One thing more. Every man is bound to make the most of his being. All his powers, both of body and of mind, are to be taxed to the utmost, and exerted in the most effective manner. Each duty, without intrenching on others, should be performed in such a way, as best to secure the end aimed at in the obligation. Manner may not be disregarded. If there is reason to believe that the end contemplated in the obligation to beneficence may be best reached by a course of systematic effort, the very fact should lead to its immediate adoption. At the close of the preceding arguments, without reasoning in a circle, this may be adduced as a consideration of no small force, inducing every one to cast about him, and solemnly consider whether he is conducting his charities in the most efficient method; manner and spirit being as binding as the generous deed itself. And on this principle, every precept, promise, and example of revelation, enforcing benevolence, is really a precept, promise, and example, arousing to systematic benevolence. The same is true of the various incentives to this glorious work, offered in the ensuing pages; and in this light let the reader regard them.
In the second place, what is the Nature of a Scriptural System of Beneficence? This is an important inquiry. Every system, as we have seen, must be founded in principle—a principle rooted in the active powers, resting down upon the main-springs of the soul, so as to be moved forward by all the mental energies combined. But it must not only rest on principle; it must rest on right principle. The moral character of a system depends on the character of the moral feelings from which it rises; and it is the moral character of any scheme of action, which, under the government of God, gives it permanent efficiency; for to succeed, it must have his co-operation and aid. Besides, a system of benevolence is designed to combat the selfishness of the heart; a principle, strong, subtle, insidious, and developing itself in ten thousand different ways. Diametrical opposition to this, therefore, must be its leading characteristic. The natural sympathies, and conscience, and reason, must, indeed, be enlisted in its service; but all these united are insufficient to support enduringly a system of munificence against this formidable antagonist. For selfishness may entirely submerge the sympathies, so that he who can weep with his bereaved neighbor at the grave of his child, may, with the malignity of a fiend, be inwardly pleased at the death of an enemy. Selfishness may so control the conscience, that it will utter no upbraiding accents; and so bewilder the keen-sightedness of reason, that one may put darkness for light, and bitter for sweet, and sin for holiness, while complacently feeling that he is standing on the everlasting hills of truth. Neither the natural sympathies, nor conscience, nor reason, then, can form the substantial basis of a system of action which is to battle with the selfishness of the human heart. It must be informed with a higher and nobler principle. Holy love is such a principle. This, in its very nature, is superior to all other affections of the soul. The object on which it is fastened is the Great Supreme, and all other objects disappear before it, as the stars before the morning sun. A system, then, inwrought with this heaven-born principle, controlling, quickening, inspiring all the moral energies of the soul, may resist this mighty foe of the heart; and it forms the only insuperable bulwark to his malignant inroads. This position accords with the Scriptures. They approve of no external act, only as it proceeds from a holy heart; otherwise, they stamp it as self-righteousness or superstition. A system of benevolent action, resting on any other foundation, falls under the same condemnation; it contains no element of life, nothing truly pleasing to God. Men may endeavor to find other bases on which to rear schemes of charity; they may bring to the task the most penetrating sagacity, and traverse again and again the secret windings of the mind, to find some other lurking principle which can resist and subdue the batteries of covetousness; but all their efforts will be vain. Whatever they may erect will be built upon the sand; the winds and floods will sweep it away. There is no foundation which can withstand the underminings of the depraved heart, and the shocks of a depraved world, but the rock of holy love.
PART II.
Systematic beneficence is capable of a twofold division. There is a general or universal system, binding indiscriminately and equally on all of every rank and condition; and a particular system adapted alone to the circumstances of each individual. The latter stands related to the former, as the edifice to the foundation on which it rests. This distinction must be kept clearly before mind, if we would have definite views of our obligations relative to this important subject. In the ensuing discussion, I shall confine myself mainly to the general system; believing that if God's people are correct in sentiment, rooted and grounded in moral and christian principles, they will be substantially correct in practise. And as the particular or individual system grows, by a moral necessity, out of the other when fully embraced, being, in fact, involved in the practical part of it, I propose to give but occasional hints concerning it.
Practically considered, a system of beneficence consists in two things: the amount of property bestowed, and the frequency of stated gifts to the Lord.
Before detailing in full, therefore, the general system of beneficence, these two questions must be thoroughly discussed—1. What is the proportional amount of property or income to be given in charitable contributions? 2. How frequently should stated contributions be made?
The first of these is a point the most difficult for the depraved heart to reach. Self-interest clamors most loudly for the smallest sum possible. Her whole strength must here be encountered. But selfishness, properly so called, has nothing to do with the question. The rule determining the amount must be fixed upon, not only entirely without her aid, but in direct opposition to her insidious suggestions. It must also be a rule growing out of those principles which take hold of, and bind the conscience; and therefore clearly taught in the Bible. This is a consideration which may not be overlooked. If we endeavor to deduce a rule from principles not found nor recognized in the Scriptures, the influence will be disastrous; we shall rather strengthen, than weaken, the covetous tendencies of the heart.
It has appeared to some of vast importance to fix upon a definite amount of income as each one's yearly contribution. A tenth has been named as the proportion divinely approved, in imitation of Jacob's vow to give a tenth to God of all that he should receive at his hand; and because the Jews were required to pay a tithe of their yearly increase for the support of the Levites. Arguments have been adduced to show that this ratio in charity is obligatory on all; at the same time, it has been acknowledged not to be enjoined in the New Testament. We think, however, the ground untenable; and all efforts to designate this or any other fixed proportion as universally binding, both inexpedient and unscriptural.
In the first place, it would not be equal. An alleged requisition, not pressing equally upon all in its ordinary operations, cannot rise out of the necessary relations of the spiritual universe, and therefore is not essential to a moral government. It can be made obligatory on the conscience only by a positive precept from the Great Lawgiver himself. But no ratio of income, universally applicable can be assigned, pressing equally upon all. While one's income may be large, his debts may likewise be large. Another's health may be feeble, his family numerous, and his expenses great; while his neighbor's constitution may be vigorous, his family small, and his necessary expenditures few. Thus circumstances may render it a greater sacrifice for some to give a twentieth, a fiftieth, or even an hundredth of their income, than for others to bestow one half, or indeed, the whole of it, and thousands besides.
One's entire possessions must be taken into the calculation. Take a simple case. Two men start in business together; both plan and toil for ten years. One has an expensive family, parents to maintain, children to support and educate; he has been withal unfortunate, and has laid up scarcely a thousand dollars. The other has no family, has prospered and accumulated ten thousand. The eleventh year Providence smiles upon both alike; the income of each is a thousand dollars. Now, would it be equal to require of both respectively a hundred in charity?