Taking all circumstances into account, the inquiry at such a meeting should be, What, during the coming year, can and should be raised for the efficient support of the pastor, the comfort of his home, the education of his children, the contingencies of sickness, and so on? It is very easy to see that even this simple rule could not be acted on intelligently, and in a spirit of fairness, without working important changes. But the remedy lies deeper than any mere rules can reach. It concerns a true understanding of the relation between the "laity" and the ministers of the Gospel. That relation should be, in an infinitely greater degree than it now is, one of confidence and sympathy and love. Its spiritual element needs to be brought into bolder prominence. The motto of the minister should be in all things," For the Lord's sake." His devotion to his Master should be so complete and manifest that he should be able, in case of necessity, unequivocally to assert his just claims, resting them, with a reverent and holy courage, on the highest grounds. It is, however, with laymen much more than with ministers, that the duty of seeking the required change should rest. It is for them to inquire into the provision made for their pastors, and to compare it with what they know of their necessities and of the resources and ability of their congregations. The aim should be, in each case, to secure for the minister a thoroughly adequate maintenance-to give him a reasonable immunity from pecuniary care. He should be made to feel that he is paid for his services according to a generous appreciation of their worth; paid in a spirit and according to a ratio which show that he is looked on as something more than an inferior clerk or an upper servant; paid, as with a religious estimate of those "spiritual things" for which a return is made to him-a poor one after all, if those spiritual things be what they purport,―in "carnal things." One point especially requires to be noted. It should be felt that the pastor has some right to share in the worldly prosperity of his people. Obviously, if the trade or professional income of a member of a Christian church have doubled, or multiplied, by a fourfold or a tenfold increase, his contribution towards his pastor's support should bear some proportion to his greatly augmented means. It is a very usual thing for the income of a minister to remain at the same point, year after year, though his family expenses may have been continually growing. ordinary cases, and it is only these we have at all to do with in this argument, the resources and the productiveness of some churches do not admit of constant and steady growth with every few years. Yet, while a congregation appears to remain the same, there is frequently this difference. Many of its members In have been slowly rising to competence, and some to wealth. And this circumstance is one which is usually left altogether out of the account. The first point, then, should be to ascertain, generally, what should be the maintenance provided by a congregation for its pastor, according to a just estimate of his claims and its resources. The next should be, for the individual members of the congregation to form the habit of estimating that righteous proportion in which they should contribute towards the fund for this object. It should be remembered, too, that the greater or less liberality of the separate subscriptions will, of course, affect the scale of contribution generally adopted. But many a man might feel he could fairly afford to do more for this object than he would like publicly to pledge himself to in a subscription list. Or, having given his promise to the church treasurer he may find afterwards that he can well afford, or that he is specially inclined, to do more. Beyond, therefore, the sum publicly promised, it might be in his power, should this be necessary, still further to promote his pastor's comfort, and to show him personal respect and love, by thoughtful and well-devised occasional gifts. These might be specially valuable as a demonstration of individual regard, and might serve as a new bond of sympathy between the church member and his minister. Nor need there be the least fear of a practice of this kind involving anything like humiliation. Those who know much of the minister's office, know well that he is likely to have many an occasion, in seasons of trial and sorrow, of making a superabundant return, in "spiritual things," to those who thus minister to him in "carnal." Nor need the benefaction supposed be always of a pecuniary kind. No doubt, a bank-note would be, in the majority of instances, the most appropriate and serviceable gift that could be devised. That admits of being translated into any one of a countless variety of useful and necessary things. A present in kind might often be of little use in itself, and might be the very thing which was not wanted. As Goldsmith said of barren honours, of a title without emoluments, it might be like "giving a man ruffles who wanted a shirt." Yet, should a pecuniary gift be deemed for any reason unsuitable, a gift of money's worth might confer as much pleasure and as substantial advantage. A good book-an Alford's Testament, or a Stier's or Lange's Commentary, a Philosophical System, or a choice and rare volume of an old divine, a good "classic," or some standard work in general literature, might at any time be given without offending. But the real aim should be to insure to the minister a fair and reasonable independence; and anything beside or beyond this should not be of the nature of charity, but as indicative of personal esteem, and of a thoughtful regard for the welfare of a minister of Jesus Christ, and for Jesus Christ's sake. The motives to the duties insisted on are not far to seek How important a place does the provision made for the Priests and Levites occupy in the Mosaic Law; and with what tender solicitude does the Levite appear to be regarded by the Author of that Law! How do the prophets represent the withholding of tithes and offerings, the presentation of the lame and the blind, any offering of sacrifice to God (and the payment of pastors is of this nature), in an illiberal and grudging spirit, as the "robbery" of God! The Lord Jesus Christ taught with emphasis, that "the labourer was worthy of his hire;" and He Himself was "ministered to" of "the substance" of believing and godly persons. Apostles were not above receiving, and acknowledging with grateful affection, the generous gifts of Christian churches and of individual Christian men. While the permanent law of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ requires that its ministry be equitably, and from the very highest of motives, remunerated and sustained. The duty arises from the nature of the case. The debt is fairly due, and should be honourably discharged. The comfort and honour of the Lord's ministers should be of prime estimation in the regard of the Lord's disciples. A higher value set upon the services of the ministry would infallibly enhance greatly the power and worth of those services. The faithful performance of the duty in question would redound to the spiritual benefit of the person by whom it was thus performed. The thing being right, the doing of it would bring those pure and deep satisfactions which the Divine law has connected with all welldoing. THE SAMARITANS.* MR. MILLS has again done good service to the constantly increasing number of persons interested in Biblical Archæology. His work on the Modern Jews has long taken high rank as a *Three Months' Residence at Nablus, and an Account of the Modern Samaritans. By the Rev. JOHN MILLS, F.R.G.S., M.R.A.S. London : Murray. repository of interesting, valuable, and well arranged information. The volume now before us treats of a subject even more attractive to those who delight in the by-ways of history, and have learned that these little-trodden paths often yield an unexpected treasure. Few episodes in history are more striking, or, in some points, more mysterious, than that of the deportation of Assyrians to colonize the wasted land of Israel, as recorded in 2 Kings xvii., and the consequent introduction of a perverted kind of Mosaic religion. The heathen settlers, on taking possession of their new home, found that great part of it had gone to waste and jungle. From the swellings of Jordan there came up lions, which wasted their herds, and "slew some of the people." This calamity they attributed, by a sure instinct, to the anger of "the God of the land;" and therefore sent to Assyria to implore the presence of some one who could teach them the religion indigenous to Palestine. "Then one of the priests, whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear Jehovah." We read no more of the lions. Probably they disappeared before the growth of the community, or God in His mercy withdrew the visitation after its lesson had been acknowledged. At any rate, a strange composite religion resulted. "They feared the Lord, and served their own gods." A satirist might remark that they were herein but a type of many in times nearer to our own. The question has arisen whether these " Samaritans," as they now began to be called, were really a pure Assyrian race, or an intermixture of Assyrians and Israelites. The former opinion would seem to be countenanced by the Scripture narrative, and it is most probable that the Jews repudiated not only the kindredship of religion, but that of blood. To them the Samaritan was "a stranger" (aλoyevns, Luke xvii. 18, "one of a different race"). On this, Archbishop Trench forcibly remarks→→→ "Our Lord calls the Samaritan a 'stranger' (alλoyevýs, Luke xvii. 18), one of a different stock; áλλoɛðveig JosEPHUS calls them. The notion of the Samaritans as a mingled people, composed of two elements, one heathen and one Jewish, has of late found its way not merely into popular, but into learned books; so that they are often spoken of as, in a great measure, the later representatives of the ten tribes. The mistake is quite recent. In Christian antiquity they were always regarded as a people of unmingled heathen blood (see testimonies in SUICER, Thes. s. v. auapeirns, to which may be added THEOPHYLACT on Luke xvii. 15, 'Aσoupio yàp oi Zapapetrai); nor do the expositors of two hundred years ago know anything of this view. HAMMOND speaks of the Samaritan in our parable as being of an Assyrian extraction;' and MALDONATUS: Samaritani origine Chaldæi erant; see RELAND, De Samaritanis. For the opinion of MAKRIZI the very accurate and learned Arabian geographer, see S. DE LACY, Chrest. Arabe, vol. ii., p. 177; and ROBINSON says (Biblical Re searches), 'The physiognomy of those we saw was not Jewish.' At 2 Kings xvii., where the deportation of Israel is related, there is not a word suggesting that any were left, or that there afterwards was any blending of the Cuthites and other Assyrian colonists brought in, with a remnant of the Israelites, whom they found in the land. It is true that when Judah was carried away captive, many of the poorer sort were allowed to remain; and WINER (Realworterbuch, s. v. Samaritaner) thinks it very unlikely that some out of the ten tribes were not left behind in like manner. But at 2 Kings xxi. 13, the Lord threatening Judah, says, 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, and turneth it upside down.' This, only a threat against Judah, in part averted by repentance, had actually been executed against Samaria (see Jer. vii. 15). If the Samaritans had owned any Jewish blood, they would certainly have urged this. as mightily strengthening their claim to be allowed to take part with the returned Jewish exiles in the rebuilding of the Temple; but their words exclude this: We seek your God as ye do, and we sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither' (Ezra iv. 2). When our Lord, at the first sending out of His apostles, said, 'Into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not' (Matt. x. 5), He was not, as some tell us, yielding to popular prejudice, but gave the prohibition because, till the Gospel had been first offered to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' Samaritans had no more claim to it than any other heathen.”Notes on the Parables, pp. 302-3, note Dr. Hessey, in "Smith's Dictionary of the Bible," strongly advocates a similar view. To a great extent we cannot but admit the force of their reasonings. Still, it is hardly probable that the stock of Israel would be wholly excluded from these settlers in the Land of Promise. Would there be no fugitives, to say the least, from Assyria to their old home? The priest also who came to teach the people the law of God would, of course, be a Levite. By intermarriages his family would probably blend to some extent the Israelite and Assyrian races; and we are without any means of knowing when such alliances were absolutely discontinued between the Samaritans and other nations. Certain it is, that taking advantage of the locality, the Samaritans regard Joseph as their progenitor through Ephraim, claiming as especially their own the blessings which prevail "unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills." The assumption is a very ancient one, for on the return of the Jews from captivity, about 200 years after the first settlements from Assyria, the Samaritans are already pretenders to a community of religion with the children of Judah. "They came to Zerubbabel and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esar-haddon, king of Assur, which brought us up hither." By this time, perhaps, the worship of graven * Ezra iv. 2. |