Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]
[graphic][subsumed]

THE

LADIES' REPOSITORY.

OCTOBER, 1857.

THE DUTY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WITH exists. Some of the principal of these provi

REGARD TO THE POOR.

BY PROFESSOR JOHN A. REUBERT.

sions were:

In order to prevent permanent poverty, this monster evil of modern times, that places modern so

S the Christian Church bears to the Church of ciety almost on the crust of a burning volcano, Lev.

Athen Testament the relation of manhood the sale of landed property was forbidden.

to infancy or boyhood, it will not be considered out of place, in treating of one of her fundamental duties, to glance at the provisions which the lawgiver of the theocracy had made for the poor within said theocracy. Another reason for doing 30 is, because these laws and provisions worked so admirably well, that of professional beggars there appears no trace in the history of the theocracy, and even in modern times, when the Jews, by rejecting their Messiah, have unchurched themselves, and sustain now the character of infidels, notwithstanding the many abominable and despicable traits of character which they exhibit every-where in their diaspora, there appears no trace of professional begging among them. Be the cause of this what it may, their sanctimonious observance of the laws concerning clean and unclean food, and their intercourse with the Gentiles, one thing is certain, that the Jews are not addicted to begging; they follow, as long as they can, some contrivance to make a living, and when this fails, the needy are supported by their coreligionists. The writer has become acquainted with but one instance, that a Jew gave himself up to tippling, and when he was no longer able to support himself and family, this was done by the other Jews of the place.

What were now the provisions of the Mosaic law for the poor? The excellency of these provisions will appear still more, when we consider that they were made before those poor, for whom they were intended, had as yet an existence, based only on a consideration of the possible changes in life, while our modern legislators generally do not know how to remedy the evil where it actually

VOL. XVII.-37

XXV. This was to be distributed in equal portions among the different tribes, and was to remain the property of the first possessor and his descendants forever.

The owner could, indeed, sell his acre temporarily, till the next year of jubilee, when it came again into the possession of the seller and his heirs; or, in order to use the language of the law itself, the acre itself could not be sold, but only the fruits thereof; "according to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the nearness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for according to the years of the fruits does he sell unto thee”— "-16yet it could be redeemed at any time for a sum equal to the amount of the remaining annual

rents.

In order to make poverty tolerable, the legislator endeavored to plant principles of benevolence in the hearts of the people, and sanctioned the following rights and privileges for the poor:

He ordained, 1. Lev. xix, 9, 10: "When you reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger." Compare Deut. xxiv, 19–21.

2. Lev. xxv, 5, 6: "In the seventh year thou shalt not reap that of thy harvest which groweth of its own accord, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed for it is a year of rest unto the land. And the Sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee and for thy servant," etc.

3. Deut. xv, 12: "If thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee."

These provisions were certainly admirable in themselves, and have worked admirably well. But as the Christian Church sustains to even believing Judaism the relation of fully developed manhood to boyhood or infancy; more, infinitely more must be expected in this respect of her. We have the genuine fruits of Christianity beautifully described, Acts ii, 44, 45; iv, 32–37: “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need;" "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul; neither said any of them that anght of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. . . . . . ... Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet," and became a missionary. If we inquire into the cause of this phenomenon, we learn from the account about Ananias and Sapphira, that this selling of houses and landed property was neither looked upon as "fashionable," nor much less as an indispensable condition of faith and Church communion, but was left altogether with every one's free will and inclination-see Acts v, 4. Had now this free will its root in enthusiasm, that is, was the second coming of Christ considered as being so near at hand, that possession of property was hereafter of no more use, a course of conduct like that pursued by many of the Millerites, in 1843, or in an ascetic, world-hating and worldfleeing tendency, as we meet with among the Essenes of the Jews, the therapeutics of Egypt, the Christian monks of subsequent times, and the fakirs of India, and both Mohammedan and Buddhistic monks? The sacred record answers to both these queries, emphatically, no. This | phenomenon, communion of property in a qualified sense, had its roots in the heavenly-mindedness of the believers; they knew and felt themselves members of the same body, of which Christ is the head, and they considered it not only a duty, but also a privilege, to consecrate what each had to the use and benefit of all. Egotism, selfishness, this never-failing source of foul thoughts and foul deeds, were either eradicated in their souls, or so

entirely kept down, that for the time being they were powerless. This exhibition of brotherlykindness had the same origin with other uncommon manifestations, as their joy in God and speaking with new tongues. The Holy Ghost filled the believers' hearts extensively and intensively in a measure, as has, alas! never since been the case again. But even when this holy enthusiasm subsided; when the power of nature took its place again in the consciences of the individual and of the Church; when the time of cool reflection followed those irresistible influences of the Spirit; this spirit of Christianity to take care of the poor, did by no means evaporate, but was directed into a natural channel, in which it could and did work, dispensing blessings in all directions, to both the recipient and the giver, the Church and the world. See Acts vi, 1-7; James ii, 1-9. James recognizes, indeed, the existence of rich and poor in the Christian Church, but insists that there shall be at least one place, the place of meeting of the Church, where this difference shall not appear. The epistle to the Hebrews-xiii, 16-enforces liberality and charity as a permanent duty; "to do good and to communicate forget not." John-first epistle iii, 17, 18— enforces the same duty in these words: "Whoso has 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? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”

But the most light is thrown on this subject by the great collection for the benefit of the poor of Judea, which the apostle Paul had lifted within the Macedonian and Achæan Churches. The apostle does not commence the business by commanding these Churches to contribute certain sums for said purposes; he does, indeed, represent their participation in these as a sacred and even indis- | pensable duty, a conditio sine qua non, but declares that, in order to be pleasing in the sight of God, their gifts must be voluntary. Of the Philippians, whose liberality the apostle especially recommends, he writes, in order to express their disposition or their motives-2 Cor. viii, 5: ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν πρῶτον τῶ Κυρίῳ "they gave their own selves to the Lord," thus showing, that although their liberality showed itself in a different manner from that of the first congregation at Jerusalem, it was, nevertheless, in substance the same.

As to the extent of the liberality recommended by the apostles, we find three spheres assigned to it, viz,. 1. The family. Paul-1 Tim. v, 4-writes: i "If any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to

« PreviousContinue »