Preface to the American Edition

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

* Neglected, not lost.

feel that the era of effective benevolence has yet to commence? Let him sketch the most simple scheme of benevolence which the Gospel can approve, and he will perceive that, at every step, he is writing the condemnation of the Church. The great lesson taught by our Lord’s voluntary selection of a state of poverty, is yet to be fully understood, the evident application of many passages of Scripture to be made, doctrines startling to selfishness to become familiar and welcome, the word benevolence itself to be differently understood, and the whole economy of benevolence to be revised.”

We believe it to be a part of our religion to love our fellow-men, and to act as if we loved them: Christianity consists, not wholly in faith, nor in believing the facts set forth in the Scriptures; it consists not wholly nor chiefly in believing that Christ died for the redemption of sinners: it demands belief in what Christ taught us, and obedience to his instructions. It does not teach us that our justification will accrue from our obedience; but it requires obedience, and no man’s faith can be genuine who does not try to obey; no faith can be safe which is not “faith working

Xll PREFACE TO THE

hj Jove.” Our holy religion does not consist then simply in the worship of God, nor in believing in God; it consists in our duty to God and our duty to man.* Whatever may be said of the manner in which we fulfil these duties, it cannot be denied that our religious literature develops far more amply our duty to God than our duty to man. It is the latter, therefore, that we desire to bring more fully to the attention of all Christians; not to displace nor usurp the position of the former; but that the latter may receive its due share of attention, honor, and obedience, as a part of that Christianity we profess.

We cannot hesitate to urge these important truths, because some well-meaning persons cannot understand their importance and pertinency, nor because they are so fearful of exalting Charity above Religion, or Philanthropy above Theology, that they would banish “humanity” from religion, and leave it to take refuge among Socialists and Infidels.

* If, as the term imports, Theology includes only our relations with God, then, what shall we call the doctrine of our relations with our fellow-man? If we have no name provided, it is some proof that the doctrine is yet to be developed, exhibiting the religious duty of man to man. If Theology is to be the term, then its domain is to be extended to cover this great subject.

AMERICAN EDITION. Xlll

Despite this narrow prejudice, which disables those who entertain it from forming an adequate conception of Christianity, we intend to keep these contemned words, Charity, Hitmanity, Philanthropy, before the Christian public. Not that we would exalt them above Christianity, but that we would assign them their due place in our religious systems. We cannot be deterred by any cry of “Humanism,” or “Socialism,” or Communism,” or any similar note of alarm, from believing and avowing that humanity is a religious duty, that it is enjoined upon us by Christ, in terras so explicit, so strong, and so frequently repeated, that only those who will not see can be blind to it. “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” asked the lawyer. Our Lord, after repeating the parable of the Good Samaritan, said, “Go, and do thou likewise.” His ministry was one of such constant attention to human woes and wants, that, if no higher object had been designed, if man’s eternal interest had not been concerned, it must have been pronounced a life of the purest, the most unvarying, the most untiring, and the most effective humanity that was ever exhibited on earth, and that all he said was as deeply fraught with lessons of humanity as all he did. It would be vain to seek, in the pages of Socialists or Humanitarians, of any degree or name, any parallel to the humanity practised and taught by Christ. It implies no conflict with orthodoxy or sound theology to say this. The Apostles recognized it fully; it enters into their teachings: and the primitive Christians in a large degree exemplified it. We need to recognize more fully the teaching and the example of our Saviour; but this neither implies nor demands any surrender of the great cardinal doctrines of Christianity. Our position is, that we can admit the whole doctrine of Christian charity, humanity, philanthropy, into an Evangelical Orthodox Christianity, not only without danger of error, and without sacrifice of truth, but with positive advantage, and a new infusion of spiritual fervor and energy. Above all this, however, it is as much our duty to receive the Saviour’s doctrine of humanity as any other of His doctrines. He has left us no warrant for its omission. If any duty can be enforced by the language and example of our Saviour, and by the teachings of the Apostles, those of humanity and charity can;

AMERICAN EDITION. XV

and, however we may characterize that humanity and charity which men exhibit from no motives of religion, no faith in God, and no love to the Saviour, it cannot be denied, with any just regard to the words of Scripture, that charity and humanity are essential elements of Christianity; they are, when religiously exercised, among its most important characteristics. They cannot, however, be what they should, unless they are religiously exercised — unless they are overflowings of a Christian spirit. How can we then hesitate to recommend these religious duties, and to insist that the doctrines which explain, distinguish, and enforce these duties, should receive a development proportioned to their importance? How can we forget that our obligations to fulfil these duties are derived from the same Divine authority which enjoins the duties of faith, repentance, and prayer, and that, coming from that source, they are as much a part of our Christianity as those duties are.

Our system of Christian doctrines should include the religious duties we owe to our fellow-men, and must include them, if it includes the teachings of Christ. We cannot

XYl PREFACE TO THE

make up our religious system from the Epistles of Paul, nor from any other, or all the Epistles, if we omit the words of our Saviour himself. These contain, specially, the instructions which embrace our duty to our fellow-men: they are the highest fountain from which we can draw on that subject. They furnish those pervading rules and principles which search every hidden recess of the heart, and, in proportion as they find entrance there, cast out all the evil thoughts and emotions inconsistent with them. It is under the pressure of these, chiefly, that we are impelled to enter upon the performance of our duties to men; and are made to perceive that these are religions duties; and to acknowledge that no religious duties are more strongly enjoined upon us, than those we owe to the human family.

We are then under the necessity of inquiring what all this implies — what religion requires us to do for our fellow-men. If our faith is to work by love, what is the work to be done? It is all comprehended in “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;” that includes all we need do for our neighbor. Our present object is, to select for remark a single topic of the duty thus intended.

How can we intelligently do for our neighbor what we would for ourselves, unless we understand his true position in life, his feelings, his relations, his wants, his capacities, his opportunities, his circumstances? Are we not under the necessity of knowing, as far as practicable, all that concerns man, that we may, as far as needful, do for him as we would for ourselves; for, that loving which is without doing is like that faith which is without working. We must, therefore, as our intelligence and opportunity permit, study the actual condition of men, with the best lights we can obtain — and we must not only ascertain and do what is in our power individually to do for human benefit, but we must study what is the mutual duty of men, religious, political, social, and philosophical. Nothing short of the highest attainments we can make in this knowledge, can adequately fit us for loving our neighbor as ourselves. Of course, many, nay, all, must fall short in this kind of knowledge — but that, alas! is only what befalls us in every other path of Christian duty. We are speaking of the comprehensive nature of Christ’s instructions. We complain that this duty, which we owe to men, of studying their conditions in all the relations and positions of life, has not been sufficiently held up and regarded as a religious obligation. We seek religiously all that relates to God; we should seek religiously to learn all that can promote the highest interests of men, temporal and eternal. Looking at men from this point, social and political philosophy assumes at once a more important aspect. In studying these subjects we must carry with us the authority, the doctrines, the very words of Christ. These shed at once a flood of light on themes, long darkened by opposing theories and clashing practice. When social and Christian philosophy assumes the same starting point — the best interests of men — and when this object is kept steadily in view, a system will be elaborated which must thoroughly renovate the whole fabric of society. And this benefit may be confidently expected, without any change in human nature, except that which is to be effected by its being subjected to Christian influences, under more favorable circumstances than before.

We believe that the greatest obstacle to the progress of Christianity is the want of this application of its principles, as they are specially taught by Christ, to the social condition of men. Christianity now meets in its progress among men a special opposition from institutions, from maxims of business, from social systems, which are so inimical to its true spirit, and yet so firmly established, that its forward movement is, humanly speaking, impossible, and, religiously speaking, only possible with God. But how can His blessing be fully expected, unless Christians carry the principles of their Master into these institutions, this business, and these social systems? They mingle in all these, and make part and parcel of them; let these principles of their Divine Master make also a part and parcel of them. Let Christians be everywhere distinguishable by their loving one another, by their being the most earnest friends of their fellow-men, by their devotion to all that concerns the highest interests of men, temporal and eternal, and Christianity will make a progress among the masses, unknown since the days when such were the prominent characteristics of Christian men.

When it is fully realized that Christians are stewards of Christ for whatever is committed to them, whether it be talents or wealth, or strength, or knowledge; when it is realized that these endowments are given that they may be laid out for the benefit of the human family, it will come home more fully to the consciences of these servants in the household of Christ, that they must prepare themselves for the proper discharge of these obligations to their fellow-men. To that end they must not only study their interests for eternity, but their interests for time. Of all that concerns man, nothing can be indifferent to them. They cannot see them suffer, from any cause, without affording, according to the nature of the case, sympathy or relief: if they suffer political oppression, they will at least try to comprehend its nature and extent, and to put forth such influences and knowledge as may tend to relieve, if not remove the evil; and so with every form of evil and suffering to which men are exposed, whether industrial, commercial, social, or religious. None of the ills of human life are beyond the reach of religious sympathy and succor: many cannot be reached but by public efforts; men who suffer from political or social wrongs can only be aided frequently by the development and diffusion of sound political principles and a sound social philosophy. The true servant of that Master, whose efforts for human weal never flagged, cannot refuse to apply himself to that special inquiry, or to that special study which may fit him to help those who can be helped in no other way. If he believes that Christian principles are sound, he must see that they are applicable to the amelioration of human condition in every possible state of man. Knowing that Christianity enjoins submission to existing powers and every ordinance of man, the student of Christian social philosophy will not look, except in extreme cases, to revolution and bloodshed for any relief, but endeavor to show that the best interests of both rulers and people lie in one path, that which most promotes the Christian welfare and social happiness of man. The Christian reformer will not use weapons of war, unless unavoidable; but he should be prepared to put forth his Christian principles in every emergency, social, civil, industrial, and commercial. He should watch the movements of the world in all these respects with intense anxiety, to observe how the best interests of men may be affected by passing events, and to learn

XXII PREFACE TO THE

how they may be promoted. All legislation, all political action, all social movements, should be regarded with particular attention, in reference to their bearing upon human advantage. Such considerations as these should press upon the intelligent Christian with a weight proportioned to the importance of the interests involved.* If a Christian man

* “Nearly all external religious services are means of grace, and, however needful to the progress of religion, however indispensable in the work of winning souls to Christ, or promoting our own growth in grace, they are not in themselves religion — they are not of the essence of Christianity. These means of grace are resorted to, not as Christianity, but as helps towards it: employed they should be for what they are, and not for what they are not. Building churches, praying in public, preaching the Gospel, distributing the Scriptures, publishing good books, sending forth Missionaries, and other like means of grace, are designed to lead men to Christ, and to instruct them in Christianity. They are not in themselves the main duty of Christian life. They are the introduction to it; they are the preparation for it; they are the guides by the way; they are means of conversion; they are fountains of refreshment; they are sources of encouragement; they are means of religious invigoration; they are means of grace. God blesses them as such; and Christians, if they will thrive, and grow in grace, and be fitted for the main object of the Christian life, the maintaining a pious, an earnest devotion to God, and an active life of love and benefit to the human family, must not neglect them. It is, therefore, an essential and indispensable religious duty, to do to and for our fellow-men all that is dictated by the command, to love them as ourselves; and no amount of indulgence in the means of feels impelled to stoop by the wayside, to relieve him who has fallen among thieves, and has been left there wounded and suffering; if he feels bound to give alms to him who is in want, to give a cup of cold water to him who is athirst, with how much interest must he regard that legislation, that policy of government, that social philosophy which degrace can atone for the neglect of this duty, any more than any amount of kindness and love to men can atone for a neglect to ’ worship God, who is a Spirit, in spirit and in truth.’

“The love of God and the love of our fellow-men, are actual piety, religion, Christianity itself; the usual external services of religion, being only means to that great end, yield, therefore, in importance, to it. It is a vital part of Christianity to love men as ourselves: it is the test by which Christ has declared that his disciples shall be known. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another, No mere means of grace, no external forms of worship, no religious services, should be exalted above this great religious duty of loving and serving our fellow-men. It is to this the Apostle Paul refers, when he says, ‘All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ The man of God, who, in obedience to Christ, strives to fulfil this command, is discharging the highest duties of a Christian life. Under the guidance of this precept, we owe to our fellow-men what we owe to ourselves. Where is the development of this great branch of our religious duty? Where are we specially instructed, and in detail, as to the bearing of this great law of Christianity upon all the business and relations of life? To build a church for Christ’s sake is a worthy deed, a real means of grace; but to love our fellowtermines the weal or woe of thousands — perhaps millions of his fellow-creatures. If the Christian must not neglect the poor and suffering, neither must he neglect any opportunity nor any effort to save men from poverty, degradation, and ignorance. We are not only to help the poor, we are to “consider the poor:” we are not only to think of our own affairs, but we are to look also upon the affairs of’ others — we are to bear not only our own burdens, but also the burdens of others.

men as ourselves for Christ’s sake, is an act of real religion itself, not the means, but, as far as it goes, the very thing itself. To consider what we owe to and can do for all our brethren of the human family, is an actual Christian duty, to be religiously performed, from which Christians cannot escape. When, for Christ’s sake, Christians are earnestly considering what they can do for the temporal and eternal interests of men, they are in the direct line of religious duty, and so when they are carrying into effect such measures as they may, in the light of the Scriptures, deem most beneficial to men. This does not simply include mere alms-giving. It extends to all men, rich and poor. There are corresponding duties for every position and relation of life. Those in relation to the poor are chiefly dwelt upon, because they are chiefly dwelt upon in Scripture, and because the manner of life of the early Christians, furnished such ample illustrations of what they deemed their duties to the poor to be, while their minds were fresh with instruction from the lips and pen of inspiration.

“They could then enforce and exemplify the truth announced by the Apostle James, that, ‘Pure religion and undefined be-Under the Dispensation of the Gospel, God requires of man little duty that is outward merely, except that which consists in acts of mercy and kindness towards men: in no way can the renewed man render more acceptable service to God, than by kindness and love to his fellow-men; in no path of duty can he more fully glorify his Master, than in the ministrations of love and mercy; “for love and charity is plainly the thing in which he has placed his religion; in which, therefore,

fore God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,’ without being charged with denying or depreciating the doctrine of justification by faith. They could feed on the doctrine and go out strengthened to their Christian task <jf love and kindness. They had not arrived at the modern refinement of substituting the food for the work, the doctrine for the deed. The Christians of that day were known by their loving one another, and distinguished beyond all other men by their charity and deeds of mercy, and yet they did not forsake the duty of assembling for prayer and praise at stated periods. At this day, Christians are not distinguished by loving one another, nor very specially from men of the world by deeds of charity and mercy, but mainly by assembling together, and by the almost exclusive attention which they give to that duty and its concomitants. They have exalted this duty, of assembling for religious worship, above the groat active duties which arise from the command, to love our neighbor as ourselves; yet the latter are enjoined upon us by our Saviour, with a thousandfold more solemnity and force than the former.” — Editor.

XXVI PREFACE TO THE

as wo have any pretence to the name of Christians, we must place ours. He hath enjoined it upon us, by way of command, with peculiar force.”*

We are told by another competent authority, that the doctrine of the loth chap., 1 Cor., is, “That all the virtue that is saving, and that distinguishes true Christians from others, is summed up in Christian love. Let a man have what he will, and do what he will, it signifies nothing without charity; which surely implies that charity is the great thing, and that everything which has not charity in some way contained or implied in it, is nothing, and that this charity is the life and soul of all religion.” “f

“This, this is Christianity; not a slavish attendance on ceremonies; not receiving the sacraments; not zeal for orthodoxy; not a formal church government; not belonging to any particular church; not receiving the benefit of an Episcopalian or Presbyterian ministry, — these, according as they are scriptural, are important as auxiliaries, not as

* Bishop Butler’s Sermons, on” The love of our Neighbor:’* Carter’s edition, p. 139.

“Charity and its Fruits,” pp. 4-5.

principals; as means, but not ends; as aids, not substitutes.” ...” Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.“* (1 Tim. i. 5.) “Our Lord has resolved all piety and all morality into Love.”... “From a persuasion that this view of it is too rarely taken, too little understood, and too imperfectly felt, I was induced to enter upon the exposition of Paul’s most interesting description of Christian charity. It is impossible to treat this chapter without being convinced that the religion of Jesus Christ has excellencies and beauties in its nature, which, in consequence of the depravity of our hearts, have been yet but very imperfectly developed to the world. Unfortunately for the reputation of Christianity, it has been generally looked at, not as it appears, in mild but unclouded effulgence, in its own hemisphere, the Bible, but as it is feebly and dimly reflected from the dull surface of what is called the Christian world.”... “Miracles were but the credentials of Christianity, but Charity is its essence; miracles but its witnesses, which, having ushered it into the world and borne

* “Christian Duty,” by J. Angel James: Carter’s ed., 146.

XXV111 PREFACE TO THE

their testimony, retired forever; — but Gltariiy is its very soul.” ...” This is love, blended with all our living habits, diffused through all our conduct, forming our character, breathing in our desires, speaking in our words, beaming in our eyes; in short, a living part of our living selves. And this, be it remembered, is religion — practical religion”... “Who can read these passages of Holy Writ, and not feel convinced, that not only mankind in general, but the professors of spiritual religion also, have too much mistaken the nature of true piety? What are clear and orthodox views — what are strong feelings — what is our faith — what our enjoyment — what our freedom from gross immorality — without this spirit of pure and universal benevolence.”*

We might multiply passages to the same effect, if space permitted: we give not these isolated remarks that they may have a stronger meaning than their authors intended, but we do offer them as evidence that their doctrine on the subject of Charity was as strong as that for which we contend. We merely insist on a fuller development of this doctrine. It is doing great injustice to the

* “Christian Charity Explained,” by J. Angel James.”

truth thus announced, to state what is of such vital importance to religion — to the progress of piety in the world — and then leave it, to develop other and less important doctrines. Surely, it is wrong to hold that up for Christianity, which does not contain a distinct statement of this great doctrine of Christian charity, and of its practical bearings: and, surely, it must be right to urge the practical duties which arise and flow from this doctrine. We maintain they are such as we have indicated above: we believe that system of religion is not complete which does not contain this feature; and we believe that piety to be imperfect, which is not accompanied by that Charity for men which is its true index.

Whilst, therefore, we feel fully warranted by Holy Writ and safe human authority, in insisting upon the importance of Charity — upon the religious duties of mercy and kindness to our fellow-men — upon the religious duty of doing to others as we would have them do to us — of considering the whole subject of human welfare as coming, necessarily, within the scope of our religious life and duties, we mean not to sink or slight any other religious doctrine or obligation. We think, with John Angel James, that the views we urge have been too little understood — too imperfectly felt. We believe that our development of Christianity has, in consequence, been too narrow, and that we must retrieve the error, and enlarge our platform, by enlarging our views of what is needful to future Christian progress. Some of the evil results of this narrowness are thus strongly stated by J. Angel James:

“‘Faith working by Love, This is the true Apostolic spirit, and the true Apostolic succession. Strange that this should be so much forgotten: that men should have wrangled about the form, till they had lost the spirit of the Gospel, and have trampled upon love in their contest for faith. Alas! alas! who, on looking at the present aspect of Christendom, resembling rather a battle-field than a peaceful city; a place of resort for savage animals, that bite and devour one another, rather than a sheepfold, where the flock reposes in quietness and without envy under one shepherd — would suppose that these were the professors of a religion, which, as to its practical nature and design, is all expressed in that one word, Love! Who that is witness — and who in these days is not a witness — of the bitterness and the wrath, the malice, envy, and jealousy that now characterize so large a portion of the so-called Christian world, could imagine that these fierce polemics, these angry opponents, these intolerant persecutors, would dare to call themselves by the name of that meek and lowly Saviour, who taught men they could not be his disciples, unless they loved their enemies, and who set them the example by praying and dying for his own 1” *

Such pictures are not pleasant prospects for the self-complacent. They are, however, profitable in the way of self-examination. Many more of the same kind might be adduced, not less highly coloured. That they are true to Nature can be verified by all, who can so far divest themselves of preconceptions, as to regard what is passing around them in the “so-called Christian world,” in the simple light of the Holy Gospels.

We must not part with this subject without naming one, whose labors in this cause have not been exceeded since the time of primitive Christianity; whom, to name, is to suggest at

* “Christian Duty,” J. A, James, p. 148, once “a revision of the whole economy of Christian benevolence.” A goodly portion of the life of Dr. Chalmers was devoted to the grand object of restoring to the world the efficiency of the principle of love. His writings, abounding in passages of striking power and eloquence, having this design, have made an impression which we may hope will never be effaced; but the doctrines they teach are not yet familiar to the ears of some, much less are they received as part and parcel of our Holy Religion. His great name could not save him from the reproach of bringing forward such novelties as that new lessons were still to be learned from the Bible, and that works of charity and mercy were to be practised as a part of our religion. He surmounted all opposition of argument and influence before his death, and demonstrated what one determined man can accomplish in the work of preaching the gospel to the poor. To do justice to Dr. Chalmers in what concerns his labors for the lower classes, and in his application of Christian principles to their relief, would require a volume. It is a history familiar to readers of his Memoirs; a book which those who fail to read deny themselves

AMERICAN EDITION. XXXlll

the greatest pleasure and profit any modern work can afford. His attention was, early in his ministry, called to the condition of the poor, and to the bearings of Political Economy and Christianity on that condition. “The dearest object of my earthly existence,” he says, “is the elevation of the common people — humanized by Christianity, and raised by the strength of their moral habits, to a higher platform of human nature, and by which they may attain and enjoy the rank and consideration due to enlightened and companionable men.” One of the most intelligent appreciators of Chalmers’s life and labors, is the author of a Review of his Memoirs, in the 33d No. of the North British Review, said to be Isaac Taylor. It may be of advantage to refer to that article, in considering the value of Dr. Chalmers’s efforts in behalf of the degraded and the suffering. “Pie was an Economist,” says the Reviewer,” because his reason told him that Christian principles must be the beginning and the end of all schemes for brightening the homes of the wretched; and because his sense of duty as a parish minister so brought him into daily contact with that misery, as that he could

XXXIV PREFACE TO THE

never cease to inquire concerning the causes of it, proximate and remoter

The Reviewer gives Chalmers the credit which is undoubtedly due to him, of contributing largely by his preaching, and other ministerial labors, to the wonderful progress of Evangelical religion, which took place in Scotland during the period of his life. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland was previously in a state of “paralysis;” and the efforts of the Reformers, among whom Chalmers was chief, was not “to innovate or even to reform, in the sense of abrogating what was extant, or of instituting things new; but in a word the ruling desire was to reanimate or to vivify the body.”

The life and labors of Chalmers show what, in his opinion, was to be done, to lift up the Church from mere forms, to life, activity, and Christian vigor. The Reviewer, in reference to this, remarks — “A master’s hand was needed in Scotland (one might say a giant’s arm,) to rend away from earnest piety its Pharisaism, and to rid Christian morality of its Rabbiism. There was needed a great soul and a strong mind, competent to the task of putting upon things Christian a Christian in-AMERICAN EDITION. XXXV

terpretation, instead of a Jewish gloss. Chalmers rendered this service to the Church without relaxing any great principles, and without letting in the latitudinarian feeling.” He did not accomplish this needful task, however, without exposing himself to opposition and abuse, which made him, who scarcely feared any obstacle, shrink from the odium theolofjicum more than from other forms of opposition.* The Reviewer proceeds, in speaking of Chalmers’s labors as a Professor of Theology: “He sent forth a body of men, who, if they turn not aside from the path in which he set them forward, may, and with God’s help will, bring about within the enclosure of the Establishment, as well as outside of it, the Christian regeneration of Scotland. To do this, Chalmers was given to Scotland. Let her see to it, then, that the mission of a man whom she delights to name does not fail of its effect.”... “As to that revival of Evangelic doctrine, in bringing about which Chalmers had so much to do, it did not cast away the Confession. Far from it; but, as one might say, it uplifted it bodily from off the national mind and heart. During the

*” See Life of Chalmers, vol. 2., pp. 490, 491.

powerful heavings of this modern revival, the “Westminster Confession,” like an incrustment, has been fairly borne aloft — still an undoubted object of homage as heretofore, and yet so carried up from its bearings as to give free access to the light and breath of heaven — vastly for the comfort and health of the dwellers in the house.” Whoever studies the Life of Chalmers will discover that his zeal for humanity and the increase of his piety went hand in hand: they will see that his great soul sent up aspirations to God, and put forth efforts for His glory, in proportion to the increase of his labors for human welfare: they will be satisfied that the two great divisions of Christianity, making the perfect man in Christ Jesus, occupied his mind in clue proportion — the love of God in Christ fired his whole soul: the love of his fellow-men, with efforts to do them good, incessantly occupied his thoughts and his time: he became more devoted to God as he became more devoted to man. Hear his outburst when charged with sectarian aims: “Who cares about the Free Church, compared with the Christian good of the people of Scotland? Who cares about any Church but as an instrument of doing good? for, be assured, that the moral and religious well-being of this population is of infinitely higher importance than the advancement of any sect.”* The Reviewer remarks on this subject, lamenting the obstacles to a rapid spread of the Gospel interposed by binding too tightly the ligatures of sectarianism: “When Christian men, staggered and dismayed as they look at the map of the world, shall come, in seriousness, to ask themselves how, and why it is and has been so, the answer will be like a peal of thunder shaking their souls: it is so, because conscience, hitherto in league with an overwhelming selfishness, has failed to urge upon us our duty to our fellows, a duty which sects never do understand, and can never discharge.” -j* This is very strong language: we trust that, to whatever extent it may have

* Memoirs, vol. i, p. 388.

f As a further specimen of the quality of the Reviewer, we subjoin a passage on a topic, not very remote in its bearings from that which occupies our attention in this preface:

“That enormity of our modern Christianity — that damning sin of Protestantism — that source direct, of the perdition of the lost millions an ear us — that inestimable prodigality which squanders the Infinite — (we will not allow that we are at all indulging in exaggeration when we speak of) that ill consequence of our boasted liberties, which shows itself in the been verified in the past history of the churches, it may be disproved in time to come; for we can see no likelihood of sects coming to an end where religious liberty prevails. The Reviewer seems to admit that some improvement is in progress, when he says of Chalmers,” That he gave an impulse to that altogether modern mood of Christian benevolence, which concerns itself with the well-being, temporal and spiritual, of the industrial classes, and of the class below these. This recent product of Christianity, (a product so worthy of it, so

overlapping of so many costly religious organizations — each Church out of five or seven interlacing its operations with every other — each placing itself athwart the path of every other, and each spending, iqnn the very same acres, an amount of ministerial body-and-soul power and of popular contribution, which, if it were wisely economized and carefully distributed, would suffice for reclaiming a wilderness!

“It is this same reckless spontaneousness — it is this spurious product of a misunderstood conscientiousness — it is this wilful resolution to have things managed precisely in our own ay — it is this opinionative egotism, sprouting itself out in wasteful committeeism, which, more than the obduracy of the heathen’s soul, has stayed the course of the Missionary work, filling our Annual Reports with sickening repetitions, of vast labors and vast expenditures, and slender results, and hopes always in the distance! So it is abroad — so it is at home — so it is that the heathen millions, at home and abroad, must wait until ‘you, and you, and you, and V can be content to see the world saved, otherwise than just to our taste!”

congenial) this mighty force working in the bosoms of the privileged — the favored — the provided for — and which forbids them to slumber upon their comforts while thousands of their kindred are in extremity of suffering — this modern, business-souled benevolence, destined, as it jet is, to effect a noiseless renovation in the social system, was in a transition state at the moment of Chalmers’s coming before the world.”

Let those who think there is no application for these remarks of the Reviewer in the United States, and even in our own Church, and no need of a reform, such as that Chalmers was the main instrument of effecting in Scotland, pause before they finally decide. Let them look well to it, that they are not indulging in the same apathy, if not in the same opposition which was employed against Chalmers. Let them examine themselves, and see if there be no defect in their vision, nor in their judgment, before they assume the responsibility of deciding definitively, and for a whole Church, upon subjects of such vital moment to the progress of Christianity. For Chalmers now speaks to us, he preaches to

US, HE CALLS UPON US TO CONSIDER WHAT

Xl PREFACE TO THE

bearings Christianity has uroN our social system; to examine what we are doing for the temporal and eternal interests of the degraded and the poor. Who is willing here to drown this voice from the grave of Chalmers? Who is willing to say that we do not need his exhortations, and that we doubt the soundness of his Presbyterianism? There were men of good sense and undoubted piety in Scotland who resisted him, face to face, and denied the necessity of his movements, in applying Christian principles to social reforms. The wonderful success of Chalmers’s mission, the blessing of God manifestly resting upon it, should, indeed, make the most self-sufficient pause before they say, either that we do not need, or that we will heed neither the teachings nor the example of the great Scottish divine in the matter of social amelioration.*

In setting apart Elders in St. John’s Church, Glasgow, in the year 1820, Dr. Chalmers expressed himself as follows:” Never, till God put it into the hearts of men to go forth

*” Let those who would know the immense value of a ministry like that of Dr. Chalmers, read the estimate of its results in Glasgow (on page 484, vol. 2, of his Memoirs, Am. edition,) — a ministry divided between the poor and the rich, with vastly more labor to the former.

AMERICAN EDITION. xll

among our heathens at home, with the same zeal and enthusiasm which are expected of missionaries who go abroad, will there be anything like a revival of religion among our city families.” ...” There is something in the very presence of one human being, when he comes with the feelings and the desires of friendship, which serves to conciliate and to subdue another human being. Bear an honest regard to the people, and the people will, in spite of themselves, bear you an honest regard back again.”*

“This,” said Dr. Chalmers to a friend who accompanied him on a visit to the parents of one of his schools, “is what I call preaching the Gospel to every creature; that cannot be done by setting yourself up in a pulpit as a centre of attraction, but by going forth and making aggressive movements upon the community, and by preaching from house to house.” f

It may be important to examine further into the spirit of a man, who contributed so largely to the revival of true piety in Scotland. He must have possessed some special power or h’tness for such a great work: mere talents

* Memoirs, vol. 2, 291. f Idem, vol. 3, 106.

xlii PREFACE TO THE

are inadequate to such a task, and neither industry nor genius could have accomplished it without the special blessing of God. It is now scarcely denied by any, that the favor of the Most High rested upon the labors of Dr. Chalmers. And no wonder: for what ministerial servant of God in modern times entered upon his Master’s service with more zeal? what one better, or who as well fulfilled his double duty to God and to man? Who more devoted to the worship of God — who more devoted to the welfare of man?

In the same address to his Elders, quoted before, he used the following language. He wished them to partake of his views and his spirit.

“I would never give up any human being in despair. We are apt to confide in the efficacy and wisdom of our own arrangements — to set up a framework of skilful contrivance, and think that so good an apparatus will surely be productive of something — to please ourselves with parochial constitutions, and be quite sanguine that, on the strength of elderships and deaconships, and a machinery of schools and agents, and moralizing processes, some great and immediate effect is to follow.

AMERICAN EDITION. xliii

But we may just as well think that a system of aqueducts will irrigate and fertilize the country without rain, as think that any human economy will Christianize a parish without the living water of the Spirit — without the dew of heaven descending upon the human administrators, and following them in their various movements through the houses under their superintendence. Still it is right to have a parochial constitution, just as it is right to have aqueducts. But the supply of the essential influence cometh from above. God will put to shame the proud confidence of man in the efficacy of his own wisdom, and He will have all the glory of all the spiritual good that is done in the world; and your piety will, therefore, work a tenfold mightier effect than your talents, in the cause you have undertaken.”*

After the Secession had been completed, and the Free Church had been fairly launched upon her new element of voluntaryism, after the heat of the contest was over, which had absorbed for many years much of the time, and talents, and feelings of Dr. Chalmers, he began immediately to consider what old duties

* Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 301.

Xliv PREFACE TO THE

had been neglected during the contest, and what new duties had arisen, claiming immediate attention. His biographer, in referring to this, proceeds:

“In this enumeration of things needing to be done, Dr. Chalmers put last of all what he had so long considered to be the greatest and most urgent of all — the evangelization of the neglected masses. For more than thirty years this had been the ruling passion of his life. That life, though none imagined so at this period, was drawing near to its close; and, as if knowing that his time was short, this ruling passion rose into redoubled strength, and broke forth into most beautiful manifestation. His first expectation was that the Free Church, in her organized capacity, and by the help of her Sustentation Fund, might press forward her Christian services into the polluted recesses of city life, and help to heal the spreading leprosy. That expectation failing, he lifted at the close of his “Earnest Appeal to the Free Church” this imploring entreaty to other evangelical denominations: ‘We would earnestly wish the concurrence, the practical concurrence of all other evangelical communions in this great work. We are all the more

AMERICAN EDITION. xlv

desirous of this, when we think on the mighty, nay, the yearly increasing spaces of wild and outlandish territory which are still unoccupied. Are there not myriads of immortal, yet perishing, because neglected, spirits, in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other large towns of Scotland, as well as in hundreds of outfields throughout the country at large, which would require the united efforts of all the wise and good in our land for many years to come? Why put off for another hour, we do not say the fulfilment, but, at all events, the commencement of this glorious enterprise — for, in truth, this, though forming the greatest moral problem of our day, has scarcely been entered on? In our city wastes, in our manufacturing villages, in many, very many of our remote and rural hamlets — in all these put together, are there thousands of families, who live in guilt and die in darkness, and have never, up to this moment been the objects of aught like an adequate effort for their Christian education!... ‘And another mighty benefit might be expected from such a co-operation as this. A common object of Christian charity, zealously prosecuted by all, will lead to a more general community of

Xlvi PREFACE TO THE

thought and feeling betwixt them. It would speed the cause of Christian union at an infinitely more rapid pace, than ever will be effected by Synods and Assemblies, laboring in conjoint deliberation to new-model their formularies and settle their articles of agreement. Let us be one in well-doing; and this, wherever there is real sincerity and right good earnest, will prove the high-road to being one in sentiment. A oneness in conduct will often lead to an essential oneness in creed — for the reflex influence of the former upon the latter is far greater than, perhaps, logicians and controversialists in Theology are willing to allow. And so may we speed onward the accomplishment of our blessed Saviour’s prayer — even that palpable unity among Christians, which he has announced as an indispensable stepping-stone to the world’s regeneration.’”*

It would be pleasant as well as profitable to continue these extracts; but we trust all who have not read these very instructive memoirs, will speedily read for themselves, not only in his Life, but throughout his works.

But Dr. Chalmers, like most great men, had his peculiarities; one of the most remark- * Memoirs, vol. 4, p. 384.

AMERICAN EDITION. xlvii

able of these was, that his mind was free from the yoke of that bondage which is imposed, in that country and in this, on the religious mind. He thought as he pleased and spoke as he pleased; and, although he was visited with unmeasured abuse by little minds, who were neither free nor could conceive of freedom, yet he held on his way until he surmounted all effective opposition; though he could never wholly extinguish the snarls of dosfs, who were afraid at last either to bark or bite. We do not mean to discuss, or propose for discussion, the soundness of any of Dr. Chalmers’s opinions. We refer to them only to say, that the great mental vigor for which he was distinguished, and to which so much of his usefulness was owing, wras, in a large measure, due to that very freedom of mind which begot the peculiarities we are about to notice. People may differ upon the subject, but we decidedly prefer the vigorous, bold, and manly action of a free mind, to the timid, hesitating, and over-cautious movements of minds in bondage to other men. We think that there can be no vigorous thinking in the Church, until men are encouraged to think for themselves — to call no man master

Xlviii PREFACE TO THE

but Christ — to acknowledge no authority as paramount but the Word of God.

It will be seen from the preceding extracts, that Chalmers was in favor of uniting with other denominations in any good work, requiring joint effort. “I must say,” he exclaims, in his address to the General Assembly, in 1843, “that I consider it infinitely more characteristic of the religion we profess — the religion of peace and charity — that, instead of each denomination sitting aloft and apart on its own hill, and frowning upon each other from their respective orbits, they should hold kindly and mutual converse, and see each other eye to eye, while they will discern to their mutual astonishment, if not how thoroughly, at least how substantially they are at one. Now is the time to rally about the common standard of all that is pure and vital in Protestantism.” It has been seen that he wras quite anxious to unite the various denominations in the work of missions to the poor, ignorant, degraded portion of the people of Scotland. His Catholic spirit is, however, still more conspicuous in the following aspirations, appearing in different portions of his Horce Sabbatica?, the solemn meditations of his Sabbath hours:

AMERICAN EDITION. xlix

“Let me not be the slave of human authority, but clear my way through all creeds and confessions to Thine own original Revelation.”... “Deliver me, oh, God! from the narrowing influences of human lessons, and, more especially, of human systems of Theology. Teach me directly, out of the fullness and freeness of Thine own word, and hasten the time when, unfettered by sectarian intolerance and unawed by the authority of man, the Bible shall make its rightful impression on all, because the simple and obedient readers thereof, they call no man master but Christ only.”... “Oh! that we were fully unfettered from all which has the effect of distorting and deranging the Christianity of the Bible in the artificial systems of human orthodoxy.”*

There are many good men in the United States, whom we should be sorry to hear saying they did not need to utter such prayers. We fear there are some who will even think such prayers to be wicked; a less offence has incurred the charge of infidelity. His biographer merely remarks upon the passages just cited,” The many prayers which Dr.

* Horse Sabbaticae, vol. 1, pp. CO, 350, 373. Memoirs, vol. 4, 421.

Chalmers offered, that he might be preserved from the fetters of an artificial orthodoxy, may be taken as an evidence that even in his instance, it teas not without an effort that simplicity sat embosomed in system, while system did nothing to hurt simplicity.” * If Chalmers, with all his breadth, and vigor, and freedom of mind, had thus to pray for deliverance from the narrowing influences of human lessons — from the distorting and deranging effects of artificial systems — what must be the condition of those who deliver themselves over, mentally and spiritually, and without reservation, to these systems? We shall not decide, but we wish all concerned would look into it. The remark of the Rev. Wm. Hanna, the son-in-law and biographer of Dr. Chalmers, very clearly betrays his sympathy in these prayers for deliverance from the narrowness of human systems.

We find, in another place a still stronger expression of his feelings about formulas. “Busied with his pamphlet on the Evangelical Alliance, in which he was dealing with the proper plan and use of Confessions of Faith, ‘I look,’ said he to one of his daughters,” on Catechisms and Confessions of Faith as mere

* Memoirs, vol. 4. 421.

AMERICAN EDITION. li

landmarks against heresy. If there had been no heresy they would never have been wanted. It is putting them out of their place to look on them as magazines of truth. There s some of your stour orthodox folk, just over-ready to stretch the Bible to square with their Catechism: all very well — all very needful as a landmark; but (kindling up) what I say is, do not let that wretched, mutilated thing, be thrown between me and the Bible.”*

It is not, of course, our province to determine the degree of heresy which attaches to Chalmers for the utterance of such a sentiment. Our design is, merely to remark that the same man who could commit such an offence against the Church, was, nevertheless, one of its most efficient ministers, and one to whom, under God, the Free Church and people of Scotland owe more than to any other individual. And, whatever may be thought of the free expression of his thoughts, we hazard the opinion, that if he had not been the man thus frankly and boldly to speak his mind, he would not have been the man to accomplish the good he did, for his country and its people. We do not say what agency, if any, these free opinions had in the success of his ministry,

* Memoirs, vol. 4, p. 448.

lii PREFACE TO THE

but we say that the energy and boldness which enabled him to conceive and utter them, were the great secrets of his success. If, by any force of public opinion, or any process of church discipline, Chalmers could have been frightened or deterred from this free expression of his thoughts, he would have been shorn of his locks, his power and strength would have left him, and he would have been like other men. If men are expected to act with extraordinary intellectual or spiritual vigor, they must be free to act and free to speak. How far this may be the case here, let clergymen and laymen answer for themselves. For our part, we believe that there are thousands of both sighing for the liberty which Chalmers boldly exercised, in defiance of all the forces of repression; not that they wish to say the same things, or worse than Chalmers said, but that they may say what they think, and what they believe their Bible teaches. They sigh to be free in Christ Jesus: and, so long as they feel that they are not free, so long their mental and spiritual energies will be cramped, so long the fervor of their piety cannot burst forth in its full light and power. We need a giant hand among our divines, like that of Chalmers, to lift up

AMERICAN EDITION. liii

the formulas of the Church, “so as,” according to the language quoted before from the North British Review, “to give free access to the light and breath of heaven, for the comfort and the health of the dwellers in the house.” Does any one say that Dr. Chalmers deserted the standards of his Church? we reply that he did not. Pie merely put them in their true position. He condemned undue reliance upon standards; he objected to them as “magazines of truth,” not as historical landmarks; he objected to them as expositions, but not as summaries: they were useful in the way of reference, but not in the way of authority; he regarded them as human productions; he called no man master but Christ; he could not, therefore, endure to have the Confession or the Catechism thrust between him and the Bible. He regarded the latter as the great chart of our religious belief; and, whilst he looked upon the “landmarks” with all the respect due to human productions, he never yielded the point, that, with the chart in his hand, he could determine the boundaries of our faith with as much accuracy as the author of a Confession. He doubtless believed that every man should

Liv PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

survey the field himself, examine the landmarks, verify their position, and satisfy himself that all was right; he doubtless believed that every man erred who built his faith upon the authority of a Creed or Catechism, without such verification. He regarded such forms rather as things to be used, than things by which men are to be used. He looked upon them as immeasurably inferior in importance to the Bible itself, and, therefore, had little sympathy with those wTho were more offended at what they conceived to be an attack upon the Confession than an attack upon the Bible. This describes very much our own view of the standards. We can receive the doctrines they affirm; we can appreciate their importance as compendiums; we can feel their historical value; but we cannot recognize them as adequate expositions of Christianity — else they would be of equal authority with the Bible. We believe pious men may differ widely as to their use and importance, without departing a hair’s breadth from the path of orthodoxy.

Stephen Colwell.

Philadelphia, May 1, 1853.