Year: 1873

No. 3.


Thus far in our argument we have allowe'
to pass unchallenged the common idea o
the Mosaic Revenue System, as being fixed
exact, rigid, unbinding and uncompromising
By brother Miller's showing (page 26,) eth


entire yearly contribution of the Jew mus
have exceeded one-third of his income" Nov
We do not believe any such thing, though W,
have often heard it asserted. There are tw,
important considerations here to be noted


First, the terms tithe," and &" first fruits,
are used by Moses himself in a generously
vague and liberal sense, and he allows 8
very liberal use Of the things designated by
these terms. We limited above our doubts
as to there having ever been such thing at
the second tithe. Moses never speaks of it,
as such, and the only reason for imagining
such thing is the fact that while assuming
that the tithe belonged religiously to the
Levites, We read that Moses allows the tithe
payers to eat large share of it themselves,
only stipulating that they eat it not at home,
but before the Lord their God in the place
he should choose to put his name there. So
to support the first assumption it is assumed
that there must have been second tithe
which they were allowed to use themselves
on the occasions of their solemn feasts We
think it simpler far, and far more akin to
the spirit of the gospel, to assume that the
tithe law was no iron yoke even in the hands
of the man Moses; but that while in general
terms it was the LeVites peculiar inheritance,
the people were allowed to eat thereof them
selves at their solemn feasts As good
brother Miller will esteem this a sacrilege,
and its assertion fsgrant heresy, We must
make further explanation; and as We have
as little regard as our Master for rancid old
Jewish traditions, we shall limit ourselves to
the inspired oraces of God. In Lev. xvii


30-33, Moses teaches that call the tithe" of
the land, of the flock and of the herd, are
the Lords, and cannot be exchanged or re-
deemed. But he makes no disposition as to
what is to be done with it. In Numbers
xviii; q, &C., the tithes of all Israel are
assigned to the Levites, (as distinguished
from the priests,) for their inheritance; and
this is half dozen times repeated or taken
for granted in the Bible. But it is neither
with that frequency or stringency that the
common opinion would seem to imply: for
the Old Testament says great deal less
about tithes than is commonly supposed; as
any concordance will show. If the tithes
were to be carried up to the tabernacle or
temple, as Qeut. xii 6, seems to ordain; or
if this be the tithe which was due to the
Levites, then it is plain that while theirs in
general terms, it was no saerilege for the
tithe payers to eat of the same before the
Lord their God, as they are directed to do
in verse I, and far more expressly in verses
II, Is. In Deut, xiv: 22-27, the same is
reasserted in the terms which seem to leave
no doubt that it is the LeVites' tithe that
was to be so literally used Thou shalt
truly 1.-THE all the increase Of thy seed that
the field bringeth forth year by year. And
thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in
the place which he shall choose to place his
name there, the titEe of thy corn and of thy
wine, and Of thine Oil, and the frstlings Of
thy herds and of thy fOeks-and thou shalt
eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou
shalt rejoice, thou and thine household, and
the Levite that is within thy gates; thou
shalt not forsake him !; for he hath no part
nor Inheritance with thee" Now observe,
that the frsthngs of the aock and the herd
were as exclusively devoted to God as were
the tithes: to sell, exchange or eat them at
home was sacrilege; bat to eat them at the
door of the tabernacle Vas dsty which God
enjoiaed To eat then of the Levites' tithe
was no sacrilege if eaten before the Lord
their God. Again; the 6rstling8 of the
flock and herd mere given as erclusively to
the priests as the tithss to the Leuitss. If
then the people might eat thereof without
prejudice to the priests rights, SO might they
also do in the case of the Leyites. There
exists then no more reason to suppose that
second tithe was instituted to save the
Levites rights and to avoid the sin of SaCri-
lege, than there exists for supposing that
duplicate frstlings of the flock and herd
were ordained for the like reason in refer
ence to the priests. If the people shared
with the priest in this, (which God claimed
as a thing exclusively his oWn,) as well as
in the other sacrifices of the altar, there is
no sufficient reason why they should not share
with the Levite also. The most natural solu-
tion of the difficulty is to assume that the
tithe was one and the same; that the bulk
of it was distributed to the LeVites wherever
it was most convenient to do so while a