of the Church in this country,-everywhere a little flock in comparison of those who yet remain to be gathered in; and yet called to greater efforts than ever before, by the fact that God is preparing the masses all around her to enter her doors, if she will but open and let them in.

Now it will be seen at once, that our main object in the above was to separate, as clearly as possible, two contradictory principles. In order, therefore, to conduct the discussion clearly and intelligently, we distinguished the operations of the two, as they are found mingled in our common working system, giving to each the credit which belonged to the principle involved. The summing up of this, we embodied in the definition of the two, clearly and categorically laying down the points in which the two meet and contradict one another. We would suggest to our friend, that until that definition is demonstrated to be incorrect, nothing is done. We here repeat it :—

The Free Church plan offers the preaching of the Gospel free to all. It asks no one to contribute for the "support of the Church," except such as have first heard and received the Gospel. It asks them to give then, only from their Faith in God, their hope of Heaven, and their love both toward the Lord Jesus who hath given unto them salvation, and toward their brethren who are one with them in Him. And the standard of "how much" each one shall give, is no

other than that which Holy Scripture has set forth," according as he is able.” In other words, the free hearing of the Gospel is a condition precedent to the duty of "supporting the Church;" and the measure of that duty is God's Word. The Pew-system, on the other hand, does not offer the Gospel free to any; but furnishes it only to those who have paid for the privilege. It asks a certain rent for the "support of the Church," and asks it, not from Christian but from commercial considerations, the seat being worth just as much "rent" to the Church, whether its occupant love God or not. The standard how much" each shall pay, is regulated solely by the prominence, convenience for seeing and hearing, and general"eligibility," of the pew, having nothing whatever to do with the "ability" of the giver. In other words, the paying for the " support of the Church," is a condition precedent, without which no man can expect to hear the preaching of the Gospel; and the measure of that duty is regulated by the world.

This definition of the terms employed, is the kernel of this whole discussion. Our friend of the October Number is skillful enough to know the importance of definitions; that they are in themselves more than half the battle; and that if our definition of the Pew-system, (as reduced to those principles which alone distinguish it from the other,) could be proved incorrect, the whole edifice of our argument would tumble to the ground. Knowing, then, the importance of this definition, how has he treated it? Has he demonstrated it to be erroneous? No. Has he then attacked it? No. Has he so much as alluded to it in any way? No. He has indeed remarked slightingly upon one introductory process, indirectly trying to make it appear that what is a difference of principle, is only a question of degree. And in this attempt, he makes use of a couple of illustrations, from which one might infer,-if it were worth while, -that in his opinion the proportion of free pews to rented, ought to be no greater than the relative bulk of pepper to that of the soup it flavors, or rather, for minuteness, like "the small fraction of a grain of prussic acid," which is in some cases used as a medicine, but a larger dose of which would be fatal. This proportion is, indeed, very near that in which some pewed Churches, that we wot of, have "a part of their seats free." But, in reply to that definition which contains the very jugulum causae, our friend very prudently says-absolutely nothing.

Nay, more, our historical sketch both of Free Seats and Pews, (except so far as concerns the present state of things among us now,) is left wholly uncontradicted by him. No reply whatever is given to our analysis of the essence of the Pew-system, showing that it reverses the proper relation between Faith and Works, that it consists in the purchasing of a right to keep others out of the pew thus rented or bought, and is thereby directly antagonistical to growth. Not a syllable is offered in opposition to the principle that growth is the first great practical law

of life to the Church, to which all things else must be made to yield. The generally miserable support of the clergy on the Pew-system is acknowledged instead of being denied. Nor is any disproof given of our position that we are now called to make every possible exertion to secure that great growth for which Providence has so wonderfully prepared the ground on every side of us. Indeed, it is to these, which formed the fundamental framework of our Article, that our friend alludes, when he actually calls them "a series of propositions which nobody has ever dreamed of disputing." Certainly he has not disputed them.

One might well ask, then, Where is the use of attempting a reply? To an ordinary mind it would seem as if, with the citadel and all the outer ramparts left untouched, there was really nothing to hope from further attack. But not so our friend. He thinks that all these things may be just as true as we assert them to be, and yet "leave the question in dispute just as it was!" We are, therefore, reluctantly compelled to the weariness of following him in his endeavor to make something out of nothing. We shall find that effort naturally betraying him into a variety of contradictions, confusions, irrelevancies; and, finally, the complete concession of all that we have contended for.

The contradictions, indeed, are too numerous for us to point them all out. Our friend begins, for instance, by saying that the true point of discussion is not whether the Free Church system is not useful for certain purposes, nor whether it does not embody and represent true and important principles which have been too much overlooked, nor whether it is not, in particular cases, preferable to other systems and the true remedy of their evils, but whether it is entitled to take upon itself jure divino airs, or talk in a strain of special catholicity, and on one account or another claim exclusive possession of the Church as the ordinary and permanent rule of support. Such pretensions," he adds, "we believe to be groundless and ridiculous." As to "the ordinary and permanent rule of support," he will find it laid down in our Definition as being, on the Free Church plan, according to the ability of the giver. Will he deny that this is the rule which alone can rightfully claim exclusive possession of the Church? Or will he contend that an equal right belongs to the rule of "eligibility" as laid down in the definition of the Pew-system, the measure of duty being fixed by the world?

As to Catholicity, we made no particular flourish with that word; but if we had, our friend himself gives us sufficient au

thority. He denounces the pretension to Catholicity, on one page, as "groundless and ridiculous;" and on another, as the the "merest nonsense." And yet elsewhere he asserts positively, that "the spiritual equality of men in the Church of God, and the right of the poor and mean to equal privileges in His House with the rich and great, is a Catholic principle." And on the next page, he goes still further: "The truth is, there is nothing Catholic in the matter but the principle that the Church is to be furnished with the means of supporting her Clergy, and carrying on her benevolent operations, by the free gifts of her members." We ask no stronger declaration of Catholicity than this. And it was hardly worth while for our friend to deny this Catholicity so roundly at the beginning of his Article, when he so emphatically adopts it himself before he gets through. And this, too, he assures us, is the main point in the discussion! But he demurs to the idea that this "free-will support" exists any more truly on the Free-Church plan, than the other. And he proves it in a curious way. He says that "there is nowhere else in the Church, where niggardliness and parsimony can skulk so securely as in a Free Church." That is to say, that on the Pew-system, by the pressure of commercial, or social, or family considerations, niggardliness and parsimony are not allowed to "skulk." They can be forced to pay something, whether they will or no. And that, of course, proves that Pewrents are as wholly "free-will offerings" as anything given in a Free Church! The crowning contradiction to the voluntary virtue of Pew-rents, however, will be found on another page, where our friend claims peremptorily that, so far from being any such thing as free gifts, they are only an ordinary debt. They are, he tells us, no part of a man's alms, any more than "his butcher's bill or the bill for his children's schooling." A very pretty specimen of those free-gifts, which he tells us, are Catholic in principle! But more of this anon.

In connection with this question of Catholicity, we are sorry to see that, while handsomely proving the very matter which he set out to refute, our friend has thought it necessary to mask his retreat by a scattering shot at architecture, communion vessels, ecclesiastical tailors, and "going to Rome;" all of which, he admits, have nothing to do with the question; and in regard to which he says, "we intend no ungenerous insinuations against the Protestantism of the Free Church cause," thus disclaiming the only interpretation of which his gratuitous denunciation seems to be capable. But it is according to a very safe rule of controversy:-"When you have nothing to reply to what your opponent has said, fall-to lustily on something that