There are certain conclusions, it seems to me, which may safely be
drawn from this brief summary of the evidence now before us. First: THE
TITHE IS A UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE, NOT A LEVITICAL INSTITUTION.
It seems peculiar to one who has studied the subject in the light of
the new data which is now being brought to light so abundantly, that
one should be so regularly confronted with the assertion that the tithe
is a Levitical institution. It is stranger still that so many ministers
continue to assert this as a fact, when the unanimous testimony of such
men as Prof. Sayce, Prof. Maspero, Dr. Hilprecht and others of their
standing can easily be gathered to the contrary. They all assert that
no matter how old the civilization there is always abundant evidence
of proportionate giving to the gods and almost invariably the tenth.
The only apparent exception is in the Laws of Manu of Ancient India,
wherein we find one-tenth, one-eighth, and one-sixth specified as the
tribute to the king who doubtless saw to it that one-sixth became
general in India. It is likely that if we had the most ancient laws we
would find that the one-tenth prevailed, even in India.
Just as I had reached this stage in writing, there came to my notice a
communication from Rev. Henry Lansdell, D. D., London, England, calling
attention to his investigations in the same line, which abundantly
confirm the statements made. He gives two personal incidents which I
deem worthy of record here. “The Rev. J. E. Padfield, a missionary
of my acquaintance, whose station at Musulipatam I visited in 1890,
took the pains to inquire systematically and in detail over his large
district, of every native Christian family in each congregation, as
to how much heathen in their own social position would pay, or what
would have been the amount of their own religious offerings had they
continued to be heathens. This was done with a view to comparison with
what they gave for Christian religious purposes of every kind. As a
result of that inquiry it was stated that the high caste Brahmins had
been wont to spend for religious purposes the equivalent of a month’s
income per annum; the lower castes, such as farmers, cultivators, and
coolies spending less: but speaking of these particular Christians as
a whole it appeared that whilst they were heathen they had to expend
upon religious observances not less than one-thirteenth of their net
incomes.”
Once more: when prosecuting my studies one day at the British Museum,
I was accosted by a well-educated young Sikh, who came from Amritsar,
and was brother, or near relative, of the chief priest of the Golden
Temple, which I remember to have visited. Upon my asking for any
information he could give relative to the subject I was studying,
he said that, in the time of Baba Aryan Sodhi, the fifth Sikh Guru
(or teacher), the people gave a tenth part of their incomes for
religious purposes; but that in the present day, good Sikhs give about
one-twentieth, though the proportion varies. These examples confirm
what I have learned from missionaries as to the present status of
the subject in India, and largely also in many other countries. The
latter instance tends to prove that at times in the earlier history of
India the tithe has prevailed, which is the point with which we are at
present concerned.
Seeing that the tithe has been so universal, it may be of interest to
inquire why it should have been so universal. It matters little whether
you take the portion offered to the gods or the tribute to the kings
as the Sons of Heaven and representatives of the gods, why should we
find in all these ancient civilizations one-tenth as the universal
offering? Why should not all have had one-sixth as in India at one
time? It surely cannot be ascribed to the inherent generosity of the
priests and rulers. Seven is also a sacred number. Why did they not
require one-seventh?
The tithe finds an interesting parallel in sacrifice with which it is
closely connected. For when one is commanded to sacrifice, the minimum
at least must be set to his sacrifice. Sacrifice, I believe, was a
divine institution given to our first parents in Eden. Most likely
the tithe is seen, in germ at least, in the offerings of Cain and
Abel. The Council of Seville viewed Cain’s sin as one of covetousness
in withholding a portion of the tithe or part that God required. The
Septuagint reading of Gen. 4:7, which the early Church Fathers seem
invariably to adopt, and a literal translation of Heb. 11:4 point
to this view. Personally I like to translate the latter “more of a
sacrifice” which is simple and includes both the idea of quantity
and that of quality and spirit. Wickliffe translated it “a much more
sacrifice.” Westcott maintains that this is correct. The critical
scholars generally admit that such is the natural rendering, but claim
not to be able to see why such a thing should be said. Covetousness
played so prominent a part in the parent’s fall, why should it not in
the son’s sin, seeing that it is one of the most persistent of the
Satan brood? Dr. John Brown, in his Commentary on Hebrews, Vol. II.,
page 41, quotes another who says: “It is easy to be demonstrated that
sacrifices owe their original to the will and appointment of God. The
Apostle says, as Moses said before him, that Abel’s sacrifice was
acceptable to God. But it would not have been acceptable if it had
not been of divine institution, according to that plain, obvious and
eternal maxim of all true religion, Christian, Mosaic, and natural,
‘In vain do they worship God, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men,’ Mark 7:7. If there be any truth in this maxim, Abel would
have worshipped God in vain, and God would have had no respect to his
offering, if his sacrifice had been merely a commandment of his father
Adam, or an invention of his own. The divine acceptance, therefore, is
a demonstration of a divine institution.”
This line of argument is almost unanimously accepted among Christian
scholars as an adequate basis for the belief that sacrifice was a
divine institution. Why is it not fully as applicable to tithing?
It is not stated in Scripture, prior to the giving of the Mosaic
law, that either is a divine institution. But if “divine acceptance
is a demonstration of a divine institution,” the tithe has as clear
a demonstration of its origin as has sacrifice. Now and then in
Scripture the whole business of sacrifice is spoken of in a deprecating
way. Cf. Heb. 10. Such is not the case in respect to the tithe, unless
Amos 4:4 be so taken.
But whatever view one may take of the origin of the tithe, there can
be no reason for the claim that it is a Jewish institution. It is true
that there are some people who seem to think that Adam was the first
Jew and that everything from Adam to Christ was Jewish. In the very
region whence came Abraham, the first Jew, the tithe was in force as
early as 3800 B. C., which is nearly 2000 years before there was a Jew.
It was as well defined in Babylonia at that period as it was in Judea
in the time of Moses and would much better be called Babylonian than
Jewish.[B]
In conclusion, we may reiterate the words of Dr. Kennicott. “Whatever
custom has prevailed over the world, among nations the most opposite
in polity and customs in general, nations not united by commerce
or communication (when that custom has nothing in nature or the
reason of things to give it birth, and establish to itself such a
currency), must be derived from some revelation, which revelation may
in certain places have been forgotten, though the custom introduced by
and founded on such a revelation still continued; and further, this
revelation must have been antecedent to the dispersion at Babel, when
all mankind, being but one nation and living together in the form of
one large family, were of one language and governed by the same laws
and customs.” With sacrifice, the tithe went abroad over the face of
the whole earth and survived long after its origin was forgotten. If
“in the annals of all times none are found which did not pay tithes”
among the nations of the past, either as an offering to the gods
or as a tribute to the rulers, the evidence certainly warrants the
conclusion that “offerings of at least one-tenth to God, was a primeval
appointment not for the Jews, but for all nations.”
Second: ALTHOUGH UNIVERSAL IT WAS INCORPORATED INTO AND MADE THE BASIS
OF THE MOSAIC SYSTEM OF TITHES.
In the Mosaic system there was a general tithe, conforming in every
feature to this universal tithe. Then there was a second tithe,
of national significance only, used as material for a feast at a
designated place the first and second year. But the third year it
was to be eaten at home, the poor sharing in the feast. This is the
best view, I think, of what some call the third tithe. Hence every
Jew offered two-tenths each year besides the first-fruits and all
other offerings free-will and required. Counting the first-fruits
at from one-thirtieth to one-sixtieth (as rabbis tell us they were
estimated) the Jew must needs give about twenty-five per cent of all
his yearly income. Chrysostom figures it at a third to a half, but the
probability is that he has it too high. Those of us who speak on the
tithe are often accused of trying to put the Church back on the Jewish
basis, which is another of those foolish things that even some fairly
intelligent people seem to never tire of saying, no matter how little
sense there is in them. To reach a Jewish basis, the average Christian
would have to give at least ten times what he is now giving, not merely
one-tenth of his income. Let us get up to the heathen standard, before
we worry too much about being Judaized.
Third: BEING UNIVERSAL THE PRINCIPLE OF THE TITHE IS NOT TO BE COUNTED
AS ABROGATED WHEN THE OLD TESTAMENT ECONOMY ENDED, UNLESS IT BE SO
STATED OR AT LEAST BY FAIR INFERENCE BE IMPLIED.
It certainly is not stated anywhere in the New Testament that the tenth
is no longer the Lord’s. Neither can any fair inference be drawn
showing that it is no longer holy to the Lord. The two incidents cited,
it is true, contain rebukes to the Pharisees who were tithers, but the
tithing is not condemned any more than is prayer or fasting. It is the
manner, not the principle, that is condemned. On the contrary, tithing
is emphatically commended. For the Savior says, “These ought ye to have
done and not to have left the other undone.” I am well aware that it
is the reply of many that Christ merely commended their doing what was
a plain duty under the Mosaic law, but that he in no way implies that
such a duty was binding on others. Granting that the first statement
is an assumption, then we have it answered by another assumption,
with the result that the whole statement of Christ is of no weight in
the matter. Christ did not always fall in with the teachings of the
Mosaic system, as for example in the matter of granting divorce. If
He had wanted to do away with the tithe, certainly He could have said
so, as clearly as He did in matters of divorce. He does not here, or
elsewhere, offer any substitute for this universal standard, and He
spoke often on the subject of money and of covetousness. One verse in
every four in the gospels by Matthew, Mark, and Luke have to do with
these subjects, and one verse in every six in the whole New Testament.
Certainly if a new standard were to be revealed, there is abundance of
opportunity.
The objection may be stated here that sacrifice was likewise universal.
True enough, but we have fulfillment of all its obligations and typical
significance in the perfect sacrifice, “The Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world,” “Our High Priest who needeth not daily like
those high priests who offer up sacrifices, first for his own sin and
then for the sins of the people. For this he did once for all when he
offered up himself.”
I have also met this objection. Circumcision and polygamy were
universal, and your argument would establish them. In the first place
circumcision was never universal, and even if it had been, we have
numerous statements in the New Testament denying its further claim
and a seal of the covenant, as I believe, clearly revealed which was
to supersede it. As to polygamy, it may be safely affirmed that it
never was divinely commanded, it is contrary to a definite law of God,
announced to our first parents, and reaffirmed in the New Testament.
With sacrifice all the rites of ceremonial significance and the retinue
of priests and Levites which administered them came to an end. All
moral obligations, however, were not abolished, but many of them were
more strictly interpreted. The Sermon on the Mount reveals a higher
conception of moral obligation and requires a purer motive than any
precept of the Old Testament. The laws of home relationship are made
more binding. The bill of divorcement is swept away and only the great
principle recognized, namely, faithlessness to the universal law, “Thou
shalt not commit adultery.” Even in the case of ritual offering this
is true. Take an example. While incense is abolished, that which is
symbolized, the great heart beat of humanity which we call prayer, is
not abolished but is enlarged to a precept of exceeding broad scope,
“Pray without ceasing.”
Now we demand some word of fair implication at least, or some example
to show that the universal obligation of the tithe has been set aside
in the general shaking up of the earth. It was not removed as being one
of “the things that are made,” but, as I believe, it remains as one of
“the things which cannot be shaken.” This statement is borne out by the
evidence afforded from its history. “These thing ought ye to have done”
is a word that justifies our conclusion.
Fourth: NOT BEING ABROGATED WHEN THE OLD TESTAMENT ECONOMY ENDED, IT IS
UNIVERSALLY BINDING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT DISPENSATION.
Notwithstanding all that has been written to the contrary, I am firmly
persuaded that this was recognized by the early Church. The quotations
cited are abundantly sufficient to prove this statement, if fairly
interpreted. And this leads me to enter a protest against the unfair
presentation of this evidence on the part of many writers. This can
be illustrated by the case of Irenaeus who is invariably, so far as
I have seen, set down as on the side of the abrogation of the law of
the tithe, because he said in one place as quoted on page 17 “instead
of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, (He told us) to share all
our possessions with the poor.” Certainly nothing could be found, nor
is found, more explicit than that statement. Yet any one who reads
the whole context will see that Irenaeus is contending for just the
opposite thing. He classes the tithe, not with the ceremonial things,
but with the natural precepts, by which he means the moral law as is
clearly shown. To argue that Irenaeus is abrogating the tithe, is to
argue that he is doing away with the law of adultery and murder, for
he mentions them in exactly the same language. The same thing would be
true of the commandment to love our neighbors. But why should we debate
this point when Irenaeus distinctly says, “all these precepts, as I
have already observed, were not (the injunctions) of one doing away
with the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and widening it among
us.”
Now I should like to know how it comes that all these learned men who
speak so surely of Irenaeus have always neglected to quote Irenaeus as
to what he really meant? Personally, I am willing to stake the whole
case on Irenaeus. For I do not know a better presentation of the whole
question than he makes. When he includes tithing under the head of the
moral precepts of the law and then says emphatically “that the Lord
did not abrogate the natural (precepts) of the law,” I am sure that he
stated the whole truth in respect to this subject. That he enlarged
their scope and raised the maximum of moral requirement, he rightly
affirms. When that is understood there is no more room for debate.
But why such dreadful alarm over this tithe law? Why, for example,
should the writer in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary try to minimize
all this testimony of the Father’s? He is anxious to prove that “the
evidence belonging to this period would seem to show that payment
of tithe was first regarded as a duty soon after A. D. 350. By that
time the idea generally prevailed that the priest of the Christian
Church had succeeded to the office of the Levitical priests, and
consequently to their rights and privileges.” His bogy comes to light
in the following: “Cyprian (Epist. 1:9, Ed. Erasmus, 66 Pamel.) writes
to dissuade a presbyter from accepting the position of guardian on the
ground that the clergy are separated from all secular business. The
tribe of Levi had no inheritance but was supported by tithes, that they
might devote themselves entirely to divine service; ‘the same plan and
form is now preserved in regard to the clergy’ that they may not be
diverted from their sacred duties, but ‘receiving as it were tithes
may not depart from the altar.’ Here the phrase tanquam decimas is
decisive against the payment of tithe as a fixed legal due, for decimae
paid as legal dues could not be tanquam decimae. There is analogy, not
identity in the method of support.” The word “legal” is the key to all
this twisting and trembling. This will be explained, perhaps, when we
recall that he is an Englishman, and comes of a race that has suffered
much from enforced tithing. Uhlhorn’s Christian Charity in the Ancient
Church is marred by the same tremendous anxiety to kill off any hope
of this legal monster ever getting loose again. Hence it seems that it
is now time to say that the tithe never was in Bible times, the legal
monster that it afterward became. Under Old Testament teaching and
practice, the tithe was voluntary. No hand of force was used to collect
it, but as in the time of Hezekiah, the people brought in the tithes
willingly and abundantly. It was a moral precept, enforced by appeals
to the conscience. Hezekiah does not reckon on the tithes in a way that
indicates that he would compel them to be brought in, but expresses his
gratitude when he finds that so much was brought in by the people. The
appeal of Malachi to the nation that had robbed God is a moral appeal
and is based upon the same thought that we find in all such appeals of
Scripture. That the Pharisees by their traditions had reduced it to a
burdensome legal requirement need not be questioned. So did they weigh
down every moral precept that the Lord ever laid upon the conscience
of men. The advocacy of the tithe in this country is always on the
voluntary basis, so far as I know. I feel that it would be a calamity
were it put on any other basis, and I know that all who are working in
this line, so far as I have become acquainted with their work, have the
same feeling. What we believe is that this is God’s standard of giving,
a minimum below which one cannot fall and be entitled to a claim on
God’s rich promises of blessing to those who give money for His work.
The maximum claim is the one of which the Fathers so often speak.
Matt. 19:21. “Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven.” Between these two claims love finds its field
of operation and its measure of perfectness. This is our view and the
view which I think prevailed in the early Church.
Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, the nearest writing to the
inspired books of the New Testament, says: “Those who present their
offerings at the appointed times are blessed; for inasmuch as they
follow the laws of the Lord they sin not.” (See page 14.) The context
clearly shows that he has in mind the laws governing the offerings
to the priests and Levites. The Teaching speaks of “giving according
to the commandment,” which must mean the Levitical commandment, or
one similar to it. Justin Martyr first says that they put what they
“have into a common stock” and later says “they who are well-to-do
and willing, give what each thinks fit,” and in both cases seems to
intimate that what is contributed is given to the dependent. (See
page 16.) His last instance of giving as each one thinks fit, may be
a description applicable to those who sought to follow the law of
the free-will offering which is laid down in Deut. 16:10, 17, and
reaffirmed by the Apostle in I Cor. 16:2. A special contribution to
the poor would be made now on the same basis in any of our churches and
does not touch the subject of the regular support of the Church. Yet
many ministers who ought to know better, insist on saying that this
is the New Testament law of giving. It is most decidedly not a New
Testament, but an Old Testament law, confirmed by the New Testament,
and by common sense apart from any question of Scripture authority.
If Justin meant to affirm that this regulation was in force, well and
good. But if he meant to say, as some would have us believe, that
the Church had thus early gotten on the basis of every man doing
exactly as he pleased, then all we have to say is that from our modern
experience with that sort of teaching, we cannot commend his judgment
or the practice of the Church of which he was a part, for no such
principle, ever had, or ever can have, the sanction of God. Again how
this can be reconciled with the statement that they have put all into
the common stock is more than I can see. How could men be well-to-do
who had sold all and put it into the hands of others? It may be for
convenience of his argument that he describes in the first case what
some few have done, perhaps himself among the number, and that in the
Church service, he is telling of either the observance of the rule of
the free-will offering, or else is letting us into a state of anarchy
respecting the proper teaching on the subject of giving, which led to
the difficulties of the later centuries. The same comment may be made
on the statements of Tertullian. It will be noted that he does not tell
how the aggressive work of the Church is to be supported, but only of
what is secured for what we commonly call charitable purposes.
It may be that the reason we begin to hear of shortcomings in
giving as early as in the time of Origen and Cyprian, is that this
every-man-do-as-he-thinks-fit teaching is bearing its legitimate fruit
and that now there must be some heroic measures taken to offset its
fatal influence. From what these witnesses tell us, the Church of the
third century was reaping the fruit of some erroneous teaching and
practice in respect to the giving of money. From that time on the call
is to a recognition of duty, as all the extracts go to show. The gift
of the maximum had been made by the few. The many had followed their
own will and the result was disastrous to the Church, and we are not
surprised that the later writings abound in appeals to the people to
meet even the minimum demands of the tithe, if they ever expected to
exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.
But it is to be noted that only Justin Martyr and Tertullian seem to
endorse a hit and miss plan of giving. With these exceptions, the
Fathers agree that the laborers in the kingdom of Christ take the
place of the ministers of the Mosaic period, and deserve to be as
well supported, according to the teaching of Christ in Matt. 10:10
and Luke 10:7, enforced by that of Paul in I Cor. 9:7-11 and I Tim.
5:18. And here it may be said in passing, that Paul justifies his plea
for support in the work of the Gospel by--“Saith not the law the same
also?” If the law confirms the justice of the laborer’s claim under
the Gospel, is it such a perversion of the spirit of the Gospel to
urge that one do not fall short of a plain requirement of that same
law? This identification of the teachers of both dispensations and
of the method of their support is not a later growth, as the Smith
and Cheetham’s writer would have us believe, but is found in the
very earliest writings. It is quite likely that different practices
prevailed at different times and in different places in the Church.
But it is to be borne in mind that with the two exceptions named, the
testimony is for meeting God’s requirement, whether it be that the
requirement was considered to be the whole or the tithe, and that there
is no approval given to the do-as-you-please plan in matters of conduct.
Here I think it in place to repeat some things said in Tithe
Conferences at Winona and elsewhere during the past year in regard to
one of the most persistent and misguided of all the objections with
which we are confronted. It is urged that the New Testament bases
all action on love and that one must give according to his love and
that this is the only Christian standard of life and service. This is
confusion much confounded. It is a fixed principle of ethics that men
cannot be a law to themselves and civilization be preserved and conduct
properly regulated. Though good men may fail to see it, this method
of giving according to the measure of one’s love is, at the bottom,
anarchy pure and simple. Every man is left to determine what he shall
do according to the impulse of the moment and without any regard to a
fixed standard of right. Such a principle cannot be tolerated in social
life. There is a standard of law which makes the right for one the
right for all and to set this aside in any case is to invite trouble.
In all human conduct, a fixed standard, apart from men, must be the
basis of right. It must be invariable and must obtain in one life as
much as in another. Hence this high-sounding plea for love as the basis
of all action is pure anarchy in Christian guise. Lawless grace is as
loveless as lawless humanity. License claimed on account of standing
under grace, though put on a heavenly plane, is hell-born just the
same. License means anarchy, and anarchy is devilish though concerned
with the holiest of occupations. To make love a standard of action is
to confuse a motive and a standard. Love is variable, not the same in
any two individuals, and not the same in any individual at different
times.
Has love no place in God’s scheme? Certainly it has, and a very large
place at that. God’s plan does not limit love in its maximum which
is all “that thou hast.” But what we contend is that God does have a
minimum standard below which one cannot fall and claim to have the love
of Christ constraining him. Love fulfills law, doesn’t abrogate it as
so many seem to think. The law says, Remember the Sabbath day to keep
it holy. Love says, I will make that day and every day holy unto the
Lord, but does not say, I will do away with the law altogether as to
that which God has made the minimum requirement of the race. Love may
go beyond the law’s requirement, but will not fall below it. Love does
not and cannot repeal law, but obeys it and furnishes the only true
motive to obedience. Grace alters and exalts the motive but cannot free
from the obligations of law.
A little clear thinking at this point would do much to set many people
right on this question and on many other questions of Christian life.
The large amount of Pharisaical floundering and pietistic mouthing with
which the Church is persecuted on this behalf is not creditable to our
intelligence or to our Christianity. So simple and fundamental is this
point both from the standpoint of ethics and of religion that it seems
strange that sane men should ever call it in question. But men were
troubled with it when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans and are still
troubled with it and strangest of all quote Paul’s words which were
written to set people straight on this matter as the justification of
the very thing he was trying to correct. To me this is one of the most
peculiar perversions of Scripture which has ever arisen in the history
of the Church. That the epistle to the Romans which has for its key
word righteousness (which I think means rightness according to God’s
standard and which can have no other satisfactory meaning), should be
taken as the authority for Antinomianism which practically annihilates
law is certainly a singular proof of the fact that some people have the
logical faculty in a very rudimentary state. It seems to me that we
ought to be able to see that if God’s standard of right is abrogated,
then nothing can control a man’s life but his own promptings. What is
a law but God’s standard of right in respect to that particular line
of conduct to which it applies? What is the abrogation of law but
the doing away with God’s standard and the substitution of a human
standard? We have become so afraid of the charge of legalism that
we have swung far to the side of anarchy, and, as between the two,
legalism is the least to be feared, as bad as it is. Plain speech is
needed for we must not palliate the consequences of such teaching. Paul
meant well as a persecutor, but Paul the preacher greatly deplored his
course of action in such a rôle. Men may think they are doing God and
humanity service by such advocacy, but to me it is the devil’s work and
makes for lawlessness which is sin and which when finished brings forth
death. Lawlessness abounds in teaching of school and Church and is it
any wonder that we stand horrified at some of its outbreaks in our very
midst? Herein I find a most urgent call to advocate the right as God
has indicated it in respect to giving as well as to any other of the
lines of conduct which go to make up a well-rounded life.
Giving is not left to the emotions of men, no matter how pure and holy
they may seem to be. Giving is to be according to God’s measure or
requirement. To this it seems we ought all to agree. Has God a measure?
If so, what is it and how does it operate? Some of us think that He
has and that it is fixed and invariable, the same always and for all.
Why should he not have? Honest people of business ability do not sell
wheat by whim, potatoes for appearance sake, or calico by hysterics.
Produce is measured by well-defined standards and disposed of in due
regard to and careful consideration of the principles of economic
distribution. Why be so careless in respect to moral conduct? Ethical
principles ought to be, and I believe are more clearly defined than are
economic principles. What is the rule, what the standard, are the first
questions concerning any moral act. When this is known the character
of the act is easily determined. Every grace or fruit of the spirit
is to be tested by this vital inquiry. Faith, the first-fruit, has a
unit of measure. Belief unto salvation is the minimum of faith. Beyond
that faith may reach to heights that seem to have no limit. But it must
measure up to that minimum, or fail to merit the name of faith. Love
the final-fruit, as we sometimes say, has its unit, namely, the gift
of self. No gift without the giver, no love without the lover. These
minimum requirements are agreed upon by all teachers of the gospel of
redemption from sin through the blood of Jesus Christ. No one supposes
for a moment that such teaching involves the idea that faith and love
shall never go beyond this minimum. They must go on to perfection.
This brings us to answer that provoking misrepresentation of the
position of tithers which claims that men ought to give more than
the tithe and that love to Christ should lead to the consecration of
all to Him. I do not know of any tither who feels that the tenth is
all that he ought to give. Most pastors know that if extra money is
wanted, the tithers are not the last to respond. Further, I have never
heard such doctrine advocated by any tither. We persistently say that
we are dealing with the minimum, not with the maximum, not with the
outgoings of hearts full of love to Christ, but with those who are
robbing God of even His minimum and are thus guilty of the awful crime
of covetousness, which the New Testament places among the vilest of
crimes and says that it will shut out of the kingdom. The fifth chapter
of I Corinthians clearly teaches that the covetous brother is to
be shut out of the fellowship of Christians, even in this life. How
does the treatment of the rich man by many churches and communities
square with this plain teaching? The early Fathers were very faithful
in teaching concerning the crime of covetousness, following in the
footsteps of the Apostles and of Christ Himself. How about the minister
who considers himself above the business of mentioning money matters
to the congregation? This rank Phariseeism needs to be driven out of
the minds of ministers and theological teachers who train ministers.
If they spoke on this subject as often as Christ did, they would need
to preach on it about once a month. Mr. Kane’s experience wherein
after three heroic efforts, he only succeeded in finding theological
professors and students in about half the seminaries in this country
and Canada who were willing to receive literature which he offered to
furnish gratis, speaks of an awful perversion of Scripture teaching on
this subject and a failure to grasp the vital questions of Christian
life which it touches. Is it any wonder that there is a constant
“drain of the treasury” as Augustine said? Wrestle with it as we may,
the consecrate-all-to-the-Lord and all such plans, have proved a
dismal failure in respect to bringing “meat” into God’s house, and the
crying need of the hour is money to send workers into all the world
to preach the gospel. Whatever be your scheme for getting the money,
you know, brother pastor and fellow-workers, that the great hindrance
to enlargement of the Church’s work is money to meet necessary
expenditures. Some one always bobs up with the mystical dictum that it
is prayer, or consecration, or something to that effect. But that is
only beating the Devil around the bush. For the promised result of the
prayer, or the consecration, or whatever one may suggest, is that money
will be forthcoming. So after all it is money that must be gotten, by
whatsoever means one may employ.
The giving of all to the Lord is the only New Testament method which
is offered us as an alternative. I am free to say that it has failed
to meet the case not only in our age, and in the age of the Fathers
who rang the changes on it, but I am persuaded also that it did not
meet the case in the days of the Apostles. It must always be remembered
that it was voluntary, as Peter said to Ananias, and though voluntary,
it did not fail to present difficulties very early in the history of
the Church, as the sixth chapter of Acts shows. Again it should be
remembered that the very fact that Paul was instructed to call for
a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem proves two things at
least. That the needs of the Church were not met by this voluntary
communism, and that this communism had not been adopted elsewhere to
any great extent, else the appeal to people to lay aside for this
free-will offering as God had prospered them would have been a piece of
pious nonsense.
The Jewish Encyclopedia (Vol. III., p. 668) gives an interesting bit
of evidence as to the effect of this movement. We read that “against
the tendency prevailing in Essene and Christian circles to sell all one
had and ‘give to the poor’ in order to have ‘treasure in heaven’ (Matt.
19:21), the rabbis at the Synod in Usha ordained that ‘no one should
give away more than the fifth of his fortune lest from independence
he may lapse into a state of dependence’” (Ket. 50 a). While the evil
effect of anything Christian is apt to be overstated by these Jewish
writers, still may it not be that here we have proof that communism,
tried under the most favorable circumstances, as it certainly was under
the early Church management, fails to meet the case, and that Christ’s
saying, “The poor always ye have with you,” was still true and even
more emphasized under this method of social life? The fact seems to
stand out even on the pages of the book of Acts with special emphasis
that such a method, with the very best management, does not take away
the problem of the dependent, but really intensifies it.
The Apostle Paul seems to have had to deal with this tendency toward
abuse of charity and in doing so laid down some very fundamental
propositions to which the Church ought always to give heed. “For even
when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not
work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk
among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them
that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with
quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” II Thess. 3:10-12. “If
any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house,
he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” I Tim. 5:8.
These positive teachings certainly argue that Paul did not approve of
the communistic plan, for how could one eat his own bread or provide
for his own household, if he had put all into the common fund? In
short, Paul, as the great organizer of the Church, does not give a
single hint that he approved of such a method. All his statements are
emphatic on the other side. Even his own custom of working for his
living argues his disapproval of the communistic idea. This should be
borne in mind by those who are so sure that Christian Socialism as they
choose to call it, will solve all the problems respecting the poor.
Personally, I believe that Paul’s method is the better one and will
come nearer than any other to the solution.
The question is often asked, why does not the New Testament say more
about the tithe, if it is still the universal law? The answer to this
has usually been, that all the peoples to whom the apostles preached
had been accustomed to give at least a tenth for religious purposes and
they found no particular need to lay emphasis upon what was a universal
practice. Also that the enthusiastic support through voluntary
communism and other large free-will offerings made it unnecessary for
them to dwell upon it. These answers have weight and might be counted
sufficient, if it were not that they seem to assume that the New
Testament is silent on this great question. Attention has been called
to Christ’s commendation of the tithing principle and to Paul’s appeal
to the law. But it seems to me that not enough is made of the treatment
of this subject in the one book in which we would naturally expect it,
that is, in the book of Hebrews. The writer was trying to convince
these Hebrews of the incomparably superior character of Christ and His
priesthood to that to which they were so attached. We would naturally
suppose that here, if anywhere, we would have some discussion of the
tribute to this great High Priest and that is just what we have in the
seventh chapter.
Rev. Henry Constable (Gold or the Gospel) has well said, “The Levitical
priesthood, by the command of God, received tithes of their people. It
follows as certainly that Melchizedek had the same claim to a tenth
from Abraham which they had from the Jews, i. e., a divine command.
For, surely, if a tenth were Levi’s right by divine ordinance, while
Melchizedek had no such right at all, he is in this respect inferior to
Levi, and Paul’s argument from his reception of a tenth from Abraham an
inconclusive one.” Why, too, if Christ does not have such a right and
does not receive the tithe is He not in that respect at least inferior
to Levi?
Again, we quote Dr. John Owen. “When Abraham himself gave tithes to
Melchizedek, he did it not in his own name only, but in the name of
himself, and his whole posterity.” He argues the significance of
the act as follows. Abram was called to be “the foundation of a new
church;” he “had now received the promise” not only for himself, but
for “all his seed in him,” and whatever he “did in obedience unto God,
he did undertake in it for his posterity.” Wherefore “Abraham, in this
solemn address unto God by Melchizedek the type of Christ, wherein he
expressed his covenant obedience unto him, was the representative of
all his posterity and in particular of Levi and all the priest that
descended from him. And having now received the whole land, by virtue
of a covenant, in behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs,
though he himself had never possession of it nor in it, he doth in the
name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenth unto
God by Melchizedek, as the chief rent which God forever reserved unto
himself, upon the grant.” This is a remarkable argument from one who
earlier in his comments rather hesitatingly tries to break the force of
the tithe argument in general, largely, it is evident, because of the
misuse of it under the monstrous enforced system of his day. However,
if we, as Paul contends in Galatians, are children of faithful Abraham,
and “there are not two churches, but two states of the same church” as
Dr. Owen puts it, then either Scripture contradicts itself, or we prove
false to our covenant relationship and dishonor Christ when we do not
do homage to Him in person, as our father Abraham did in type in the
paying of tithes. I see no escape from this alternative.
Calvin is the only commentator, so far as I have seen, that has given
a consistent interpretation to the 8th verse. He says, “For he thus
reasons--those to whom the Law assigns tithes are dying men; by which
it was indicated that the priesthood would some time be abrogated, as
their life came to an end: but the Scripture makes no mention of the
death of Melchizedek, when it relates that tithes were paid to him,
so the authority of his priesthood is limited by no time, but on the
contrary, there is given an indication of perpetuity. But this is added
for this purpose, lest a posterior law, as it is usual, should seem to
take away from the authority of the former law. For it might have been
otherwise objected and said, that the right which Melchizedek formerly
possessed is now void and null, because God had introduced another law
by Moses, by which He transferred the right to the Levites. But the
Apostle anticipates this objection by saying, that tithes were paid
to the Levites only for a time, because they did not live: but that
Melchizedek, because he is immortal, retains even to the end what has
been given to him by God.”
The editor, Rev. John Owen, adds this comment: “The obvious meaning of
this verse is given by Calvin. The Levites were dying men, which shewed
the character of their office; Melchizedek is represented as not
dying, which betokens that his office as a priest, is perpetual.” The
tribute to the priesthood was only a temporary right of the Levites,
it will be noted Calvin claims, and that it is the perpetual right of
the priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek. How clear and
luminous is this interpretation when compared with that of many who
stumble around over that verse and pretend not to be able to see just
how it fits into the Apostle’s argument. It seems to me that we strike
the most triumphant of all the notes in this great address to the
Hebrews in this very verse. Our High Priest has as His type one that
liveth. This is preparing the way for the “power of an endless life”
and “He ever liveth” which come later on in the chapter. We are dealing
with that which has no end, which is true as much in respect to the
tithes paid as to any other part of this divine arrangement. Any claim
that the Levites had was only for the time. Any claim that Christ has
had is living, is perpetual and no posterior grant can make it null and
void. Here, then, we have a strong and inconvertible statement of the
claim that Christ has on the tithe and that at just the point where we
might be led to expect it. It seems to me that a man must be hunting
for something when he passes this by and cries out for proof.
It may be worth while to call attention to this fact that the oldest
Babylonian reference shows that the tithe was centuries before in force
in the near vicinity of this same Melchizedek and that it is not any
longer a question where Abraham got his idea of a tithe.
Rev. Henry Constable also makes this further point which is worth
notice. The tithe is not ceremonial as is shown by the fact that “no
part” of Jacob’s offering “was for the use of the priesthood. The
priest of Jacob’s household was Jacob himself. When there was no
ministry to support it was yet God’s claim and accorded to Him.”
It scarcely seems necessary to prolong this discussion. The
universality of the tithe, as a moral obligation, seems to me to be
beyond question. It is the universal minimum of the race in the matter
of giving to the gods and the conclusion seems inevitable that it is
the original requirement of God. Forms, materials, and incidents of
giving may have varied, but the standard never. There does not appear
any satisfactory reason for believing that it does not survive the
changes from the Old to the New Dispensation. The voluntary tithe was
recognized and urged on all hands until in the sixth century A. D.
The general confusion of Church and State and everything else that
followed gradually took away its voluntary character. It became a sort
of enforced tribute to that monstrous duality which presided with such
mock dignity over all interests, sacred and otherwise, until the time
of reformation when divine truth and order began once more to appear.
In all the mighty overturnings of the era of Wickliffe, Luther, Calvin
and Knox, these “stalwart old iconoclasts” all contended for the tithe.
While they lashed unmercifully the lazy monks and worldly clergy, yet
with Wickliffe they preferred “the good old custom of paying tithes,
according to one’s own free-will, to good and godly men, who were able
to preach the gospel.”
Possibly it would be well to say of Selden who is generally quoted as
opposed to the tithe, that he himself says of his famous book, “It was
not written to prove that tithes are not due by the Law of God....
Neither is it anything else but itself, that is, a mere narration, and
the Historie of Tithes.” It comes out in the course of the narrative,
however, that he was contending for the voluntary tithe, just as
has been done in this discussion. He was suffering, as many others
like him have suffered, from the oppression of human enactment and
perversion in respect to that which God intended to be a gracious and
wholesome provision. Hence arises the odium which attaches to the word
tithe. But odium is not enough to excuse the retention of a principle
represented by a name. Like the name Christian which we bear, it can by
God’s help be made an honorable one. It was so perverted in the time
of the kings of Israel, as God had warned them it would be. Hezekiah,
however, restored its proper usage. The tithe was never intended for a
national tax to support the State. Its support was at first voluntary
as it seems (1 Sam. 10:27). It came to be a fixed tribute by the demand
of such kings as Rehoboam. It is to be remembered that odium, and
perversion, and the plea of heavy taxes, did not prevent Malachi from
accusing the whole Jewish nation of robbing God. The tithe is still
holy to Him and ought to be brought into His house and must, if large
blessings are to come.
The facts adduced lead inevitably to the main conclusions reached,
if I understand the principles of logical induction. This method
of induction is quite popular at present, when applied to certain
historical data. I am persuaded that if as much surplus ingenuity and
lauded scholarship were expended on these data as are expended on
other data to establish useless hypotheses, the Church of God would
be more edified and would become “liberal” in a manner more pleasing
to God. Strictness in doctrine and liberality in giving surely are
more compatible with divine teaching than liberality in doctrine and
stinginess in giving. Liberality has affected the wrong thing. The
slackening of doctrinal teaching has benefited nothing, but has brought
a flood of Rationalism, Infidelity, and Unbelief on the Church. Loosen
the purse strings and cherish “the faith once delivered to the saints”
as God gave it, and we have His word that the floods of evil shall be
driven back by the floods of heavenly blessings which He challenges us
to receive.
The sweep of the facts is broad. The conclusions are inevitable.
The tithe is universal. Its duty remains to be performed. It seems
an unnecessary trespass on time and patience to try to meet all the
quibbles that may be started. It is not time for sentiment, nor is it
well to bring in the poor, as if God did not know how to provide for
them. Pastors know that the poor are not the grumblers. Many complain
against the law that the one-seventh of time is God’s. The Sabbath is
not counted a burden, neither is it annulled on that account. Complaint
settles nothing. People complain of everything under the sun and often
of things above the sun. We are not called upon to adjust the relations
of capital and labor which make the Sabbath and the Tithe an oppression
(if you please to call them such), in order to prove the obligation
of the Sabbath and the Tithe. One-seventh of time and one-tenth of
money belong to the Lord. Who takes either for his own robs God, His
word being witness. The same question arises as to why both are not
more distinctly taught in the New Testament. Both are old and well
established. Each is a minimum demanded without reservation. If this
be not true of the tithe, then there is no law governing that grace of
God in which we are to abound, unless it be that we should hold with
some of the Fathers that “those who have received liberty should set
aside all their possessions for the Lord’s purpose.” This is the only
other method that has the much demanded New Testament approval, so
far as amount is concerned. I do not find even our brethren who are
so strenuous for New Testament teaching and practice, falling over
themselves to adopt this method. Our own denomination is reckoned
as a liberal one, but counting its income according to government
reports which place the average income of every man, woman, and child
at 55 cents per day, we have never paid for all purposes more than
one-third of one-tenth of our income into the Lord’s treasury. Some
other branches of the Church may be a little better, but many of them
are unquestionably worse. Well might Chrysostom exclaim, “O what a
shame! that what was no great matter among the Jews should be pretended
to be such among Christians!” Instead of giving a tithe, we fall so
far below it that the tithe actually seems visionary to us. The most
careful calculations show very clearly that God knows how much money he
wants for His work and that with the tithe of the Church’s income at
present, the world could be evangelized in this generation. The early
Christians gave often all their means and all their time. We complain
of one-seventh of time and one-tenth of money. If the Jews could give
25 per cent from the produce of Judean hills and valleys, why cannot
we give cheerfully at least one-tenth to the kingdom of Him who though
He was rich yet for our sakes became poor that we through His poverty
might be rich? He who falls below one-fourth gives less than the
Jew. Having a better covenant, established on better promises, and
administered by a better Mediator, shall we grumble at one-tenth, the
tribute of a heathen or savage to a god he dreads and with no spark of
divine love to call forth his offering? To fail to pay the tithe is not
only worse than Jewish but even worse than heathenish. Nowhere do we
find such niggardliness, no not even in a heathen.
No one has ever been the worse off for doing his duty toward God.
“The Path to Wealth” by “A Blacksmith” contains a chapter of voluntary
testimonies given at a public meeting. Twenty-nine testimonies were
given either directly or indirectly. The occupations of the persons
were as follows: Five not named, six ministers, four farmers, two
merchants, and one each of the following: General agent, Y. M. C. A.
secretary, student, clerk, lady stenographer, principal of schools,
shoemaker, young lady telegraph operator who had a mother and sister
to support, and a missionary from India, who told the story of one of
his native helpers, Bhelsari Naiah, who had been tithing for three
months when this conversation took place. “Well, Bhelsari, how does
the tithing system work?” “Capitally, sir.” “Ah, how is that? You were
always complaining of being hard up, and even in debt, when you used
your whole income for self; now, you give one-tenth to God, you have no
complaints.” “Ah, sir, the nine-tenths, with God’s blessing, is better
far than the ten-tenths used to be without it.” I have received many
testimonies to the same effect. Mr. Thomas Kane, of Chicago, has had
thousands and thousands of such replies, so that we may safely say that
Bhelsari’s answer must stand as the voice of general experience.
Not only have men tried it for themselves, but it has been tried in
business where firms have kept a strict account of the Lord’s part and
disbursed it for charity and have not found the Lord’s promise wanting.
Of late years it has come to be a prominent part in the system of
finance of various congregations. What is known as the Tithe Covenant
Plan originated in Wesley Chapel in Cincinnati about eight years ago.
The central idea of this plan is based upon the literal interpretation
of Mal. 3:10, “Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, etc.” The
members bring in every week in an unmarked envelope the tithe of their
income for that week and all is counted together and then distributed
by the officers of the Church according to a previously arranged
schedule. This congregation, being a downtown one, was about to give up
from lack of support, when this plan was started and now it is one of
the most active churches in that city and is the most liberal of any
church in the city or conference in its support of charity and missions.
The Third United Presbyterian Church of Chicago adopted this plan
April 1, 1901. The Methodist Church of Shelbyville, Ind., adopted it
on June 1, 1901. The Memorial Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis,
Ind., adopted it on July 1, 1901. These were the churches that had made
actual trial of it, when the Tithe Conference was held at Winona in
August, 1902. Since then several have taken it up, notably the Delaware
Avenue Baptist Church of Buffalo, N. Y., and the Eighth Presbyterian
Church of Chicago. Mr. Blynn Yates of Buffalo, N. Y., has consented
to act as the distributer of information in respect to the working
of this plan and after the Conference at Winona this year literature
will be issued which will give data concerning what some of us believe
promises to be a mighty factor in the Church’s progress in the years to
come. In all these congregations where this plan has been given a fair
trial it has wrought wonders and the testimonies that will soon be at
your disposal will be a revelation, I judge, to many who have been in
despair almost over the problem of financing the kingdom. It will show
that God has a plan and that the plan will meet the needs of the Church
to-day, as it always has in the past, when honestly administered. No
congregation need fear to give it a fair trial. As the colored preacher
said, “I hab nebber known a church killed by too much gibbin to de
Lawd. If der should be such a church, and I should know about it, I’ll
tell you what I’d do. I’d go to dat church, and I’d clamber up its
moss-covered roof, and I’d sit straddle of its ridge pole, and I’d cry
aloud, ‘Blessed am de dead dat die in de Lawd.’” If any one tries this
method and faithfully proves the Lord therewith, and then goes under,
it certainly will be time to say, “Blessed am de dead dat die in de
Lawd.”
Many give more than the tenth and should do so. I know some who give
one-fifth, and higher proportions up to that height attained by one
whom it has been my privilege to meet who gives nine-tenths of his
income and lives on the one-tenth. When we have paid our due to the
Lord, we still have nine-tenths out of which to meet the call of the
gospel in such words as these, “Give good measure. Freely ye have
received, freely give. Abound in this grace. Sell that thou hast and
give to the poor.” A man once gave such a large gift to missions as to
call forth words of surprise. He said, “It is one-quarter of what I
own. I found that as I was prospered my money engrossed more and more
of my thoughts. I am not going to be a slave to the money God gave me,
and I am going to conquer the love of money by giving it away.” That
was in accord with the word of Christ to the rich young ruler and any
one who is becoming a slave of money ought not only to give a tenth,
but might better give a quarter or a half or even all his money away,
rather than die as the fool died who laid up treasure for himself and
was not rich toward God. Christ commended the widow who gave all and
cared for her as he will for all who honor Him with their substance.
The tithe has been given by all races and conditions in the past and no
objection on account of race or condition can hold against it now.
While we might have cut short much debate by saying that the tithe
is not a Jewish institution but is an ancient law of the race and we
are no more called upon to prove its obligation than we are that of
the law of the Sabbath or of marriage, yet we have tried to present
the case as briefly and yet thoroughly as possible within reasonable
limits. But, as I said at Winona last year, suppose you deny all
this evidence and refuse to be convinced of its obligation, there
is one plea that you cannot gainsay. It is the one system that has
never failed to get the money. The history of the past shows this.
The enemies of the Evangelical Church recognize it. The Mormons, the
Seventh Day Adventists, the Dowieites all find the tithe sufficient
to carry on their wonderful propagandas and demonstrate the argument
that God’s tenth if rightly used by His Church would enable us soon
to take the world for Christ. All other methods of raising money pale
into insignificance when compared with this which has always, in all
ages, and among all classes of peoples proved sufficient to do great
things in the name of the religion or irreligion in behalf of which it
was used. The simple argument, It works, ought to appeal to the many
struggling Church workers who are at their wits’ end to know how to
meet expenses. That mere tithe-paying will bring spiritual blessing,
I do not claim. The reverse is true, as the Pharisee testifies. But
tithing according to God’s plan and in the spirit which He has laid
down in His word must and will bring great blessing.
One of our missionaries in India tells of a native who was an earnest
Christian and a believer in tithing. He had a friend who was converted
and he was anxious to have him tithe also. After some effort to
persuade him and seemingly without avail, he gave his friend a sound
thrashing and enforced the tithe by brawn and not by persuasion of
conscience. This was zeal without knowledge. You can no more make a
man give than you can make him pray. You can make a man say words, but
it is not prayer. You may make him hand out money unwillingly, but
that is not giving as I view it. I like to define giving as follows:
Giving is a cheerful, willing, liberal, intelligent, quiet, regular and
prayerful exercise of a God-given grace. This grace of giving, like all
God’s gifts, comes with the asking and stays with the using. It is
no more possible for a man to have the grace of giving without asking
for it and making proper use of it, than it is to have the Spirit for
service without asking for and making use of that gift. I would not
attempt to force this system on any unprayerful person or people.
But, Oh that the Church might awake to its glorious provision and its
wonderful privilege in this conformity to the law of giving! When a
man asks for the grace of giving and receives the impulse to open his
purse to abound in this grace, then comes to him God’s rule, The Tenth
is holy unto Me as a first-fruit of this grace, and immediately he
begins to see where it is that a man crosses over the boundary line of
selfishness and steps into the plane of devotion to God, and he takes
the step and rejoices in it. As he walks on in the glad consciousness
of duty done, he begins to rejoice in larger manifestations of this
grace and meets other and larger opportunities for the gospel’s sake
and for the Master’s sake, and thus the fulness of the blessing of this
grace flows into his soul and he knows the meaning of abounding in this
grace also.
What has been said of individual experience, may be just as truly said
of the experience that comes to any congregation that will follow
this same plan of God, as some of our congregations can testify. The
blessing is not only financial, but it is spiritual in a large and
increasing sense. Would that John Knox might stir up the ministry now
as he is said to have done in his day in Scotland when he said, “There
is no impiety against which it is more requisite you set yourselves in
this time. Repent, therefore, and amend your own neglect in this behalf
and call upon others for amendment.” Max Mueller is said also to have
written to a young minister, “When one thinks what this world of ours
would be, if at least this minimum of Christianity were a reality, one
feels that you are right in preaching this simple duty in season and
out of season, until people see that without fulfilling it, every other
profession of religion is a mere sham.”
The ringing words of Bishop Potter at the dedication of Grace Chapel in
New York city, while they may apply peculiarly to the Episcopal Church,
yet are wholesome words to all God’s people.
“The growth of wealth and of luxury, wicked, wasteful, and wanton, as
before God I declare that luxury to be, has been matched step by step
by a deepening and deadening poverty which has left whole neighborhoods
of people practically without hope and without aspiration. At such
a time, for the church of God to sit still and be content with
theories of its duty outlawed by time and long ago demonstrated to be
grotesquely inadequate to the demands of a living situation, this is
to deserve the scorn of men and the curse of God! Take my word for it,
men and brethren, unless you and I and all those who have any gift or
stewardship of talents, or means, of whatsoever sort, are willing to
get up out of our sloth and ease and selfish dilettanteism of service,
and get down among the people who are battling amid their poverty and
ignorance--young girls for their chastity, young men for their better
ideal of righteousness, old and young alike for one clear ray of the
immortal courage and the immortal hope--then verily the church in its
stately splendor, its apostolic orders, its venerable ritual, its
decorous and dignified conventions, is revealed as simply a monstrous
and insolent impertinence!”
Seeing that this indictment is well placed, why should not any person
or people pay to God at least the tenth, as His minimum requirement?
The need has not ceased. We have the poor with us. The ministry is
appointed to live by the gospel. The field is not Judea alone, but the
world. Opportunities of beneficence are multifold. Men are waiting and
hungering for the gospel. Men are longing to take it to them. Means we
must have. Our greatest need, as before stated, from the human side is
money, not men or machinery.
As Mr. Gladstone said, “The inculcation and practice of systematic
beneficence will prove the moral specific for this age.” Will the
people rob God? “Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse, that
there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the
Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour
you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”
Why not make the test? Then God even our own God will bless us with the
riches of His grace, to whom be glory in the Church of Jesus Christ
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.