The Race for Riches

The little volume which we now give to the American public, has passed rapidly through several editions in Scotland. It is from the pen of an eminent minister of the Free Church in that country, Pastor of the Church of St. Peter, in Glasgow. With very slight allowance for difference of circumstances, the lessons it contains are as applicable here, as in the land in which they were first delivered: we believe there is as much need for these lessons here as there, although we may not admit that we are more devoted worshippers of Mammon than the people of Scotland. It is true, there is no special lack of literature on the subject of covetousness, and the religious uses of wealth; yet, there is, in the

(iii)

production of the Rev. Mr. Arnott, a freshness of diction and a vigor of thought, well calculated to make salutary impressions. It will scarcely be laid down without a thorough perusal, by those who look into it sufficiently to seize the spirit of the writer. We commend it most heartily to all who would have their souls stirred up with thoughts and suggestions, which must, if prevalent, infuse new life and energy into the Christian movements of the present day. For, although his subject is covetousness, the author, impelled by the pressure of his thoughts, has bounded away from the negative, and assumed the tone and the course of teaching which belong to the positive precepts of Christianity. He felt constrained to declare to his hearers, not merely what they should not do, but, betaking himself to the direct mode of exhortation, he urges what they should do. This is the natural impulse of an earnest man, and the natural action of a sound mind. The author of “Mammon” was driven to the same course by the exigencies of the same topic. He could not remain in the narrow but logical sphere of a subject which simply forbade covetousness. It may be safely assumed that no estimate of Christianity, no summary of its duties, no exhibition of its compass and bearings can be made, by those who attempt to unfold the “New Commandment” — the duties enjoined by the New Testament, from the negative precepts of the Old Testament. Such an attempt is objectionable in so many respects as to appear absurd. If the consequences be considered — it is perhaps worse than absurd — perhaps it is wicked. It takes the prohibitions accompanying the Ceremonial Law of the Old Dispensation, which has passed away, and develops from them the positive duties enjoined by the New Testament, which relate to the inward and spiritual: it overlooks and slights the very copious and comprehensive instructions of our Lord, covering the whole ground of this attempted development, and the whole ground of Christian life and duty!

But it is not merely wrong to unfold the great system of the Law of Christ from the negative commands of the Old Testament, it is logically impossible. Every attempt of this kind, whatever of good it may contain, must, to the discriminating and unprejudiced mind, appear to be what it cannot fail to be, un-Vi PREFACE TO THE

worthy of the subject, and discreditable to the intellectual power employed upon it. To develop the law of love and kindness to our fellow-men, as taught us by Christ, from the command, “Thou shalt not kill,” is a task as difficult and hopeless as that of extracting the obligation to pay our debts from the command, “Thou shalt not covet;” or the obligation to “do good and lend,” from the command, “Thou shalt not steal.” Those who would proclaim the great duties of Christianity, are under no necessity of teaching through negative commands: it is, on the contrary, their duty, as it is their privilege, to teach and unfold the obligations of Christian life from the positive commands of our Lord himself. These enjoin every duty of man to God, and every duty of man to man, that can be conceived, and they virtually forbid every sin that is inconsistent with these duties: obedience to these injunctions, so far as perfect, casts out and excludes all lusts and passions which war against God and man, and all offences against both. It is not difficult to comprehend how much more powerfully and ally armed at all points is the Christian, who goes into the world as the ambassador of

AMERICAN EDITION. Vll

Christ, to tell men what they must do, than he who confines himself to telling them what they must not do. This is very plainly seen, as we have said previously, in the work before us, and also in “Mammon:” and it is the reason why both writers have frequently left the path which their subject prescribed, to treat of the social bearings of Christianity from the positive side.

It would be a happy event if these two earnest Divines should both revert to the subject, and, taking into view the whole Law of Christ, unfold its length and breadth, exhibit its comprehensiveness, its far-reaching wisdom, and its soul-pervading qualities; such a development, carried boldly and firmly into the business, the maxims and philosophy of this world, would bear with it a power seldom felt in those circles. It would expose to contempt and pity many of the hiding-places of spiritual pride and selfishness, many sores of the body politic and social, and many of the hollow places in our religious systems and Christian life.

It is a fact, as much to be lamented as it is to be remarked, that our English religious literature is without any respectable work on

Vlll PREFACE TO THE

the great commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” or, upon the golden rule which contains the stringent law, “As ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also to them likewise.” It cannot be thought, for a moment, that these laws do not deserve, for their importance, the largest development which human experience or human ability can give them. It cannot be denied that they cover the whole ground of social life, civil and religious. They embrace the whole subjects of charity and beneficence; they include the philosophy of morals and of manners. If our religion be divided into that which pertains to our duty to God and that which pertains to our duty to man, then these two laws contain the fundamental doctrines of the latter, as the command to “Love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” contains the fundamental doctrines of our duty to God. Of course, love, in the latter case, implies faith; for no one can love Him in whom he has not believed. Whilst our theology has largely and richly developed our duty to God, it has left the far more complicated subject of our duty to man comparatively untouched. The obligation to love our fellow-man is not less imperative nor less a religious duty, than the obligation to love God: the degree of love enjoined is less in one case than in the other, but the duty of obedience is equally binding in both cases. Our religious duties to our fellow-men, which, by their nature and comprehensiveness, bear upon all the business and social intercourse of life, remain yet to be set forth with that method, fulness and cogency, which their importance demands. To assert or to suppose that this has been done, only betrays want of knowledge or want of consideration. Moral philosophy and Political Economy, which refer to the largest divisions of this subject, have, even in the hands of Christians, failed to draw their principles from the Law of Christ, even where these explicitly cover the very ground of discussion. The men of the world have decided that neither of the above-named sciences has any connection with Christianity, and Christian authors have virtually admitted this position by treating these subjects, without invoking the authority or the principles of Divine Truth. There are many indications that such an omission will not be much longer endured. Not a few are found in the pages now submitted to the reader, and not a few were contained in the pages of “Mammon.” Of the latter, the following is a specimen: “It is clear that the entire economy of salvation is constructed on the principle of restoring to the world the lost principle of love.* It was confronting selfishness, in its own native region, with a system of benevolence, prepared as its avowed antagonist by the hand of God itself.” And yet, if this be so, where, in our religious literature, is the explanation of “this principle of love — this system of benevolence prepared by the hand of God V Have Christians neglected to consider, discuss, and develop this principle, upon which” the entire economy of our salvation is constructed?” If so, the omission is of fatal consequence, and it is no wonder that he adds — “But has its object been realized? More than 1800 years have elapsed since it was brought into operation — has its design succeeded? Succeeded! Alas! the question seems a taunt, a mockery!” But why is it thus? Why has the gospel been hitherto threatened with the failure of a mere business experiment?...” But who does not

Keep reading