To Mr. J——

Disposition of property — Inequalities of human condition — Responsibility graduated by possession — Prudent foresight recommended by Solomon — Of those who heap together riches — Comparative liberality — Censoriousness — “Are rich men required to give up alii” — Community of goods — A debate.

Dear Brother J asks to know my views in regard to the disposal of property. This is a subject so comprehensive in bearing, that it is not without earnestly imploring wisdom from above, that I venture to give my thoughts upon it.

“The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.” Nothing can be more evident than this fact, viz.: that God is the Giver, whatever variety may appear in the distribution of his gifts. That God should dispense earthly good with a hand, seemingly, so unequal, is a subject at which skeptics have caviled. But when we remember that the great Master of the household is training subjects in this world for immortality and eternal life hereafter, and, to prove the fidelity of each, has placed at his disposal a given amount of his goods, that he may on his return receive his own with usury, the difficulty is solved.

Heaven’s Nobility. The Rich are to serve the Poor.

To some lie has given, with but a small portion of this world’s goods, much humble faith, and patient endurance. These, if they occupy faithfully till the Lord come, will, in the truest sense of the word, be of heaven s nohility. “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kinidom?” Those to whom he has intrusted much of earthly good, he has made the servants of his chosen ones; intending, if we “occupy till he come,” faithfully, that we shall not be spiritually poor, but “rich in good works, being ready to distribute, willing to communicate.”

Yet I daily feel that it is not a small thing that a man be found faithful. In reference to property, as well as other means of doing good, God will surely require his own, with usury. How will it be with those intrusted with a large portion of this world’s goods, who are hoarding it up, while the interests of Christ’s kinfrdom are makinoo o

loud and incessant demands?

“But,” it is said, “if none should lay up for seasons of emergency, how disastrously might sudden bereavements, such as are continually occurring, by death, or unlooked-for reverses, operate?” A prudent foresight may not be scripturally condemned; it is rather approved: see Prov. vi, 8. The example of the ant, who provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest, is presented, by way of re-Pi-udent Foresight. Hoarding. God’s Rule.

proof, to those who are prone to improvidence. But this fm’nishes no plea for those to whom it may be said, “Your riches are corrupted, and 3’our garments are moth-eaten; your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire: ye have heaped treasure together for the last days,” I often fear that this passage may be applicable to some rich men of the present day, who name the name of Christ.

As I am more or less engaged,in several benevolent schemes, I must say that, as a whole, I have found persons in ordinary circumstances much more disposed to give, according to their ability, than the rich. The moral impropriety of this is apparent, and a reference to the Scriptures shows it to be palpably wrong. Paul says, ‘* Let every one lay by him in store as God hath prospej-ed him:” and no duty, on any point, can be more clearly demonstrated than this, viz.: that it is a duty to give according to the ability which God has given. For a man, then, who is worth |20,000, to give no more than one worth $1,000, other things being equal, is absolutely sinful. This may seem severe; but if it be absolutely sinful to disobey God, then he who does not give according to his ahility, or, in other words, as God hath prospered him, is guilty of disobedience.

I hope I may not seem to favor that destroyer

Piety may coexist with Wealth.

of Christian unity, censoriousness, which is not luifrequently indulged by a class of persons who would unchristianize everything they cannot bring down to their own level.

From the early ages of the world there have been different classes in community. Abraham, who was eminently the friend of God, was rich. From his history, we may conclude that the position in the society in which he moved was commanding. David, the man after God’s own heart, was a king, and of course was surrounded with the trappings of royalty. The devout meditations and the inspired hymns of the Psalmist, which furnish such precious food for the humble, holy soul, were many of them, doubtless, written in a king’s palace. It would be well for those who are disposed to condemn such as have been raised, in the order of God, to a position somewhat above themselves, to remember this.

Joseph of Ariraathea, the rich disciple, went and craved the body of Jesus, though the other disciples had forsaken him in his hour of greatest peril. Joseph was not ashamed to avow himself a disciple now, though adherence to his Lord exposed him to contumely and scorn. Duties would not have been laid down, regulating the conduct of the poor and lich — of masters and servants — were not such duties recognized by God.

I was not long since in a little company-, where “All Things common.” An Income spent for God.

the unity of the Spirit was marred by a little conversation, which ran about thus. The case of a deeply pioiK minister, who was reputed to be rich, was mentioned. A Christian brother remarked, by way of reference to this minister, that if the same kind of religion prevailed at the present day, as prevailed in the days of the apostles, the same effect would be produced; that is, we should have “all things commonr A friend, who greatly valued the Christian character of the minister in question, observed, that he was yearly, by his benevolent operations, consuming more than the interest of his money, and if the principal were expended, his ability to do good in this way must cease. This did not satisfy, and a censorious spirit, which ever seems to possess some infectious quality, was communicated to a friend present, who said, that she ‘’never could understand how an individual could have the spirit of his Master, and yet see the heathen perishing, without giving up all he possessed.” The minister’s friend endeavored to maintain, by way of argument in his defense, that if the principal were expended, his present mode of doing good to thousands must cease, and that he could not, therefore, as a faithful steward, give up the entire of his property for present expenditures; but the brother who, perhaps, had never possessed means calculated to test his own fidelity on this point, remained unyielding in the opinion, that if the

Illiberal Views. An Inconsistency.

principles of holiness prevailed, a community of interests would be the result. These views being very confidently expressed, bore heavily on a deeply devoted person present, who was possessed of more means than either of the former, and who, doubtless, was far more liberal than those who, by their opinion, had condemned her. And thus the interview ended.

It is because I have known several cases where the unity of the spirit has been so sadly marred by similar views, that I have taken time to present this subject more fully. It is true, I cannot well apprehend a state of holiness, as otherwise than comprehending all with which we stand connected. The idea of being wholly the Lord’s, and yet withholding our property from his control, implies an utter inconsistency Yours irlj.