Chapter II: Part 2

Jerome (345-420) writes in his letter to Nepotian (Vol. VI., Second Series) as follows: “I, if I am the portion of the Lord, and the line of His heritage, receive no portion among the remaining tribes; but, like the priest and the Levite, I live on the tithe, and serving the altar, am supported by its offerings. Having food and raiment, I shall be content with these, and as a disciple of the Cross shall share its poverty.”

Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary quotes Jerome as saying on Mal. 3:10, “What we have said of tithes and first-fruits which of old used to be given by the people to the priests and Levites, understand also in the case of the people of the Church, to whom it has been commanded to sell all they have and give to the poor and follow the Lord and Savior.... If we are unwilling to do this, at least let us imitate the rudimentary teaching of the Jews so as to give a part of the whole to the poor and pay the priests and Levites due honor. If any one shall not do this he is convicted of defrauding and cheating God.”

The same authority quotes Ambrose (340-397) as saying (Sermon 34), “God has reserved the tenth part to Himself, and therefore it is not lawful for a man to retain what God has reserved for Himself. To thee He has given nine parts, for Himself He has reserved the tenth part, and if thou shalt not give to God the tenth part, God will take from thee the nine parts.” Again in a sermon on Ascension Day, “A good Christian pays tithes yearly to be given to the poor.”

From the same authority also, we get this from Augustine (354-430) who is quoted as saying (Hom. 48), “Our ancestors used to abound in wealth of every kind for this very reason that they used to give tithes, and pay the tax to Caesar. Now, on the contrary, because devotion to God has ceased, the drain of the treasury has increased. We have been unwilling to share the tithes with God, now the whole is taken away.”

We quote further from Augustine (Vol. VI., First Series, page 367). “Let us give a certain portion of it. What portion? A tenth? The Scribes and Pharisees give tithes for whom Christ had not yet shed His blood. The Scribes and Pharisees give tithes; lest haply thou shouldst think thou art doing any great thing in breaking thy bread to the poor, and this is scarcely a thousandth part of thy means. And yet I am not finding fault with this; do even this. So hungry and thirsty am I, that I am glad even of these crumbs. But yet I cannot keep back what He who died for us said whilst He was alive, ‘Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The Scribes and Pharisees gave the tenth. How is it with you? Ask yourselves. Consider what you spend on mercy, what you reserve for luxury.”

In commenting on Christ’s saying in Luke 11:41, “Give alms, and behold all things are clean unto you,” Augustine says (pages 435 and 436), “When He had spoken thus, doubtless they thought that they did give alms. And how did they give them? They tithed all they had, they took away a tenth of all their produce, and gave it. It is no easy matter to find a Christian who doth as much.”... Christ saith to them, “I know that ye do this, ‘ye tithe mint and anise, cummin and rue,’ but I am speaking of other alms: ye despise ‘judgment and charity.’”... What is “in judgment”? Look back, and discover thyself; mislike thyself, pronounce judgment against thyself. And what is charity? “Love the Lord God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; love thy neighbor as thyself: and thou hast done alms first to thine own soul, within thy conscience. Whereas if thou neglect this alms, give what thou wilt; reserve of thy goods not a tenth, but a half; give nine parts, and leave but one for thine own self: thou doest nothing, when thou dost not alms to thine own soul and art poor in thyself.”

Once more we find Augustine saying (Vol. VIII., page 668), “Cut off some part of thy income; a tenth, if thou choosest, though that is but little. For it is said that the Pharisees gave a tenth.... He whose righteousness thou oughtest to exceed giveth a tenth: thou givest not even a thousandth. How wilt thou surpass him whom thou matchest not.”

Chrysostom (347-407) preaches in much the same strain (Vol. XIII., page 69). “They gave tithes, and tithes again upon tithes for orphans, widows and strangers; whereas some one was saying to me in astonishment at another, ‘Why, such a one gives tithes.’ What a load of disgrace does this expression imply, since what was not a matter of wonder with the Jews has come to be so in the case of the Christians? If there was danger then in omitting tithes, think how great it must be now.”

In preaching on Matt. 5:20, he says (Vol. X., pages 395, 396), “So that, though thou give alms, but not more than they, thou shalt not enter in. And how much did they bestow in alms? one may ask. For this very thing, I am minded to say now, that they who do not give may be roused to give, and they that give may not pride themselves, but may make increase of their gifts. What then did they give? A tenth of all their possessions, and again another tenth, and after this a third, so that they almost gave away the third part, for three-tenths put together make up this. And together with these, first-fruits, and first born, and other things besides, as, for instance, the offerings for sins, those for purification, those at feasts, those in the jubilee, those by the cancelling of debts, and the dismissal of servants, and the lendings that were clear of usury. But if he who gave the third part of his goods, or rather the half (for those being put together with these are the half), if he who is giving the half, achieves no great thing, he who doth not bestow so much as the tenth, of what shall he be worthy? With reason He said, ‘There are few that be saved.’... For nothing else do I hear you saying everywhere, but such words as these: ‘Such a one has bought so many acres of land; such a one is rich, he is building.’ Why dost thou stare, O man, at what is without? Why dost thou look to others? If thou art minded to look to others, look to them that do their duty, to them that approve themselves, to them that carefully fulfill the law, not to those that have become offenders and are in dishonor.”

Cassian (died about 432) in the First Conference of Abbott Thomas (Vol. XI., Second Series, p. 503, Ch. I.), makes record of the fact that certain young men, led by Thomas, were “eager to offer tithes and first-fruits of their substance” to Abbott John. This is said to be the first instance on record of payment of tithes to a monastery. In Ch. II. Abbott John thanks them for these gifts and refers to Prov. 3:9, 10 as promising a blessing for so doing. In chapters following, he speaks of tithes and other offerings as given by the Lord’s commands and then instances the cases of Abraham, David, and other saints who went beyond the requirements of law. He argues that we who are under the gospel should sell all and give to the poor. “If even those who, faithfully offering tithes of their fruits, are obedient to the more ancient precepts of the Lord, cannot yet climb the heights of the gospel, you can see very clearly how far short of it those fall who do not even do this.” While he holds that the law is no longer exacted, he makes this significant comment (p. 515). “But when the multitude of believers began day by day to decline from that apostolic fervor, and to look after their own wealth, and not to portion it out for the good of all the faithful in accordance with the arrangement of the Apostles, but having an eye to their own private expenses, tried not only to keep it, but actually to increase it, not content with following the example of Ananias and Sapphira, then it seemed good to all the priests that men who were hampered by world care, and almost ignorant, if I may say so, of abstinence and contrition, should be recalled to the pious duty by a fast canonically enjoined, and be constrained by the necessity of paying legal tithes, as this certainly would be good for the weak brethren and could not do any harm to the perfect who were living under the grace of the gospel and by their voluntary devotion going beyond the law.” See also this same thought enlarged upon in Ch. 33.

Four bishops who were members of the Second Synod of Tours (567) issued a letter to the laity in which they assert that the tithe should be paid. (Hefele, Vol. I., p. 394). The Second Synod of Macon (585) enjoined afresh the law of the tithe under penalty of excommunication for refusal to observe it. This is the first official enactment that is considered authentic by those who are said to be authorities. From that time on its endorsement and enforcement became common and at length almost universal in the Church. The first Christian emperors assigned land and other property to ministers for their support, but enacted no law respecting the tithe. The first legal enactment was made by Charlemagne, king of the Franks, 768-800, and Roman emperor, 800-814. His Capitularies established its practice in the Roman empire, and thence it spread to other lands. Offa, king of Mercia, introduced the tithe system into England about the close of the eighth century, and Ethelwulf in the ninth century, or according to Clarke (History of Tithes), Athelstan 927, made it a law for the whole English realm. To what the tithe was to be devoted was optional until Innocent III., through the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1200, issued a decretal requiring tithes to be paid to the clergy of the parish to which the payee belonged, which decree Clarke says was inoperative until reissued by the General Council of Lateran, 1215, when the parson was finally given the parochial right to the tithes. The tithe was introduced into Portugal and Denmark in the eleventh century, into Sweden in the thirteenth, and soon became a general law of Christendom.

The Roman secular law provided that any one who obtained a part of the public land in a conquered country should pay to the state a tenth of the revenue he derived from its rent, and this system was usually transferred to the colonies settled on the soil. When the church tithe came into prominence there arose two kinds, secular and ecclesiastical tithes, which to a greater or less extent have been associated and commingled in almost every civilization from the earliest times. It would be impossible, were it deemed necessary, to state in a brief limit the minutiæ of this complicated tithe system. It was not abolished by the Reformation. Luther and Calvin believed in tithing for the support of the Church. It may be worth while to quote from the First Book of Discipline, which Knox heartily approved. One section runs as follows: “The sums able to sustain the forenamed persons, and to furnish all things appertaining to the preservation of good order and policy within the Kirk, must be lifted of tenths, the tenth sheaf of all sorts of corn, hay, hemp and lint: tenth fish, tenth calf, tenth lamb, tenth wool, tenth foal, tenth cheese. And because that we know that the tenth reasonably taken, as is before expressed, will not suffice to discharge the former necessity” it directs other gifts and rents. These Reformers, however, felt the burden of the enforced tithe and the movement grew apace to remove it. It was abolished in France in 1789. Other countries where any law obtains, have largely commuted it to a fixed annual sum of money, after the system in vogue in England to-day. Enlightened Christendom is rightfully rebelling against this enforced tribute and is looking for a more spontaneous support.

LINES OF ARGUMENT.

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.