of worshipping the Lord according to the truth, is sometimes considerable, owing to the number united together for this purpose being small. But difficult indeed would it be to prove, that these most precious privileges can be too dearly purchased. It is not, however, always the case, that individuals have really enough to do in their own locality. To shew this, I shall have recourse to an illustration. In the place where I reside, the richest inhabitant, a well-known lover of money, always insists that subscriptions should be gathered on the principle of so much per head, and not on the principle of so much per purse. Poorer contributors deny the equity of this arrangement; but in proportion as they are richer, it so happens, that they generally feel less and less repugnance to its being practically acted upon. I am now speaking of persons and objects unconnected with the New Church; but, I am sorry to say, that I have noticed a tendency amongst us to a similar want of just and generous principle. And how can it be otherwise, considering that men in the Church, and out of the Church, are "men of like passions?"-passions which must exhibit their quality in similar actions, if the truths of the Church are not allowed to perform their proper office of excluding from the Church the spirit of the world.

When it is considered that the only privilege,-the only real privilege which wealth can confer beyond the supply of outward comforts, is the privilege of acting on the Lord's words, which by no means are to beconfined to spiritual riches-" Freely ye have received, freely give;" when it is considered that " money is of no value except for its legiti mate use, ,"* it really seems wonderful that a human being should value money for its own sake, and still more, that he should value himself for possessing it! But as our author says, in his Arcana Calestia, the most sordid of all the human, or rather inhuman passions, is avarice,— the love of hoarding? Can any thing be conceived more insane than the love of hoarding? The Word treats it as such, saying of the man who is actuated by the love of accumulating and hoarding, "He walketh in a vain imagination! He is disquieted in vain! He heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them!" Can any characters amongst men be treated with greater contempt than this? And yet there are found in the professing Church of God, individuals of this character, who are, nevertheless, regarded as "respectable" by their fellow-Christians-by those who judge according to appearance-because they are rich! Such persons feel that they are rich, when they are

This admirable sentiment was expressed in a public assembly by a rich Unitarian manufacturer in the town of Leicester. Let us not be too proud to learn of Unitarians, because we disapprove of their tenets. If they have the wisdom to comply with the command, "If riches increase, set not your heart upon them," let not our wisdom practically be found to lie in an opposite direction.

J

66

calculating what is due to them in the way of deference on the score of their respectability; but when subscriptions are required, they feel poor! They cannot afford it!" Why can they not? Are they restrained in affording the aid required by want of inclination, or by want of means? If the former,- -"Is there not a lie in their right hand?" Is not their right hand "a right hand of falsehood?"

The love of hoarding is so base in itself, that most people who indulge in it endeavour to give some colour to their proceeding, by suggesting that it is for the benefit of their children; or of other relatives parentally adopted, as if they were their own offspring. Thus fenced round, the accumulator thinks no one can blame him for his prudence, for by that name-the name of a cardinal virtue !-the "heaping up of riches" delights to designate itself. Prudence indeed! ، What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Surely there can be no prudence in such conduct as this, or any conduct even distantly approaching to it! And when-let experience and observation answer the question-when has the selfish accumulator obtained enough for the aggrandizement of himself or of his family? Never! When is he satisfied that he is rich enough? Never!-Two gentlemen engaged, as they walked, in friendly discussion concerning the proper definition of the idea of being rich; they expended much argument and ingenuity upon the subject, but after all, not being able to agree upon a satisfactory definition, they determined to refer it to the common sense of a country man whom they saw approaching. Accordingly they addressed him, saying, “ Can you tell us, my friend, what riches mean, for we cannot agree in the proper meaning of the word?" After sundry endeavours to understand their drift, the country man replied, having A LITTLE MORE than y'un got." The disputants were well satisfied with this answer. Judging from the general conduct of mankind, they felt that they had good reason to be so. Thus it may be said not only that

66 Man never is, but always to be blest;"

but with equal truth it may be said,—

"Man never is, but always to be rich."

"The

' rich

But how is the case with those who have a stronger desire to be in good works" than to be "rich in this world's goods?" These persons always feel rich when they are enabled, with justice to other claims, to comply with the Lord's words, " Freely ye have received, freely give." They are never backward in doing so. They duly consider the claims of their sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, and even the demands of a just respectability; but they cannot forget that the Giver of all good has a stronger claim upon them, to contribute to the furtherance

13.

of his purposes. Why should they heap up for those who may have no heart to consider and answer the claims of God and truth? Why should they lay responsibilities upon their heirs, through the inheritance of their wealth, which they are themselves bound to discharge in their own persons, and not, uncertainly, by proxy?

The world has a way of calling a gift "munificent" in proportion to its amount, without any just reference to the ability of the giver. The world declines to take the rule of judgment laid down by the world's Lord, when he said that the poor widow who had cast into the treasury two mites, had contributed more abundantly than all the other con tributors. The judgment of the world should not be the judgment of the Church. A possessor of a large realized capital is lauded for his munificence to the Church, when he contributes a quarter per cent. upon his large capital; while the possessor of no capital at all, who spares out of his meat and drink from two to five per cent. of his hard-earned but narrow income, is regarded as a small benefactor, almost beneath notice. No one considers his contribution as "munificent!" This should not be. It tends to induce a false judgment; a judgment according to appearances, and therefore not a "righteous judgment." It tends to increase the danger of being rich; and to lull rich men amongst us into a dangerous security; regardless of the warning vouchsafed by their all-wise and gracious Saviour, of the serious hindrances which wealth peculiarly presents to a safe passage to the kingdom of heaven '; rendering his divine words "of none effect," "How hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!" And does not every man trust in riches (whatever their extent, great or small,) who does NOT trust in the Lord to guide him to the best use of them?

"

The large heart has sympathy with the spiritual wants of those beyond its own immediate neighbourhood. Now the only institution amongst us which has, in any degree, received the support due to its catholic character, is The London Printing Society for printing the writings of E. S.; but far be it from me to declare that the support extended to this institution has been adequate to its claims. The two Missionary Societies of London and Manchester are scarcely less catholic in their character than the Printing Society; and therefore scarcely less catholic in their claims to universal support. And yet, if we look down the list of supporters, we find that London is left almost exclusively to support its own Missionary Institution, as if its operations were confined to the metropolis only; and Manchester, to support almost as exclusively that institution which bears its name. Is this right? Is it generous? Is it just? There are those living in other parts of the country, who, confining their benevolence to their particular localities, are but starving

in

their own benevolent dispositions, and limiting the exercise of the very highest privileges which a bountiful Providence has placed within their reach! Truly, I beg permission to say again, the narrow feeling that a New Churchman is only bound to benefit his own locality, is the bane of the prosperity of our most catholic institutions.

It is possible that some things I have ventured to say on this occasion may arouse, in some readers, such thoughts as, "Have I not a right to do as I like with my own?" Is it not my first duty to provide for the well-being of my own family?" "Who has a right to interfere with my affairs?" I answer, undoubtedly, no one has a right to interfere with your affairs: but remember" that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment!" The parable of the Talents clearly shews that a proportion will be demanded between the uses performed, and the means of usefulness, whatever they be, committed to us. That we have nothing properly" our own," is clear from the Lord's command to the rich young man, to part with all that he had, as the needful preparation for the faithful following of Him. And we ought not to doubt, that we are bound to give all our natural wealth to the Lord-to part with it as "our own-by applying ourselves to consider how our Lord will be best pleased with our disposal of it. It is not "our own." It is his,exclusively his, for "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." In order to avoid danger, prudence dictates the opening of the eyes to discern it while it is yet afar off. Let us then be willing to open our eyes to see the dangers of the disorderly love of money while they are as yet afar off. Let us seriously examine ourselves whether we rob the Lord in thought and purpose, by regarding our possessions as "our own," or as our childrens' " own." To guard ourselves against the approach of a deadly evil, and to guard ourselves against even the appearance of evil, let us seriously read the thrilling descriptions by E. S. of the hells of the avaricious; (A. C. 938) lest, through want of vigilance, any one of us should be tending even to approach towards those filthy and horrible abodes. Much of the light of truth has been given to us,and for what?-Undoubtedly that we should wisely apply our talents, whether they consist of intellectual riches, or the meaner wealth of gold and silver. I say the meaner wealth, for if any possessor of worldly wealth account that wealth to be nobler than intellectual riches, I would ask him to consider whether he is clear of all danger from the hells of the avaricious? Can he say with David, "I love thy commandments above gold ;” “The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver?" And if he cannot WHERE is he, as to his spirit? and, WHAT is he? i

,

66

this

say t

This sort of appeal, some will say, is unsuitable to our Magazine. I

ask them in reply, where would it be suitable? Our ministers cannot, for obvious reasons, urge this subject adequately, and freely, at the present day. And is the liability of the rich to be misled by the influence of riches, so slight, as to render a warning to them unnecessary or impertinent? Alas! alas! Let experience give its testimony faithfully and intelligently, and will it not be altogether in support of the awful declarations of the Scriptures of truth, of the dangers of being rich! I feel forcibly the necessity of making this appeal. I feel that it has been withheld too long, either for the good of individuals, or of our great cause. I have seen that the man who liberally expends the highest energies of his nature, and wears out anxiously the cerebral organs of will and thought in the service of the Church, is practically set down by his richer brethren as a nobody, and a do-nothing. I have seen that the bane of religious communities. has been the exaltation of relatively rich men to rule and influence, because they are rich, (and whether their contributions are proportionate to their manifest means or not!) and not because they are the best or the wisest men. I have seen the wisdom of the old dissenting minister who, finding that the rich were naturally more inclined to take the lead, qualified or not, than to be "nursing fathers," cried out, "Lord, deliver us from rich men!" A bitter sarcasm, this, upon a class; and a powerful confirmation of the truth of the Lord's warning-of the misleading tendency of riches!

Divine Truth declares that the heart of man is deceitful above all things." Divine Truth declares that the heart of man is peculiarly liable to be deceived by the influence of riches. Shall we, then, close our eyes to this certain fact? Shall we comply with the unwise wish of any deceived heart, that we will leave him quietly to do what he likes with his own? God forbid! Let every one remember that his eternal interests are safe only when He is "on the Lord's side,"-not merely in theory, not in the party spirit of mere doctrine, but in deed and in truth, in the faithful and adequate performance of uses, for the Lord's sake.

1

Far be it from me to urge any one to give, who is not “ willing. hearted," or "whose heart does not stir him up in wisdom," to "bring an offering to the Lord." The Church would be polluted by a gift which originates with any motive disowned by her sacred doctrines;-nay more, by any giving which lacks the motive of humble and grateful love. "The Lord loveth a cheerful giver." Such is the man who gives not by constraint, but because he deems it a gracious privilege to be a fellow-worker with the angels of heaven, and a coöperator with the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom.

SIMPLEX