What is an offertory?

Thus purgatory was hinted at in the fifth century, said to be useful for very small sins in the sixth, and then only gradually grew up. Transubstantiation was never decreed definitively till the thirteenth, and the contrary was taught by the most famous doctors previously. The saints were prayed for, as we have seen, not to, for centuries, so that they had to alter the Roman liturgy to suit the change. So the so-called sacrifice of the Mass can be traced from the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (whence the word Eucharist), the presenting offerings before the consecration (whence the word Offertory) — both of which were called the unbloody offering, or sacrifice — to the applying it to the elements after consecration; and, lastly, but not till very late, to its being the real sacrifice of Christ, efficacious for the sins of quick and dead, and the liturgy was changed accordingly. I am not now examining the truth or falsehood of these doctrines, but their novelty. Romanists are now in the position of the heretics of old, alleging tradition for new doctrines which are not found in scripture. We, on the contrary, rest solely on the word of God, the scriptures, as authority, for this is certainly what was at the beginning, and, on the other hand, we can appeal to history, and prove the introduction of the particular doctrines they insist on as novelties among Christians.

The pope then went round the church with two attendants to receive the offerings of the congregation, which at that time consisted of loaves of bread and flasks of wine. The pope and the chief deacon then washed their hands. Bread and wine were now placed on the altar. The choir sang the "Offertory," while the pope received the offerings of the clergy and his own (presented by the chief deacon). Then he and the whole clergy knelt in silent prayer. The choir sang the "Sanctus," and he read the canon.

An instance of this is recorded in the Gospels. It occurred in the temple courts at the time when the offerings were being placed in the treasury chest. Here was an opportunity of making a sacrifice to God by depositing a sum of money for the use of the temple service. Many rich and influential persons gave substantial amounts, doing so in an ostentatious manner to attract the attention and admiration of their neighbours. Thus the offertory became to them a means of self-advertisement, and they gained as their reward the notice of their fellows.

Luke 21 begins with the poor widow and her two mites of more account than the richest in the offertory. Then, in correction of those who thought much of the temple adorned with goodly stones and offerings, the Lord predicts its approaching demolition, though the end was not to be immediately. But He cheers and counsels His own meanwhile. From ver. 20 to 24 is the siege under Titus, and its consequences to this day. Ver. 25 and the following look on to the future. The Gentiles are prominent; whence we have, "Behold the fig tree and all the trees" in ver. 29. Observe also "this generation," etc. in 32, is in the future part, not in what is fulfilled. Lastly, vers. 34-36 give moral appeal. Here again we find Him teaching in the temple by day, and every night lodging at Olivet.

Luke 21 begins with the poor widow and her two mites of more account than the richest in the offertory. Then, in correction of those who thought much of the temple adorned with goodly stones and offerings, the Lord predicts its approaching demolition, though the end was not to be immediately. But He cheers and counsels His own meanwhile. From verses 20 to 24 is the siege under Titus, and its consequences to this day. Verse 25 and the following look on to the future. The Gentiles are prominent; whence we have, "Behold the fig-tree and all the trees" in verse 29. Observe also "this generation," etc., in verse 32, is in the future part, not in what is fulfilled. Lastly, verses 34-36 give a moral appeal. Here again we find Him teaching in the temple by day, and every night lodging at Olivet.

This then is the meaning of the first day of the week as here introduced, showing plainly that, as in the verse stated, there is a laying-up by each at home, so on the first day of the week they contributed when they came together; for we have already seen they always met on that day. Be it so, then, that the laying-by was at home, the day on which it was done implies that whatever might be thus separated to the need of the saints was not to be kept there. As they came together then, so they had fellowship in casting their offerings into the common treasury of the church in the name of the Lord. This appears to me the point here in connecting all together. Where would be the force of pressing the collection for the saints on the first day of the week, if it went no farther than each laying by at home? Why might it not be as well done on any other day? We can see its importance if they contributed on that day what each laid by at home, when they came together to break bread. Thus was communion best maintained among those that belonged to Christ; especially as it was also for the express purpose of avoiding collections when the apostle came. He would not mix it up with personal feeling. He desired not that money should be drawn out because Paul was there. He would have souls exercised in love and liberty but withal conscientious care, and the motive — Christ for the needy that are His. And He is always there; and this especially, let me repeat, on the first day of the week. No doubt withal there is liberty for every holy service in prayer, preaching, and visiting; and we may well thank God for all. But these are not confined to the Lord's-day, having their place as God gives opportunity on any if not on every day; whereas the breaking of bread is the standing institution of the church's communion; and the Lord's-day is the standing day for it, though it might be every day. The Lord's-supper and the Lord's-day answer to each other, being mutual complements in the witness of Christianity; and as the one is especially the expression of Christ's death, so is the other especially of His resurrection.

But we have a second testimony of a somewhat similar nature, which confirms the first. In his exhortation to the Corinthian saints concerning the collection to be made in Gentile assemblies for the poor saints in Jerusalem, the apostle writes, "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" (1 Cor. 16:2).

Even if we do not translate (as the sense is) "Every first of a week," the call of the apostle is without force if there was no recognition in the Corinthian assembly of the first of the week as invested with associations and claims upon the saints that no other day of the week had. Evidently there were memories and customs connected with that day which ought to move them to bestow some of their goods for the benefit of their poorer brethren and sisters at Jerusalem. If the passage means, as it undoubtedly does, that the reservation of a certain portion of their money was to be dale individually at home, certainly it is also implied that, when they came together on that day to break bread, their several offerings should be thrown into one common fund.

Still a general principle and practice we find laid down of the highest value for any time. The collection for the saints was bound up with the solemn and gracious associations of the first, or resurrection, day. It was to proceed regularly, not occasionally; it was to be done with conscience, according as any might be prospered, not under influence, or pressure, or haste, still less with indifference, or on mere human grounds. Thus faith and love would be called out, and healthfully applied, while waiting for the coming of the Lord. It seems that each was to lay aside at home what he judged according to the means given; but the mention of the first of the week, or Lord's day, points to their joining their contribution, when they came together, as every disciple did, to break bread. This is truly to lay up treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupts, and where thieves do not dig through or steal.

Again, the apostle was careful to leave no room for evil surmise or appearance; and so he here indicates a fresh application of the apostolic wisdom which we see in Acts 6. The multitude chose their own administrators. They contributed the funds, and they, not the apostles, chose men in whom they had confidence to dispense them. (See also 2 Cor. 8) As the church cannot impart a spiritual power, so the Lord alone gave gifts for the ministry or service of souls. (Rom. 10, Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4) The apostles, personally or by delegate (as Titus), chose elders, being the chiefs of that authority of which the presbyters were the ordinary representatives locally. (Acts 14; Titus 2) Everything in the church rests on its own proper ground. Here, then, the apostle promises on his arrival to send with letters whomsoever they should approve to bring their bounty unto Jerusalem.

This last chapter forms a fourth division of the book of I Corinthians, with its simple, practical instructions. The unity of the body of Christ is to be expressed in genuine practical care for the needs of each member of the body. At this time, a special need existed among "the poor saints . . . at Jerusalem" (Rom. 15:26), evidently the result of a great famine (Acts 11:28-30). At the time this became known by the Corinthians, they "were forward" with desire to supply material help to their Jewish brethren (2 Cor. 8:10); and here Paul shows the orderly way in which they should prepare for this. Each first day of the week they were all personally to lay aside a certain amount, not stipulated, but as a matter of exercise on the part of each individual, according to the measure in which God had prospered him. This is the wise and Scriptural order. The first day of the week is of course the day of Christ's resurrection, He Himself the firstfruits; and therefore it was the becoming day for thanksgiving for His perfect sacrifice and its blessed results, the day of suitable response to His own great gift of Himself. It is no legal claim, such as was the required tithe of the Old Testament; but if one under law could give a tenth, should this be difficult for one under grace? Nevertheless, each heart and conscience is left fully free before God, to do that which is the fruit of his own personal faith. The measure is seen in this verse, "as God hath prospered him"; and also in 2 Corinthians 9:7, "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver." How consistent then that such a collection should be taken on occasion of the Lord's supper; for such giving is an expression of thankful worship toward the Lord. A gospel meeting would not be suitable for this, for this is an occasion of God's giving to mankind the gospel they desperately need: it is no time to give to God at all. Nor is it so at a prayer meeting, for this is for requesting from God; and to give at this time would be to give the impression we were paying for what we requested. And a ministry meeting is for the purpose of believers receiving from God, so this is similarly not an appropriate time for our giving. But giving is connected with thanksgiving and worship, as is seen in such Scriptures as Hebrews 13:15,16; and though what is given is for the relief of others, yet it is to be primarily given as to the Lord. And this being so, the receiver is to receive it as from the Lord.

"J. and S." We have no guidance in the New Testament, that we are aware of, as to whether the box should be sent round in the meeting, left on the table, or hung up at the door. All that is said on the subject we have in 1 Corinthians 16. "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him." He does not tell us how or where we are to lay it by; and therefore we conceive it is wholly indifferent. How can any one say that it is "more scriptural to let the box remain on the table," when scripture is totally silent on the point? The fact is, it is just as scriptural to send it round as to leave it on the table, and to leave it on the table as to send it round; for there is no scripture for either. But there is scripture, and abundance of scripture, for attending to the poor, and that too, not according to a prescribed plan, but "as God has prospered us." Instead therefore of splitting hairs about the box or what is to be done with it, let us cultivate largeness of heart, bowels of mercies, deep and tender compassion, a thoughtful love, a generous spirit, that delights in ministering to others and making hearts glad. If we might venture to offer a suggestion on the point, we should say, it is one of the many things which must, to a great extent, fall under the power of local circumstances. For example, in a very small meeting, it would be an easy matter for all to have access to a box laid on the table; but suppose a totally different case. Take an example of three hundred people crammed into a room hardly large enough to accommodate them. How are the people at one end to make their way through the crowd in order to get to the box at the other end? We fear very few could attempt it, even though their benevolence were ever so glowing. We should say, therefore, that the orthodox plan, in every case, is that whereby the Lord's people can most conveniently deposit their offerings, and whereby the wants of the poor can be most liberally supplied. May the good Lord deliver us from hair-splitting, and give us a larger heart for the poor, and for every good work! This is our earnest prayer.