Earlier text: EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATHSTAND FOR THE RIGHT.
By Sel.
Do right, whate'er betide thee,
Nor swerve from Truth's behest;
No power should ever drive thee
From what thou deemest best. Hast thou a mind? Stand firmly
By thy convictions pure;
From these let none e'er turn thee,
Nor flat'ring hopes allure. No wav'ring minds are wanted
In contests with the wrong;
The heart too easy daunted,
Can wage no warfare long. The world's best men and leaders
Are always firm and true;
The advocates and pleaders
For right when right seems new. Then are all firm men righteous?
No; stubborn ones there are!
Men obstinate and captious,
Who mean themselves or war. From such take no example,
But shun their fatal course;
This kind but bringeth evil
That groweth worse and worse. First seek to know the right way,
Nor in thy haste decide,
But once upon Truth's pathway
Dare not to step aside. The righteous never faileth,
When battle-clouds are o'er,
To rank among the bravest;
They'll shine forevermore. GET out of them, if you wish to live long, if you wish to avoid the lunatic asylum, if you wish to escape suicide or a miser’s death. Men and women must have recreation, must have amusement, must have diversion. It is wholesome for the mind to break away from its daily vocation or employment every night. The man who goes from his counting-house or his workshop at the close of the day and does not leave it behind him, but sits at the family table in moodiness, brooding over past occurrences, weighing probabilities, casting conjectures, laying plans, and when the meal is over, sits thinking, thinking, thinking by the hour, and goes to bed to toss and tumble and worry, cannot live long; the brain or the heart must give way, and he will drop dead in the street, as many a business New Yorker has done within a few years past. In the Island of Cuba, the wagon roads lead over hills made of limestone; the wheels have run in the same track for generations, and have so worn into the solid stone that the hubs scrape the surface, and there is no getting out of the rut until the bottom of the hill is reached. So in the lives of many, the mind, under the influence of worldly care, gets to run in a particular track; in other cases, the occupations are of such an insufferable sameness from one year’s end to another, that its workings become mechanical, and out of these lines they cannot work at all; hence the stupidity of such a large portion of the farming population of all countries—the peasants of England, and Ireland, and France, and Germany, and Russia, as well. More farmers’ wives and daughters go crazy, out of one thousand, than of any other class, simply because of the one same routine of drudgery—of cooking, washing, cleaning, from morning till night, from one year’s end to another; even Sunday making but little change, and that change only the result of the extra drudge of Saturday. And our wives, in large towns and cities, sweep and dust and arrange, and wash and sew and provide, in one incessant round, summer and winter. No wonder they grow thin and careworn, and weak and nervous. Get out of the ruts, all of you; pay a neighborly visit three nights in the week; or for two afternoons let there be a “let up” in the way of a drive to the Central Park, a visit to the “village,” an excursion on the river or in the cars, a pic nic, a celebration, but best of all, in city or country, a horseback ride of an hour or two, “there and back;” what an appetite it gives; and the weariness, what a delicious sleep follows! Get out of the rut, reader, two or three hours a week, and there will be no time lost by it in the long run; for it gives activity to the moral nature; it cultivates the affections; it wakes up observation; it exercises comparison; it gives breadth of view on all subjects, it makes a man more manly; it makes a woman more womanly; and in countless cases it would save from the mad-house!—Hall’s Journal. Christmas Bird Release Custom at Rheims Cathedral
It was formerly the custom at Rheims, on Christmas morning, in the cathedral of that city, to loose birds out of a cage, as emblems of what Christ does for the soul, in freeing its hopes and aspirations from imprisonment by despair and sin. “Laviny’s a great reader,” said my neighbor, Mrs. Peters, with an air of pride. “There ain’t nothin’ hardly that she do n’t read. I never had no education, and I work so hard that if I take up a paper just before I go to bed—and that’s all the time I get—I drop right off to sleep; but Laviny, she makes up for it. She sets up half the night porin’ over her books, till I tell her ’twill kill her. Hard? Well, yes, ’tis rather hard for me to do all the work for eight of us, and I sort of hoped that Laviny would take to housework after she came from the seminary, but she do n’t care for nothin’ but her readin’.” I waited with some curiosity the entrance of the young lady, whom I hoped to interest in a great subject that lay near my heart. I felt more curious than hopeful, for I had seen too many of these great readers, and yet, if I could have one well-read, sensible woman-friend at Bumbleville my exile would be more tolerable. Miss Peters entered the room, and my faint hope fell to zero. I had known her all my life, only she was not always called Miss Peters. I had heard her called Miss Brown, Miss Smith—any name you like, but always the same inane body, with sometimes a Grecian nose and sometimes a snub, just so many braids, so many curls and so many crimps, with huge panniers, a trailing dress, and much cheap jewelry. We entered into conversation. “Did she often climb the mountains that commanded a grand and extensive view?” “No; she did n’t care for scenery; her passion was reading.” “Indeed! Had she read Buckle and Froude and Lecky and Ruskin?” “Never heard of such people. What queer names! She took all the magazines for ladies, and six story papers! and, had I read the ‘Maid of Cocheco Mountain?’ and wasn’t the ‘Wolfman of the Haunted Forest, or the Hero of the Bloody Butcher Knife,’ a sweet thing?” It was the old story. A mother toiling early and late that her daughter may be better educated than herself; a superficial training; a smattering of philosophy, mathematics and history, with a little French and music, and the girl goes home, not to help bear the family burdens, but to dawdle about, tatting a little, crocheting a little, and reading sensational novels without limit; novels whose interest hinges on the love of a pure girl for a dissipated villain, who offers at the shrine of the heroine’s innocence and beauty the remains of the vice-eaten muscle he terms his heart. Laviny reads, weeps, sighs and—mildews. By-and-by her prince arrives, with his waxed moustache, his white hands, his empty head, his cigars, his drunken sprees. He tells Laviny that he has been “rather too wild,” but she can save him, and if she won’t his ruin will lay at her door. Laviny’s friends remonstrate, but she says firmly that she will marry the idol of her soul if she has to carry him home drunk every night. They marry, and soon the husband returns to his old fashions, and there is little of him but blasphemy, tobacco smoke, and the fumes of liquor. Children are born feeble and wretched, some to escape happily into eternity after a short, wailing life, others to live, inheriting their father’s base nature, and crushing slowly the weak woman’s heart by their misconduct, and people say, “Strange that some people are born to trouble! Laviny was pretty, and she had good advantages, and was a great reader, but she has had a sad life.” Strange? There is nothing strange about it. The strange thing would be a happy and fortunate life after sowing and watering such trouble-bearing seeds. Dear girls, the best novels ever written will harm you if you read nothing else. You will grow sentimental, morbid, and self-seeking. Common duties will become distasteful, common pleasures insipid, your brain will be flaccid, your mental tone destroyed. I believe that half the wretched marriages spring from the romantic, rapid reading of our girls. She who can talk sensibly of the current topics of the day, who can tell whether San Domingo is one of the Orkney Islands or not, and whether, on the whole, she wants it annexed; who reads Spencer and Ruskin and Stuart Mill, does n’t throw her life into the care of the first booby of a roue who asks her to do so, because it is romantic to be engaged. She considers well what marriage means for herself, her husband and her children, and would one million times rather live unwed than be mated to a fool or a knave.—Woman’s Journal. The Boston Herald—The Sabbath.
By Uriah Smith
SINCE the correspondence given under this head, in the REVIEW of Oct. 3, I have learned that my last communication to the Boston Herald, has been published and replied to by Mr. O’Leary in the Herald supplement, Sept. 16, as follows:— “SUNDAY THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
“Editor of the Herald: Your correspondent U. Smith entitles himself to a place in your “People’s Column,” for he violates one of its essential conditions, which is courtesy. When I answered his first letter I thought I was arguing with a gentleman, but in his second letter he has dispelled that idea by indulging in vulgar nicknames and slang phrases unbecoming a gentleman and a scholar. I am glad however, that he has taken my advice to make himself better acquainted with ecclesiastical history; for though in his first letter he confidently asserts that Constantine, before he became a Christian, was the first to appoint Sunday a religious festival, and Pope Sylvester the next, yet in his second letter he admits that Tertullian, in the second century, bears testimony that in his time Sunday was called the Lord’s day, and that the Christians rested thereon from their labors. Now, Tertullian, who flourished about 150 years after the apostles, must have been a better judge of what was their practice than U. Smith can possibly be at the present day. “I ask if the apostles did not make the change in the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, who made it, and when was it made? It is evident that the apostles made the change, as there is no account of its being made at a later period. We have positive scripture proof that the apostles and their immediate successors held their religious assemblies on the first day of the week, instead133of the seventh. We read in the Acts, 20: 7, “And on the first day of the week, when we assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow; and he continued his speech until midnight.” Here we have the disciples, with St. Paul, assembled for solemn religious service; for celebrating the Holy Eucharist; for preaching, and for communicating, and we have St. Paul deferring his journey till the following day, in respect to the Sabbath. In Cor. 16: 2, St. Paul orders that the collections be made on the first day of the week for the distressed saints in Jerusalem, so that the collections would not have to be made when he came, which would be on a secular day. All this conclusively shows that Sunday was the day set apart by the apostles as the Christian Sabbath, in order to be a standing memorial of Christ’s birth and resurrection and the descent of the Holy Ghost, which three stupendous miracles happened on this day. And in this all Christian nations have followed their example. “I have now sufficiently shown, from reason, from scripture, and from tradition, that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.” In answer to the foregoing I forwarded to the Herald, Oct. 4, the following:— SUNDAY NOT THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
Editor of the Herald: Your correspondent, D. V. O’Leary seems to think me guilty of discourtesy. It is probably in my use, in a single instance, of the term “Papists” that he beholds “vulgar nicknames” and “slang phrases,” sufficient to destroy my claim to the title of gentleman. But I can assure him that I used that term in no invidious sense, but only with the design of employing language which was very explicit in its meaning. I have made no change in my views of ecclesiastical history as he seems to intimate. I said that the first law made in behalf of Sunday observance was the edict of Constantine A. D. 321 which was made while yet Constantine was a heathen, and in behalf of the day as a heathen festival. See Milman’s Hist. of Christianity, b. 3. c. 1. See also the Latin text of Constantine’s decree in the library of Harvard College. If your correspondent knows of any law for Sunday-keeping earlier than this, either in the Bible or out, will he point it out to us. My reference to Tertullian was to show, on the authority of Kitto, that the first day of the week was never called the Lord’s day, previous to the beginning of the third century, and that not the slightest traces of resting from labor on that day can be found in the church up to that time. Mr. O’Leary says the apostles must have made the change in the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, as there is no account of its being made at a later period. I say that the apostles could not have made it; for we find that as late as the year 200, no such change had been introduced. If the apostles had made the change, it should have been from the beginning universal in the Christian church; but instead of this it is not till 200 years after the Christian era commenced that we find the slightest traces of it; and from that point the introduction of Sunday as a sacred day was accomplished only by strong efforts and by slow degrees. Says Neander (Rose’s Neander, p. 186), “The festival of Sunday like all other festivals was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday a sin.” In support of this last statement, he cites, in a marginal note, the language of Tertullian, to which I have already referred. And this he considers a “false” application. Mr. O’L. seems not to apprehend the points I have already made on Acts 20: 7, and 1 Cor. 16: 2. He still refers to these as “positive scripture proof that the apostles and their immediate successors held their religious assemblies on the first day of the week instead of the seventh.” But I have shown that the meeting mentioned in Acts 20, was held on what would now be called Saturday night, and that Paul resumed his journey on Sunday morning. This appears from the following facts: (1.) The meeting was an evening meeting as is proved by the “many lights in the upper chamber.” Verse 8. (2.) As time was then reckoned, the evening was the first part of the day, the day beginning at sunset. See Gen 1: 5; Lev. 23: 32; Mark 1: 32; Conybeare and Howson, Cruden, Robinson, Greenfield, and any authority competent to speak on this point. The first day of the week, therefore, in Paul’s method of computing time, commenced at sunset on Saturday night, and ended at sunset on Sunday; and hence, the only part of that day in which an evening meeting could be held, was the first part, corresponding to our Saturday night. (3.) How long did Paul continue his meeting? Only till “break of day,” verse 11, which would be Sunday morning. And then Paul resumed his journey toward Jerusalem, his brethren taking the ship around the promontory from Troas to Assos, and Paul going across to the same place on foot. And having met at Assos, Paul went aboard the ship, and the whole company proceeded to Mitylene. Thus the apostle traveled from day-break on Sunday, on foot and by ship, all the remainder of the day. These facts cannot be covered up; and so long as they remain facts, it is utterly useless for any man to talk about Paul’s regarding Sunday as a sacred day, to be devoted to rest and religious duties. In regard to 1 Cor. 16: 2, I have shown from the original Greek, and from numerous translations, that the very terms in which Paul couched his injunction, show that the “laying by” was to be done by each one separately at home, not collectively in the public congregation. There is no intimation here of a religious gathering, and the work enjoined is such as would be proper only on a secular day. Certain miracles are mentioned as having occurred on Sunday. In reference to which I have only to ask in all candor, What of it? Suppose 500 miracles occurred on the first day of the week, what would that prove respecting our duty which can rest on nothing less than a divine command explicitly stated? Absolutely nothing. And what would all these miracles show respecting the abrogation of the original Sabbath-law? Just as little. The original law still remains unless it has been repealed by the same power that enacted it, in as public a manner, and in as explicit terms. Where there is no law there is no sin. Rom. 4: 15. And not the first syllable of a law for Sunday observance can be found in all the Bible. Your correspondent considers it sufficiently shown “from reason, from scripture, and from tradition, that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.” To which I would reply, (1.) This is not a question to be determined by reason, but by testimony from the word of God. (2.) His scripture proof I have shown to be simply unnecessary inferences, and a misapprehension of facts. And (3), as to tradition, I am very much of the opinion of Archibald Bower who in his History of the Popes, Vol. i, p. 1, speaks as follows: “To avoid being imposed upon we ought to treat tradition as we do a notorious and known liar, to whom we give no credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some person of undoubted veracity. . . . False and lying traditions are of an early date; and the greatest men, have, with a pious credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them.” U. S. We have only words of the highest commendation to write relative to our system of raising means for the support of the cause of God among us. Once Systematic Benevolence was an experiment with us; now it is a demonstration. Twelve years of practical evidences have done more to settle the question with our people, than fifty years of discussion could have done. This system has worked so well with our people that not a few of the younger and smaller denomination are admiring it, and express wishes that it could be introduced with them. We might speak of its equity and efficiency thus: 1. It draws upon the poor man very lightly. As arranged upon our S. B. blank books, the amount of property is set down at the value at which the owner estimates it, and then each brother or sister generally assesses himself or herself two cents per week for each one hundred dollars. This amounts annually to $1.04 on each one hundred dollars, or $10.40 on one thousand dollars. The poor man who owns less than one thousand dollars, by this plan pays less than ten dollars a year. 2. The aged, and the feeble, and widows in humble circumstances, pay one cent a week on each one hundred dollars, if they choose to depart from the general custom. And if they feel clear before God to excuse themselves fully, they are not asked to enter into the arrangement at all, unless the more wealthy and liberal pay into the treasury for them, to be put to their account on the Systematic Benevolence book. This is often done to show respect to the unfortunate, and to cultivate a spirit of tenderness and love among brethren. 3. But while these are excused, the deficiency is made up tenfold by the young who possess real worth in their strength and ability to acquire means. These who have but little, if any, property around them, and yet have real wealth in their physical and mental powers, both male and female, pay from five to fifty cents per week, as a personal, free-will offering, into the treasury of the Lord. 4. The wealthy are the very last class to object to this system. While it does not touch the principal of the rich, neither does it touch nine-tenths of his increase; it calls for only one-tenth of his large increase for the cause of God. We know of no plan to raise means so well calculated to test the covetousness of the wealthy, and leave such without a shadow of an excuse, as the one adopted by Seventh-day Adventists. 5. The moral influence of the system has an important bearing upon the subject. The very name Systematic Benevolence, conveys the idea that what is put into the treasury is a free-will offering. It is not, like legal taxation, a compulsory system. It really is, or should be in every case, systematic benevolence. Those who introduce the subject into a new place, should first, by patiently teaching the people, and appealing to their consciences, bring them up to the point where they will cheerfully enter upon it from choice. What they may give under these circumstances will then be free-will offerings. The system, properly introduced, and taken hold of in the right spirit, and faithfully carried out, is a perpetual appeal to the consciences of the people of God. It is calculated, not only to encourage true benevolence, but also to secure to the church the spirit of unity, and the simplicity of the pure religion of Jesus Christ. In contrast with this, we notice the corrupting influence of church festivals to raise means to advance the interests of the church. The unsanctified crowd is generally attracted to these festivals, either to gratify morbid taste, in the use of those things which are a violation of the laws of life, or to gratify a still more corrupted moral taste for the fun and frolic of such occasions. And all this physical and moral wrong to advance the cause of Jesus Christ! The two leading passions of the people of the present age are appetite, and an uncontrollable delight in the pleasure of sport and fun. These two strong passions are seized upon by the popular church, and are carried to almost any length to advance the popular interests. And the results, the terrible results, are so apparent, that many leading men among the popular ministry, are becoming frightened. The baneful influence of these things upon the piety, and even the morals of the youthful members of the church, no pen can portray. Christian liberality for the benefit of the Lord’s poor in particular, and suffering humanity in general, and hearty and conscientious free-will offerings cast into the treasury to advance the cause of Jesus Christ, are matters of grave importance. They are designed, not only for the benefit that may arise from such liberalities themselves, but for the sanctifying influence these very gifts may have upon the consciences and hearts and lives of the givers. But in the popular festivals, all this is lost upon the donors. These gatherings, prompted by the gratifications of appetite, or from love of the entertaining sports of religious dissipation, are calculated to blunt all moral sense of duty to the needy, or to support the cause of Christianity. And if these things are continued, it will be seen that the larger portion of the members of the churches will give only when led to do so by unsanctified love for morbid appetite, and unholy delights. It is evident that these abominations have been carried on in the several churches to that extent, that some are becoming frightened, and the tide is beginning to turn. Should any succeed, however, in getting back to old positions and practices, they will find themselves morally weakened, and then will see what they have lost in departing from the simplicity of the gospel. The National Baptist says:— “A Baptist church in Massachusetts has recently erected a new house of worship, and in accordance with a custom somewhat prevalent in that section, at least, has held a three-days’ fair, to aid in paying the bills. Among other attractions of the fair, the published programme presents the following: “On the afternoon of Wednesday there will be an EXHIBITION OF BABIES in one of the anterooms of the vestry. Admission 15c. “Babies utilized for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, and the salvation of the world! Verily, this is an age of progress! Perhaps we should rather say it is a return to the primitive things. ‘Children crying in the temple!’ ‘Praise out of the mouths of babes and sucklings!’ It is foretold that ‘the gold of Sheba,’ the wealth of the heathen, shall be given to Christ. To accomplish this, to secure the riches of the unbelieving, is the great object of all church fairs. It is foretold, moreover, that the church ‘shall suck the milk of the Gentiles.’ How appropriate that babies should be employed for this! Is there not, moreover, in this incident, an important doctrinal bearing? Is it not in part, at least, answering that question which Dr. Robinson, at the recent anniversaries in Boston, declared is now agitating all Pedo-Baptists—‘What shall we do with the baby?’ Will not Pedo-Baptists be indebted to us for solving their perplexing problem, What is the position of the children of church-members in the church? Nay, if new-born infants can do so much for the church and the cause of the gospel, ought we not, as Baptists, to review our position on original sin, and perhaps look with more favor upon infant baptism? “How these fairs are developing the resources of the church! Our fathers, poor, simple souls, little dreamed that so many means might be devised for the extension of the truth and the regeneration of men. Auctions, ring-cakes, post-offices, grab-bags, fishing-ponds, lotteries, and who knows what beside, are now part of the machinery of the gospel. At a church fair, not long since, a prize was offered for the best shot with bow and arrow. The pastor of the church hit the bull’s-eye and took the prize. A daily paper chronicled the event, adding the pious wish that ‘his arrows of truth may always go as straight to the hearts of his hearers.’ Several times we have known a church at its fair to offer a silver service, or some other valuable prize, to the most popular clergyman of the city—popularity being decided by vote. Hundreds of dollars were thus brought into the Lord’s treasury. “Not long since, at a church fair in a rural city, where there were rival manufacturing corporations, employing several thousand hands, a prize was offered to the most popular employer. Intense excitement was aroused. Fresh bulletins at the door of the hall each half hour announced how the vote stood. Almost at the last moment, one corporation took a hundred dollars’ worth of votes, and thus carried the day. And now, as the latest improvement, we have a baby-show for the advancement of the cause of Christ! How beautifully we are learning to obey the apostle’s command, ‘Let all things be done unto edifying’—edifying, that is, in the literal sense of house-building. “Perhaps, however, we have not yet done all that might be done in this line with advantage. At a recent fair in Lubec, Germany, it is said that placards announced that the young ladies in charge of the tables would sell kisses at so much a piece. Gentlemen who proposed to invest were offered sheets of tinted paper, on each of which the damsel to whom they applied informed them that she had left a kiss. Why may not the plan be adopted in the church fairs of this country, the kisses being received, not at second hand, but directly? Perhaps our young ladies would not object to it, or, if they should, might readily overcome their scruples with the thought that it would be a sacrifice in the cause of the gospel. Might not ‘lip service’ thus become real devotion? At another fair, not long since, there were tableaux, in which it is said that some of the female figures seemed to be crawling out of their dresses, outstripping even the fashionable evening costume. Might not this be more extensively introduced with profit? We have heard what success has attended such exhibitions in the White Fawn, and the Black Crook. Of course, there it was immoral—so are lotteries, as a general thing—but in a church fair, we all know it is different. It would be a display of female grace; and for a church to exhibit grace must be always appropriate. Other similar plans for raising money to spread the gospel might be, and doubtless will be, discovered. “But perhaps we have jested too much already. In truth, this is a matter not so much for jesting as for serious thoughts and words. In such schemes to raise money for the cause of Christ, we may have shown the wisdom of the serpent, but have we shown the harmlessness of the dove? Is it harmless that a church of Christ should support his cause, in part, by the tricks of auctioneers, showmen, and by shrewd business speculation, saying practically that Christ’s kingdom is of this world? Is it harmless that she should pander to the abuse of the appetite, inviting men to late suppers, over-eating, unlimited indulgence in turkey, oysters, ice creams, and every luxury, for Christ’s sake? Is it harmless that, having taught the children not to spend their pennies for candy, but save them for the missionaries, she should then open a candy shop and urge them to gorge themselves with sweetmeats, for the good of the church of Christ? Is it harmless that she should spread the gospel by rivaling Barnum in his baby-shows? Is it harmless that she should call by the sacred names of charity and benevolence that which is extorted from men by artifice or expended by them in self-gratification? Is it harmless that she should raise money for the cause of religion by lotteries and similar operations, which have all the essentials of gambling, and in many sections, at least, are so recognized by civil law? Is it harmless that she should act upon the Jesuitical principle that the end justifies the means, and give men occasion to say, not slanderously, as in Paul’s time, but truly, that Christians ‘do evil that good may come’? Is it harmless that she should set a trap and catch the devil, and persuade him to lend a hand in drawing forward the ark of God? We have been told that a confirmed and well-known gambler has often said that he took his first lesson in gambling at a Church fair. We can well believe it. “Let the church of Christ be sustained by the free-will offerings of his people, given from love to him. All else will do more harm than good. Better that a church worship under the open sky, than in a house built or furnished by means which the gospel condemns. If a church cannot live without resort to artifice, chicanery, and speculation, let it glorify God by dying as soon as possible. ‘Thou shalt not bring the price of a dog into the house of the Lord thy God.’ The Detroit Tribune gives the proceedings of a convention held in the First Baptist church in East Saginaw, Mich., Jan., 1871, in which this subject was warmly treated by Mr. Bangs and others as reported under the following captions:— THE EFFECT UPON CHRISTIAN BENEVOLENCE OF THE MODERN EXPEDIENTS FOR RAISING MONEY.
“I cannot better present the subject, said Mr. Bangs, than by a contrast of the scriptural plan with the modern church expedients. Man is God’s steward; he can claim nothing as his right. Tithes and sacrifices were rendered to God in the patriarchal age. The firstlings of the flocks and the first fruit of the field, with one-tenth of all the increase belonged to the service of God, and his approval is recorded for our instruction. Traces of this divine arrangement have been found among all heathen nations in every period of the world’s history. Perverted by their mythology, they still continue their tithing. According to the Mosaic law the least asked was one-tenth, while the wealthy were required to give according to the wants and necessities of the church. The tendency of the plan is to secure an honest calculation of the amount, an important consideration when we remember the power of human selfishness to pervert the judgment. Next, the apostolic rule requires that every one give something; the rich from their abundance, the poor, their mites. The example of the church at Macedonia, sanctioned as it was, amounts to a command. It shows what can be done, and how it can be done, as well as what ought to be done. “Other expedients assume multitudinous forms, such as festivals, oyster suppers, ice cream, strawberry, and neck-tie socials, etc., ad infinitum. I do not object to the rich feeding the poor, but this modern plan makes the whole thing irregular: some are compelled to pay too much, while many others pay nothing. These plans ignore the idea of rendering to God what is his due. Every one expects a compensation for what he gives, and grumbles if he does not get it. A few do the work and pay the expenses. This creates more selfishness than benevolence. Another effect of these affairs is to cut off the aged members from contributing. The infirmities of age, and loss of love for such gatherings, produce the result that they do nothing. We plead against them another and more fearful charge. Each does not give as God has prospered him. The poor must give as much as the rich, or be excluded from the privilege of giving at all, or from the enjoyment of the gathering. There can be no difference in the prices of suppers or neck-ties. No one gives, each expects an equivalent. This renders the money supply of the church scanty and uncertain. Is it wise to continue a system which produces such poor results? What can be done to remedy the evil? The answer is, to educate the people according to the Scriptures on the subject of benevolence. Distinguish properly between self-interest, personal or community profit, and pure benevolence. Thus, and thus only, shall we give a right direction to legitimate efforts. “Rev. Geo. Jachan, of Washtenaw county, thought that all grab-bag socials, etc., were no better than gambling. “Rev. J. H. McCarty, of Adrian, thought that it was doubtful whether the State could be brought up to that high standard. He presented for the edification and instruction of the convention, some figures. Fifty members giving 50 cents a week, and 100 members giving 25 cents a week, and 50 members giving 10 cents a week for a year, would make $3,120 from a church of 200 members. A church of 300 members giving 50 cents a week, would raise 7,800, in a year. He said that the experience of church socials had, in East Saginaw, been the almost total destruction of theatrical and minstrel shows. The young would rather go to these socials than to the public halls. He was not sure it would be good policy to give up these socials. “Rev. Geo. Duffield, of Saginaw city, said that they should ask twice; first of God and second of man, in Christ’s name. While we have church socials, how is it with the social prayer-meeting? When the church social empties the theater by taking its place, he must protest against it in God’s name. The stumbling-block in the way of many sinners is the fact that professing Christians are not willing to use their money for God.”