Also, the very large amount of their income, (which has been estimated at not less than one fifth) required of the Jews to be given for the support of religion, and in charity, was intended to convey to us similar instruction. For though the law of tithes or double tithes is not binding upon us, the great sacrifices which they were required to make, are designed to have a moral influence on succeeding generations. It is not the idle record of a bygone race, or of a dispensation that has vanished away; it utters a voice to us; it is the living exemplification of a principle which we are bound to adopt. If even the poor among the Jews could give so much, the poor can still give bountifully in proportion to their means,—and, were they disposed, how profusely might the rich lavish their munificence. With the fact before us of the great sacrifices the Jews were commanded to make for the support of religion in their own narrow bounds; when we consider the breadth of the field we are called to cultivate,—the spiritual necessities of the perishing millions of our race, the opportunities to reach them, the worth of the undying soul, the revenue of glory its salvation will yield the Saviour, what sacrifices ought the poor, at the present day, to make in their penury, and the rich in their abundance, to promote the glory of Christ in the salvation of souls; and how terrible the doom of those who refuse.
These principles, requisitions, promises, and examples, show us that our sacrifices should be great, and the amount of our contributions large, when either the worldly or spiritual necessities of others demand our aid; while they leave the treasuries of benevolence to be filled by the spontaneous flow of each individual soul.
The desire, therefore, to fasten on the consciences of men the obligation to contribute periodically a certain portion of their income or property, as universally binding, is not to be gratified by arguments drawn either from reason or revelation. We may resort to no artificial means. We may trust in no machinery which does not work and glow with the living fires of the heart. Love, conscience, and reason, must be the originating and guiding forces. We must fall back upon, and confide in, these vital principles of holy conduct. First the heart, and then the act, is the Gospel scheme, and we may not reverse the process. To attempt it, and to say, "What we seek in a system of beneficence, is not a benevolent heart, but benevolent actions;" is to come in open collision with the spirit of the Gospel. It is apparently a lurking disposition to induce men to discharge the duties of beneficence, without laying their hearts on the altar of God, and keeping them perpetually burning there; whereas Christ requires the heart, and the heart always; and then that conduct which inevitably bursts from a consecrated soul. As Paul says of the Macedonian Christians, "They first gave their own selves to the Lord;" and then their wealth, to be used as he should direct.
Indeed, the process necessarily gone through in determining, from general principles, the particular amount it becomes our duty individually to bestow in charity, Christ evidently intended should be a means of moral discipline, which we cannot safely dispense with. Its influence, though not generally realized, is far-reaching, almost magical. It strengthens the intellect, elevates to a noble independence and disinterestedness of feeling, gives stability to character and energy to purpose, leading on to thoroughness of self-inspection, earnestness of investigation as to the personal claims of God, and childlike simplicity in submitting to their authority. Just glance at its workings in the present instance. As Christ has told us, in order to know his doctrine we must do his will, so in order to ascertain the exact sum we are to contribute in benevolence, we must cherish a heart in sympathy with his own. Holy love must perpetually glow in our bosoms; otherwise, we shall sometimes fail in the correctness of our conclusions. Thus the first impulse of benevolent feelings puts us in the way to increase them; for every desire to give must be attended with a scrutinizing estimate of our motives, and a constant struggle with selfishness, lest the latter gain the ascendency, and mar the beauty of the deed. The legitimate result of the process, therefore, is a deep and watchful piety; while the works of beneficence, thus determined, never degenerate into superstition or self-righteousness; and its obligations will seize at once and unrelaxingly the conscience of all.
The conclusion, therefore, at which we arrive touching the amount of our charities is this: it should be such as our means, a distinct knowledge of the wants of others, and a heart of overflowing love, shall prescribe; leaving each one to his own solemn convictions of duty, amenable to the bar of God.
But it may be objected, if beneficence is thus left without the specification of some stated amount, selfish, or but partially sanctified men, will not give as liberally as they ought. Perhaps they will not. But all we can so is to press on their attention the commands of Jehovah, and the claims of a dying world—claims, as strong and affecting as those which brought the Saviour from the throne to the cross; and telling them what the Apostle, enforcing also sparingly; "and he who soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully," leave them to settle the matter of their covetousness with their Final Judge. We may pray and weep over them; but we may use no efforts to move a single individual from that moral basis—his own conscience—on which God has placed him. Here he must stand; and here we must be willing he should stand; while he himself is under infinite obligation to lay bare his bosom to the energizing influences of truth, and cheerfully yield to its sway.
2. How frequently should stated contributions be made?
System implies order, regularity. Systematic beneficence implies regularity of contributions, or of stated periods for appropriating property to the Lord. In regard to the frequency of these statedly recurring periods, there are different opinions. Owing to the variety, extent, and complexity of men's avocations, some find it convenient to make consecrations accurately proportionate to prosperity, much more frequently than others. Hence some advocate the weekly period, some the monthly, while others plead for still longer intervals. Indeed, to fix upon a definite rule of universal application determining the frequency of periodical contributions, will be found nearly as difficult as to ascertain the precise ratio of property to be bestowed. There are, however, certain leading principles, which, if contemplated with rectitude of heart, will enable us to please God by the wisdom of our benefactions, no less in this respect than the last.
1st. As a stepping-stone to a series of more important considerations, showing that these periods of consecrations should very frequently recur, I remark that most may set apart some portion of income without inconvenience as often at least as capital or labor makes returns. These are the occasions when Providence pours his treasures into our bosoms; when alone we can determine precisely how the Lord has prospered us, and consequently how much we are able to bestow. Hence if no designations of income to charity have been previously made, or if they have not been sufficiently large, these opportunities of coming to some definite decision with reference to the proportion of the bounties of Providence we shall devote to purposes of beneficence, may not be passed over; and the consecration, not to say the disbursement, should be made immediately, while the idea that our possession are from God is fresh in our minds, and before selfishness shall seize them as her own. Procrastination is often but giving heed to her treacherous voice, and ere we are aware, she carries us captive. As we receive our increase from the hand of God, like faithful stewards, we should set apart the portion belonging to others without delay. To indulge ourselves by holding them up before us, and doating upon them as our own, will but inflame our covetousness; and we shall be tempted to rob the needy of their portion. This is not hypothesis; facts prove that money is contributed far more cheerfully when in a loose state than after it becomes fixed property. This rule, directing frequency of consecrations, conforming itself to individual circumstances, is oppressive to none.
But the capital of some makes returns only once a year; of others, only once in a series of years. To such this rule can be by no means applicable; for the wants and sufferings of those whom God has made it our duty to relieve, often demand far more frequent distributions; while, in a variety of instances, it calls into exercise our benevolence too rarely to suppress the selfish tendencies of the heart,—a point, which, in rearing a system of beneficence, may never be overlooked. Other principles must therefore be noticed.