Page images
PDF
EPUB

deprived his own family of its due. To assist our poor relatives is our first duty; and this is a work infinitely preferable to all pious legacies and endowments.'

We have no knowledge or suspicion of the Writer of this pamphlet; we believe him, however, to be neither a Pharisee nor a Jesuit. We have no hesitation in giving him entire credit for the uprightness of his motives and the sincerity of his zeal. But we question whether, in either the Rabbinical writings or those of Popish divines, there can be found, within the same compass, so much direct and mischievous perversion of the language of Scripture. The object of the pamphlet is, in effect, to advocate the duty of making korban of all that we possess, and leaving our unprovided relatives to the providence of God. That which our Lord condemns as a palpable transgression of the Divine command and the most sacred and primary obligations, this Writer represents to be the strongest evidence of the power of Christian love; and one of the most touching displays of filial piety ever exhibited, the dying charge of our Blessed Lord to the beloved disciple respecting his Mother, is adduced as an example sanctioning the most heartless and presumptuous abandonment of those whom God has rendered dependent upon us for protection or support.

We shall let the Author state in his own words, his notion of the principle to which primitive Christianity owed much of its irresistible energy.'

This principle he believes to be, Unreserved Dedication to God, excluding all provision for the future, and securing the surrender of all we possess, and of all we can by diligence in our several vocations procure, for the extension of Christ's kingdom upon earth.' p. 2.

That unreserved self-dedication to God is the vital principle of primitive Christianity, that it is essential to the character of every sincere Christian, far be it from us to deny. But to affirm that this principle excludes all provision for the future, and the alienation of all we possess for religious uses, is beging the question. It is not, however, the Author's principle, that we so strongly object to. Although we think that he has very inaccurately stated the duty of Christian devotedness, we should have been disposed to put a good sense upon his unguarded expressions, and to understand him as simply contending for the very obvious and undeniable duty of cultivating the dispositions of spiritual-mindedness, trust in God, diligence in our .calling, and a zealous liberality. But when he comes to enforce his principle, it is but too evident, that he wishes his words to be taken literally, and without qualification; and the arguments which he attempts to deduce from the lan

guage of Scripture, leave us no room to doubt, that he regards all provision for the future as sinful.

The Author takes for his text or motto, Our Saviour's exhortation: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth." And he calls upon his readers to admit, that our Lord' meant them, and that the Apostles and their companions received 'them, in their most unrestricted sense.' It is always a suspicious circumstance, when a person quotes Scripture by halves. What our Lord's design and meaning were, the sequel clearly shews. "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." In these words, the uncertainty of worldly treasures and possessions, and the surpassing nature of the durable riches and righteousness, are plainly adduced as a reason for setting the affections upon things above. It is incumbent on those who contend for a more literal sense, to shew, what is meant by laying up treasures in heaven. Both parts must be taken in the most positive and unrestricted sense, or neither. Our Writer would not contend, we presume, for the meritorious efficacy of alms-giving. But, waiving this, what is there in this passage that looks like requiring the surrender of all we possess and of all that we can procure, to Missionary Societies, and forbidding all provision for the future? It is true that, in what the Writer cites as the parallel passage, there occur the words, "Sell that ye have, and give alms : provide yourselves bags that wax not old." But these, one would think, it would be still less possible to understand otherwise than in a comparative sense. We know not whether the Writer has yet sold all his furniture,-all that moth can corrupt or robber steal; but if not, we suppose that even he would judge it needful to put some limitation on the import of the requisition. He must recollect, however, that to comply with the injunction literally, the proceeds of such sale must be given in alms, not in Missionary collections. There is not a word here about surrendering all we possess for the extension of Christ's kingdom; but the poor are to be the objects of the sacrifice. Our Lord's words to the young man, Luke xviii. 22, are; "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." It is very strange, that the duty

1

*The Writer subsequently cites the whole passage, Matt. vi. 19-24; but it is for the purpose of giving a brief and meagre gloss of what he deems the principal points to be attended to.'

of alms-giving should scarcely be adverted to throughout this pamphlet. The Writer is as little disposed to take the language. of Scripture literally in this respect, as any other person can be. Yet, as he contends for the duty of leaving unprovided relatives to the care of God' providence, it was peculiarly incumbent upon him to point out the strong language in which the inspired Writers insist upon this branch of Christian devotedness. Let us not be misunderstood as if we would sanction the Judas-like plea for withholding that which is due to the honour and extension of the Redeemer's cause: "Why might not this have been given to the 'poor?" It must not be forgotten, however, that it was one trait in the character of that execrable hypocrite, that he "cared not for the poor." For "whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" We much fear, that, among those who largely contribute to Missionary societies and other religious objects, too many might be found, to whom this pointed appeal would convey a forcible reproof. The poor are little the better for their zeal or liberality. On this point, the Writer is silent. The temporal distress of his fellow-creatures is apparently an object too insignificant or too earthly to occupy the attention of a mind so highly spiritualized and sublimated by the fire of sacred zeal. We speak of him as a writer. For any thing we know to the contrary, his private life may exhibit the most amiable inconsistency with his doctrine. He may be as ready to strip himself of his shirt to clothe the naked, as to put his watch into the plate at a Missionary collection. But nothing of this appears in his pamphlet, the general tenor of which would sanction a heartless pharisaism that would even devour widows' houses, to make korban of the orphan's portion.

We say, that our Lord's language cannot be understood literally, without renouncing the plainest dictates of common sense. Without laying up,' there could not merely be no accumulation of wealth, but no accumulation of capital; consequently, no fund for labour, no mercantile enterprise, no commerce or trade. Can it be supposed that our Lord intended to prohibit his disciples, in every age and country, to refrain from all such engagements,-to follow no trade or calling that should require a mercantile capital? Are Christians forbidden to be merchants, land-owners, or manufacturers? If not, all 'provision for the future' is not prohibited; for all such persons must lay up treasure on earth, and run risk of losing it too, and provide against contingencies, as they would wish to avoid ruining themselves and all connected with them. The

'children of this world' are wise' in this respect: their folly consists in laying up treasure on earth, and trusting' in that uncertain treasure, while they are not rich towards God.' They who will be rich, fall into temptation and a snare;' of which the present times have furnished too many awful examples; but St. Paul must have understood his master's doctrine very differently from the present Expositor, when he directed Timothy to charge the rich of his flock, not to trust in un' certain riches,' but to do good' with them, to be rich in ' good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;" reminding them that God is the dispenser of riches, and that they are among the things which he alone can give us to enjoy. (1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.)

But we must briefly notice the other passages cited by this Writer in support of his notions of Christian Devotedness. Towards the close of the pamphlet, he thus recapitulates his. reasons for concluding that our Saviour spoke literal truth,’ when he used the expression, Sell all that thou hast.'

[ocr errors]

1. Because he commanded the young man so to do.

2. Because he commended the poor widow for so doing.

3. Because the Apostles, and all who believed at Jerusalem, did. so, by selling their goods, houses, and lands.

4. Because no other Dedication to God, but that literally enjoined, meets the urgent, unspeakable wants of the Heathen.

5. Because, without this Dedication, it is impossible to receive the command," Love thy neighbour as thyself."

6. Because, while it keeps all, who see its reasonableness, and heartily yield to all its requisitions, in the most entire dependence upon God, it in a great degree frees them from all dependence upon

man.

7. Because, while it obviously tends to the general extension of Christ's kingdom upon earth, it does also, in an equal measure, contribute to the happiness and usefulness of the individual, by ex-. tirpating carefulness and sloth, and causing to grow in abundance the fruits of righteousness and love.'

The first of these reasons has been sufficiently considered. We shall only further remark, that it would be just as reason. able to adduce the call to Abraham to leave his country, or to sacrifice his son, as enjoining upon all Christians the duty of expatriation and of renouncing the feelings of paternal affection, as to infer, that the test to which it pleased our Lord to put the young ruler's sincerity, implies a requisition binding upon all Christians to sell all they have, and distribute the proceeds to the poor.

[ocr errors]

The second reason may be disposed of in a very few words. In the world's estimation,' says the Writer, nothing could

be more improvident or more improper than the conduct' of the widow. It is evident that he does not understand the case. There could be no improvidence in her parting with all she had to subsist upon for the day, any more than there would be in a poor man's going without his dinner that he might give his sixpence to the Bible Society, or for the purchase of a Bible. Had the widow whom our Lord commended gone every day, and cast all she had into the treasury, she must either have starved, or have begged for her subsistence, and her motive would have become very questionable. That the poor man who gives his penny, may give more than the rich man who contributes his guinea, is obviously the sentiment which our Lord designed to inculcate.

The case of the Church at Jerusalem is most rashly adduced as a precedent. The Writer is compelled to admit, that

such conduct does not essentially involve the institution of a common stock, but will be effectually secured by each individual blending himself with the whole race of man, feeling their wants and rejoicing in their welfare, as his own.' p. 18.

66

But why not take this passage as a literal precedent, as well as the case of the young ruler? Were the Writer consistent with his own principles, he ought to advocate the community of goods among Christians. As many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them :"-how is it that this conduct is supposed to prove no more, than that a union of heart and soul is just as binding upon us as upon the primitive Christians?' And if it does prove nothing more, why does the Writer subsequently press it into his service as a reason that Christians ought to sell all that they have?

The fourth reason shews in what mistaken views of the whole subject of missionary exertion, the Writer's hallucination originates. Is it, then, owing to the want of more money that the Heathen are not yet evangelised? Are any of our Christian missions at a stand for want of money? Have any of our missionaries deserted their posts because they do not get money enough? Are the unspeakable wants of the Heathen to be supplied by pecuniary contributions? If the Writer does not mean this, he should have explained himself. We do not say, that more money is not required for the promotion of the great objects of our Missionary and Bible Institutions; but, to represent the evangelization of the heathen as turning upon the increase of their funds, is most fallacious and dangerous.

The fifth reason does not deserve notice: it is a mere assertion, too vague to be combated by argument. And it may at once be disposed of by the counter-assertion, that those who

« PreviousContinue »