G. E. Good, D.D., of Woodland, has an article in the Herald of Truth of August 21 and 28, in which he argues for a legal-Sabbath, which will not discriminate between citizens. Among other things less worthy of note, he says:—
"When the whole tendency of this labor problem, as now carried on, tends to injure the individual, the home and the country at large, it seems to be time that the laws of the land regulated the matter. If there was a strong, clear, well-arranged law that made the breaking of it a misdemeanor, and punishable by fine or imprisonment, so that all business would cease one day in seven, then all classes would be treated in an impartial manner. No one could honestly complain. No one could feel that he or his occupation was singled out and made a special object of legislation."
In another place he says: "A law that discriminates against its citizens is not just." And this is true. We will refer to it later on. Just now let us notice some points in the above quotation.
By "this labor problem," Dr. Good means laboring on Sunday. He says that it "tends to injure the individual, the home, and the country at large," therefore government ought to make a law prohibiting it. Possibly; but let us see how government control would work on this ground. We will use his own argument only differently applied.
Man's constitution needs rest. Ten hours of hard work out of the twenty-four is all he constantly can perform with safety. Government, therefore, ought to prohibit more than ten hours' work a day, because it "tends to injure the individual." Certain kinds of food, the use of tobacco, and tea and coffee, are very hurtful to many; therefore, because they "tend to injure the individual," they ought to be prohibited by law. Certain kinds of clothing, and certain garments, like the tight, high-heeled shoes, and corsets, "tend to injure the individual," and therefore government ought by a "strong, clear, well-arranged law" make the continued use of these things "a misdemeanor, and punishable by fine or imprisonment."
As these things are hurtful to the father and mother, they strike directly at the foundation of the "home." The father who spends too many hours in labor, or by the use of wrong articles of food, or by bad habits, injures his health, or the mother who breaks down her constitution by strong nerve tonics, or the wearing of improper clothing,—these cannot do their duty by their children, in training them for their home or country. These things, these habits, "tend to injure the individual, the home, and the country," therefore the government ought to prohibit them by "a strong, clear, well-arranged law," the violation of which was "punishable with fine or imprisonment."
The father and mother who sin against God in covetousness, and hatred, and backbiting, are doing that which injures the individual, home, and country, therefore it ought to be prohibited by "a strong, clear, well-arranged law."
The above simple illustrations will enable the reader to see the absurdity of a Sunday law on such grounds. There would in such case be no end of government interference. It would be Russian laws duplicated. "But, of course," someone says, "the government would not make laws regulating our food, private habits, and clothes we wear." Probably not; but it would be equally right for the government so to do; "for," says Dr. G., "when men have no more principle than to wrong themselves, and oblige others to do so, it is time the State stepped in and enforced the laws of man's nature, and the laws of right to others." The Sunday law is no more just than laws would be which regulate man's time on other days, and prescribe his food and clothing. It is simply meddling tyranny.
If a law were passed prohibiting all labor one day in seven (Sunday), "then," says Mr. G., "all classes would be treated in an impartial manner." All who desired to keep Sunday would be, but no more. Dr. Good evidently believes in impartiality or equality for—the Sunday-keepers. The man who believed in no day, the Jews who keep the seventh day, the two bodies of seventh-day Christians who had rested one day, would be discriminated against. The latter classes have kept one day for conscience' sake, and the majority compel them to keep another. Such a law imposes upon them a tax of one-sixth of their time, or sixteen and two-thirds per cent. of their income, on account of their religion, for which it grants them no privileges whatever. According to Dr. G., such a law "is not just," yet he pleads for it.
The day he wants is told in the following words:—
"Ninety-nine-hundredths of the people of the nation believe in a rest day in seven, and that it should be the day called Sunday."
And of course the majority ought to decide! The great majority of Christians hold sprinkling as baptism; therefore immersion is wrong, and ought to be prohibited! But Baptists would repudiate this with all their soul.
And then follows this precious bit of wise dogmatism: "There can be no sound, logical reason for keeping any other day as a day of rest." To us the reason given by the all-wise God is sufficient. Jehovah says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." And God gives his reasons in Ex. 20:8-11. Mr. Good may not call them "sound" or "logical," but the lover of God's truth will.
It is of interest to note the reason why the Rev. G. E. Good, D.D., wants this legal day of rest. He says:—
"When there are no saloons to go to, on this rest day, no opera house open, no dance hall to seduce them, no trotting course, no baseball game, nothing that tends to debase the moral natures of men and women, the classes who would go to such places would eventually gravitate toward the churches, the Sunday-schools, and the home, for mutual benefit and comfort."
And if they would not gravitate toward the churches, there should be "a strong, clear, well-arranged law" compelling it, with penalty of "fine or imprisonment" for its violation. It cannot be hidden. The law is demanded for religion, and that for a certain class, the Sunday-keeper. Labor of all could be arranged for the good of all and the injury of none, without a Sunday law; but that would never suit the Sunday-keeper.
His closing paragraph refers to the Bible as being in "the same line." God rested on the seventh day and commanded it to Israel, he says, and they are blessed and prospered when they strictly observed it. Exactly; but will modern Israel be blessed and prospered when they choose a counterfeit day, and try to enforce it by carnal means? But governments of earth have no right to enforce any religious institution on any ground. They can553protect the worshiper; let them leave alone his worship. Woe worth the day to our land when the desires of Sunday-law advocates are realized.
We have given the strongest points in Dr. Good's article. It is like all the other Sunday-law arguments. They have no basis in truth or justice.
COMPLIMENTARY.
By Editor
THE Herald of Truth, in its issue of the 28th ultimo, takes occasion through reference to the Sunday-law agitation to mention Seventh-day Adventists. That one may be able to appreciate the friendliness, courtesy, amiability, and charity of our contemporary, we print its note entire. It is thus that our neighbor discourses:—
"We can but believe that it was a mistake for Mr. Crafts to give the prominence which he did to the Adventists. They are zealots who compass sea and land to persuade one man to pronounce their seventh-day Shibboleth. These people are twenty centuries behind in the march of truth, and two centuries behind in their methods of warfare. They live on logic and would die but for disputes. Two centuries ago they would have exactly fitted their time. But under the Spirit of God and the broad wings of the angel of charity, we believe that to-day there is something paramount to proselytism, something nobler than narrow dogmatizing about a day, and something more Christ-like than stealing the Lord's sheep from another's fold in order to fill one's own. These people recruit their ranks not from the forces of Satan, but from the churches of Christ. They especially delight to feed on the life-blood of Baptists. A taste of Baptist blood makes them voracious.
"We believe their spirit is filled with strife, narrowness and dogmatism and unchristian proselytism. We most heartily wish that they had as much Christianity as the Salvation Army people, who try to save the lost and let other people alone. We believe Baptists at least should let these people alone, for they are joined to their idols. Baptists could do better than pay their money for printing to people who live on Baptist life."
We do not consider that the above words merit a reply. The spirit which dictated them must be evident to any one of the least spiritual discernment. We will however depart from our convictions and in mercy point out some facts to our neighbor. Perhaps the Herald has cooled sufficiently to profit by them.
1. The prominence which Mr. Crafts gave Adventists. Was it not the other way? Mr. Crafts himself said that no people would go so far to hear him or gave him better attention than ours. The best congregations he has had since coming to this coast has been where Adventists advertised him and thus gave him prominence. Is it not because his hoped-for success was so signal a failure that our contemporary feels so blue?
2. Eighteen centuries back carry us to the fountain head, uncorrupted by tradition. We plead guilty of going no further back. Two hundred years ago were not such bad times for the Baptists. They developed such men as Roger Williams, men who had convictions worth defending and consciences which could not compromise, whose motto and whose walk was forward and up. The "up grade" is better than the "down grade," isn't it, neighbor?
3. We prize "logic" much better than its opposite. We live however "by the faith of the Son of God." Evidently logic is a commodity scarce in the Herald sanctum. We have heard a certain story about "sour grapes."
4. The charge of proselyting and stealing comes with a bad grace from Baptists. "Dogmatizing about a day" falls in the same category. Baptists have dogmatized about a rite, a form,—immersion—during the whole of their existence. They exist by virtue of that. It is their shibboleth, although many through the spirit of compromise, and so-called charity, are coming to pronounce it "sibboleth," they have not quite courage enough to "frame to pronounce it right." But, neighbor, cling to that one truth. It is a precious heritage left of your fathers, who felt that that truth was worth dogmatizing about at times, and teaching to others who knew it not, wherever they were. They believed even as we that God's truth is for all the world, for all sects and classes. We endeavor to present that truth as it is in Christ Jesus. If Baptists come to hear, they are always welcome. So are all others. We present before them God's word, centuries old though it be, and invite them to accept of that. It is true that Baptists have joined our ranks. It is true that they are the life-blood of the Baptists that do so. But they are not compelled to so do, other than the word and Spirit of God compels them. It takes good men and women, honest in heart, who have the courage of their convictions, to follow advanced light. Honest Baptists who have taken Bible testimony for baptism, would naturally accept of, not our theory, but the Bible truth of the Sabbath. With your advanced nineteenth-century charity, and advanced position in the march of truth, with such superior methods of warfare, can the sheep not be kept in the fold, the life current checked?
Proselyting is not a new charge. Jesus and his apostles stirred up Judaism and drained its spiritual life-blood. Martin Luther gathered many out of the Roman Catholic churches. John Wesley, and scores of others, the noble Baptist denomination included, are among those which have gathered many of their numbers from other bodies. What is the Baptist Church doing in the State and Church countries of Europe to-day? But we are not made up of Baptists, neighbor, only as we are all Baptists. The majority of our people first found light and truth and liberty and life with us. They were begotten through the word carried by our instrumentality; but to God we give the glory.
And this work will go on. If Baptists do not accept of the down-trodden truths of God's word, the life-blood will continue to flow from the Baptists till it comes in contact with the truth of God. Seventh-day Adventists may apostatize as a body, they may be boycotted as our neighbor advises, but the work will go on till every honest, regenerate soul, from Baptists as well as others, has accepted present truth. Can you show a better way, Brother Herald, than the way of truth?
5. You say, "We believe their spirit is filled with strife," etc. Why, neighbor? What is your evidence? Did you ever attend one series of Seventh-day Adventist meetings? Would charity prompt or truth justify such a sentence?
6. To the last sentence we will let a former editor and publisher of the same journal, the Herald of Truth, make answer. After dealing with a Seventh-day Adventist firm for years, in the last number of that journal under his management, March 15, 1889, Rev. G. S. Abbott, D.D., said:—
"A NOTE.—I wish to put on record my grateful appreciation of the consideration shown to me all these years by the Pacific Press of Oakland, whose honor in dealing, and whose perfection of type and press work, is probably unsurpassed on the Pacific Coast. G. S. A."
We have corrected some of your mistakes, neighbor, have pointed out some uncharitable allusions and conclusions. What will you do? If we have spoken or taught evil, bear witness of the evil from the word of God; but if we have spoken well, why dost thou smite us? Shall we hear from you again? M. C. W.
THE CIVIL SABBATH.
By Editor
SAYS the editor of the Herald of Truth:—
"Give us rest. We mean now a civil rest-day, a civil Sabbath if you prefer it. We all need it, both man and beast, together with preachers and editors! There seems to be the profoundest philosophy as well as the 'law and the gospel' in calling for such a day. It does not mean religious legislation. It is no infringement on the rights of any beyond what is both natural and necessary in any government. It does not mean that any man's conscience is to be touched. This must never be on American soil covered by the freedom of Christian civilization. In the minds of our people, much in connection with this whole question is confused, but this point should be clearly grasped to begin with, that the present movement all over the country is not in the interest of anything like a religious establishment or the union, in the least, of Church and State."
Well, then, why don't you rest? Who is hindering you, or anyone else who so desires, from resting on Sunday? Is a law needed to give you rest? Is conscience and conviction so weak that nothing less than law will enable you to rest? But he wants a "civil Sabbath." A civil Sabbath is as much a misnomer as a civil immersion or a civil Lord's supper. By what right has the government to take from any man one day each week just as long as he does not injure his neighbor in life, character, property, or reputation? No man's conscience must be touched, but he must be compelled to keep an institution utterly repugnant to him! On the same ground, the decree of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3) was only a civil law, in harmony with the majority, for the good of the people, and necessary to maintain the government. How confused was Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in this matter. According to the Herald of Truth they need not have been cast into the fiery furnace. All that Nebuchadnezzar required was obedience to a civil law. He did not say that they should not worship their God.
A legal Sabbath involves, in a country where there are classes which disagree, a decision as to what day is the Sabbath. In so doing it discriminates against religious classes one side or the other. It involves, unless Sunday-keepers will compromise on some other day of the week, the adoption of a religious institution held by more or less as sacred. It therefore places a religious dogma in the statute law, and therefore unites religion with the State. It elevates that branch of the Christian church which keep Sunday, by establishing a religious tenet held by them, and it brings hardship upon those who disagree with them.
Thus it would be with seventh day keepers if Sunday was established. And this hardship would not come to the Jew by virtue of his relation as a citizen, but by virtue of his religion, which comes not in conflict with the rights of his fellow-citizens, but in conflict with a religious dogma enforced by civil law. No sophistry can evade the point. Sunday legislation means religious legislation, religious tyranny, religious persecution. But in the meantime, till the Sunday-rest law is obtained, no government will prevent the editor of the Herald from resting all he wishes. Yes and he can make that rest as civil as he pleases. We do not know where more confusion exists on this subject than in the minds of Baptists, beginning with the Herald of Truth. The "profoundest philosophy" is profoundest confusion.
Afflictions as God’s Messengers
By Golden Censor
AFFLICTIONS and privations are, or should be, if we will hear their voice, God's messengers to mellow and train us for grander work. Even Moses, the meek man, was driven into forty years of exile and hardship, just at the time he saw his mission of delivering his people rising before him. The great work was there to be done, but he was not ready to do it; his righteous wrath had led him into violence, till he had slain a man; and this same would probably have led him to attempt the release of his people by some John Brown raid, of force, which would mean defeat and destruction. God is fitting us for his work, and we should cheerfully endure the schooling of afflictions.—Golden Censor.
THE conduct of David as the servant of Saul had been humble and obedient. His life had been above reproach, but his faithfulness to God had been in such marked contrast to the rebellious course of Saul that it was a constant rebuke to him. Saul had therefore fully determined to leave no effort untried in order that David might be slain. This policy controlled the whole of his later life, and, notwithstanding the escapes of David were in some instances so clearly miraculous as to show the direct providence of God, yet in his self-idolatry, Saul sacrificed justice, humanity, and truth to his unholy ambition and pride.
WHATEVER doubts may have previously existed in David's mind in regard to the relations existing between himself and the king, it is evident that he now clearly understood them, and also that he clearly recognized his own ultimate right to the kingdom. Many of the Israelites also had reached this latter conclusion, and in one sense of the word, a provisional court was already gathering about him. Under these circumstances the lesson of today develops the widely different principles on which the two men acted.
NOTHING but the blindness of fiendish rage could have tempted Saul to pursue the outlawed husband of his own daughter among the crags and precipices of the mountains about En-gedi. With his force of three thousand chosen men, his search would doubtless have been successful had it not been for the overruling providence of God. As it was, he was brought into a position where he could see the wickedness of his conduct as compared with that of the man whom he was trying to slay.
As David and his attendants lay concealed in one of the caves with which the limestone cliffs of that region abound, Saul and his company passed that way. Resting perhaps in the mouth of the cavern, during the heat of the day, Saul retired further into the cave and probably fell asleep. Looking at the situation from a human standpoint, it would seem clear that God had led him in there to deliver him into David's hand. This was the view held by David's servants, and they were not slow to urge him to take advantage of this opportunity to rid himself of his foe.
BUT there are two ways of looking at every question, no matter how providential it may appear. There is such a thing as interpreting God's dealings solely in the light of self-interest, while again, it is possible for us to interpret them in the light of higher truth and to use them as means for the advancement of the purposes of the divine will instead of our own.
WE are too apt to look at both the providence and the word of God merely in the light of our own wishes. This is always the counsel of worldly wisdom. Had Christ acted on this principle, he might have yielded to the temptation of Satan in the wilderness, but the world would have been lost forever in consequence. Had he listened to those who were anxious to make him king by force, thousands of swords would at once have leaped from their scabbards in obedience to his command; but some of the grandest lessons of faith would have been lost to mankind.
THE following, from the pen of Rev. Geo. F. Pentecost, D. D., illustrates this point:—
"So do men now, who are no doubt sincere in their desire to see the kingdom of God established, yield to the temptation of haste and seek to gain by short-cuts the desired end. They conform to the world, and interpret providences in such a way as to justify them in adopting means that are not in harmony with God's high spiritual laws. . . . What have not individuals and churches suffered who have taken the 'short-cut,' justifying themselves on the ground that the end is according to the will of God, and the opportunity was presented by his providence? We shudder to think of the consequences of such conduct."
THE evident conclusion reached by David in this instance was that if the Lord had chosen him to be king, then the Lord would bring him to the throne according to his own will, and in his own time. He testified by his homage to Saul as "the Lord's anointed," that he was still loyal to God, and then by showing the fragment of Saul's robe which he had possessed himself of, he vindicated himself from any accusation of wickedness which could have been made against him. Saul's life had been in his hand, but he had spared him in order that the treachery and wickedness of the king might be made manifest to all, and also that God might work out his own will and judge between David and his enemies. By taking this course David gained a far greater victory than if he had slain Saul.
J. W. SCOLES.
Tithes and Offerings.
TITHING.
(Concluded.)
(Lesson 12, September 21, 1889.)
1. WHAT portion of a man's time does the Lord claim as his?
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Ex. 31:15-17.
2. What portion of a man's substance has God reserved as his?
"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's; it is holy unto the Lord." Lev. 27:30.
3. Can a man dispose of that which is the Lord's as he chooses?
"Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the Lord's firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep; it is the Lord's." Verse 26.
4. What class of offerings connected with the tithe went to the priest?
"And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees, of wine and of oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our God; and the tithes of our ground unto the Levites, that the same Levites might have the tithes in all the cities of our tillage." Neh. 10:37.
5. What does God say of those who withhold tithes and offerings from his treasury?
"Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." Mal. 3:8, 9.
6. What promise does he make to his people if they bring their tithes and offerings into the storehouse?
"Bring ye all the tithes 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. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts." Verses 10, 11.
7. If, while passing the flock under the rod to be tithed, the owner, for any cause, sought to exchange the tenth for some other, what direction did God give?
"And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto; or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation." "And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it; and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." Lev. 27:27, 32, 33.
8. Could the tithe be given to the poor? Why not?
"He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth to the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again." Prov. 19:17.
9. Could a covetous man sacredly regard God's claim in the tithe and offerings?
10. Would it not then be reasonable to conclude that God's reservation of the tenth was to guard the heart from covetousness?
11. To whom, and for what purpose, was all the tithe appropriated?
"And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation." "But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave-offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit; therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance." Num. 18:21, 24.
12. What portion of the tithe were the Levites to give?
"Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave-offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe. And this your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fullness of the winepress. Thus ye also shall offer an heave-offering unto the Lord of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave-offering to Aaron the priest." Verses 26-28.
13. What other offering went to the priest who served at the altar? Verses 7, 11-13.
14. Is it a duty of those who receive the blessing of the gospel to contribute for its support?
"Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." Gal. 6:6.
15. How does the apostle enjoin this duty? 1 Cor. 9:6-11.
16. How does the apostle show that the ministry should be supported?
"Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." 1 Cor. 9:13, 14.
17. Does not the apostle show from this that it is just as important to support the worthy laborer in the gospel as it was formerly to support the priesthood?
NOTES.
IN a certain sense, everything we have and are belongs to God; but there are some things that belong to him in a special sense. Those things which he has never given to man for his own use are God's, and his alone. The Sabbath, the tithe, and the first-fruits in the former dispensation, illustrate this fact. God has also permitted men to make gifts to him, and to especially consecrate a portion of their substance, their talents, or their time, to his service. This the Lord also accepts, and it becomes consecrated and holy. In the11former dispensation after men had consecrated a portion of their substance, if in any way they wished to change it the Lord would have them add one-fifth to it that they might realize the sacredness of his claims. When men realize and acknowledge the importance of God's claims, he has promised to let a special blessing rest upon them. The paying of the tithe also secured the heart from covetousness; for continual giving serves to cultivate the spirit of benevolence, which is a part of the grace of Christ.
THE Levitical priesthood received the tithe from the people, and they gave a tithe of what they received to the priests, those who had special charge of the work of God. Another tithe was taken for the poor. Thus there were two tithes, one going to the priests and the other going to the poor. The apostle, in 1 Cor. 9, teaches the duty of those who have received the gospel to support the same. He appeals to the law, and then applies it to the gospel. Men cannot give the tithe as a donation, because it never was theirs; but God has permitted them to handle the tithe, and then return it to God, that it may cultivate in them that spirit of liberality which was manifest in Christ's coming to this earth to die. The tithing system, therefore, is one of the greatest blessings to man.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
"WHATSOEVER passeth under the rod." Says Kitto in his Cyclopedia: "The tithing is to take place three times in the year, about fifteen days before each of these great festivals. . . . On each of the three occasions the herd of every owner extending over a pasture-ground not exceeding sixteen Roman miles were collected together into one fold, whilst those beyond the prescribed limits formed a separate lot. In the pen wherein the herd was thus gathered, a small door was made which only admitted of one animal at a time, and the owner placed himself at this narrow opening, holding a rod or staff in his hand, wherewith he counted each animal as it made its exit from the fold till he came to the tenth, which he marked with red color, saying, 'This is the tithe.'"
It may be said that all these scriptures concerning tithes applied to the Jewish age, and not to the Christian. Those who may look at it in this way will do well to consider, 1. The principle underlying the tithing system. All these requirements on the part of God are for man's highest good. To deny this is to deny God's wisdom and goodness. If it was for man's good in the patriarchal and Levitical dispensations; by what reasoning can it be made to appear otherwise in the Christian dispensation?
2. IF it was an obligation under the Melchizedek priesthood as recognized by Abraham, the father of the faithful, is it not just as binding upon those who hope to be children of Abraham in the anti-typical priesthood of Christ? By what reasoning can it be shown that this is not so?
3. There is much greater light shining on the people of God now than in past dispensations. We have the record of so many promises fulfilled to those who believed in the past, the proved fact that Jesus has died and risen again for us, the light of the last days showing that his coming is near and that all things of earth are soon to be swallowed up; certainly with such increased light how much more careful ought we to be to meet every obligation. Is it not so?
4. The Levites devoted themselves to the service of God for the good of the people of God. The Lord provided for their support by the tithe. The priests were more especially devoted to the holy service, attending upon the Lord continually. God made provision for their support. This provision was not a hap-hazard one. They were provided for in accordance with the prosperity of the people,—a tithe, or tenth, of the land, whether much or little. That left them to place their care and energy on the spiritual wants of the people, knowing that their temporal wants would be provided for.
God has servants now whose whole time is devoted to spiritual service, to the preaching of the word, to the building up of the people of God. Ought they not to be provided for the same as the priests of old? Is it not true that he who preaches the gospel should live of the gospel? Is that living to be so precarious that the minister of Christ is to have his chief care and anxiety turned in another direction? or should he not receive a regular income proportioned to the prosperity of the people of God? Is there a better system than the tithing for this purpose? Can it be shown that it is not now obligatory?
5. THE injunction of our Saviour was not for past dispensations: "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matt. 23:23. It was for time to come, and had direct reference to tithing. Can it be honestly shown that it does not to our time?
6. THE prophecy of Malachi 3 is also for this dispensation, covering the entire period. The first verse refers to John the Baptist as the forerunner of Christ, Christ's messenger; it refers to Christ as "messenger of the covenant," and to both the first and second advent. Verses 2-6 refers to the priesthood of Christ, the second advent, the judgment, some of the prevailing sins of the world, and the righteousness of that remnant who will be saved. Verse 7 is a rebuke to the professed people of God. Verses 8 and 9 show wherein the people of God have departed from his ordinances. And the book closes with reference to the great day and final judgment. This chapter is parallel as regards time and application to Isaiah 58. Isaiah mentions one solemn duty neglected—the Sabbath. While Malachi presents another—tithes and offerings. Covetous man is robbing God of time and means. Can it be honestly shown that Malachi 3 does not refer to our time?
VERSES 10-12 are a compendium of blessings which will be bestowed upon the people of God if they will but yield to his requirements. Three times in those few pregnant words we read, "Saith the Lord," literally, saith Jehovah—the One who is and was and is to come, the self-existent One. "Prove me," he asks, "if I will not open the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it." God has power, will he not do as he has promised? To not accept of his conditions is to deny him.
THE heart which will truly submit to God's tests of time and means without reserve will submit to all his requirements. These requirements submitted to will teach man justice; he will render to God his own. They will make him care-taking and prudent, for he will not wish in any manner to defraud God, and to not do this he must keep strict accounts of his income. They will make him generous and merciful; for as yielding to them destroys the covetousness of his nature, the love of God takes its place. To truly submit, he must acknowledge God's claims as first of all. And to him who does this, God's love will fill his heart, bringing with its gracious influence, liberty, mercy, and love for his fellow-men. In thus submitting, that which at first was a crucifixion to the flesh will prove a rest to the heart and a regenerator to the life. Man's mind will go out beyond his own narrow sphere to the limitless expanses of the kingdom of God which he hopes to inherit. His mind instead of being dwarfed and weakened by selfishness will be enlarged and strengthened by love. He will bring gladly, not only the tithes, but the thank-offerings of a renewed heart, because he first has yielded himself. M. C. W.
The Missionary.
THE COLOR LINE.
In speaking of "color among Christians," the Rev. H. S. De Forest, president of Talladega College, says in the New York Independent of June 6:—
"Slavery is dead and buried without chance of a resurrection, but caste based on color survives as its heir and undisputed successor. The father was a notable disturber of Church and State and so is the son, who has succeeded to the kingdom and occupies about the same territory. . . . The old dictum was, that a man, if a negro, was fit only to be a slave. It is now affirmed with equal confidence that a Christian, if a negro, is not fit to be with other Christians. The former doctrine was not sound enough to justify secession, nor is the present opinion so clearly an axiom as to vindicate disruption. The latter error might well profit by the experience of the first. If politicians do not know what to do with the negro as a voter, it certainly ought not to be difficult to tell how to treat him as a believer. It is simply to accept the Pauline doctrine that in Christ Jesus neither white availeth anything nor black, but a new creature. Wherever this rational and scriptural teaching has been adopted, all trouble has ceased and nothing but good resulted.
"For instance, the Alabama Congregational Association has never known any color line. From the first it has welcomed members of white, African, and to some extent Indian blood, pure and mixed; and in some cases so mixed as to defy all efforts at classification. At the recent meeting in Mobile, a Yale alumnus was succeeded as moderator by a graduate of Talladega, born a slave and as black as the black belt usually affords. A negro and Caucasian were elected delegates to the National Council. Black and white, with no regard 'to race, color, or previous condition,' are gathered in the same body, serve on the same committees, and officiate at the same sacramental board, without objection, remark, or apparent thought; and it has been so from the beginning.
"The results have been manifest and manifold good. Pastors, teachers, wives and missionaries of the more favored race, have been giving their larger learning and experience to a receptive, but untaught and needy people. The returns from this outpouring, like the perfume of an alabaster box, have filled the house. None can compare the discussions, the proceedings, the records, the papers and the sermons of this body, with the doings of corresponding assemblies schooled only by slavery, emancipation their diploma, and for now twenty years wandering in ecclesiastical orphanage, and not feel the duty and the blessfulness of thus helping the seven millions of Africa lying at our door. The Ethiopian will12not be apt to go on his way rejoicing, if Philip must establish a color line before unfolding the prophet. He is an awkward Samaritan who touches the wounded man only with a ten-foot pole. It discredits Christianity for the church to be more intolerant than the saloon, and for men who journey together in the downward road to be separated if they turn their steps toward heaven."