The Faithful Steward | Page 7

strengthen, than weaken,
the covetous tendencies of the heart.
It has appeared to some of vast importance to fix upon a definite
amount of income as each one's yearly contribution. A tenth has been
named as the proportion divinely approved, in imitation of Jacob's vow
to give a tenth to God of all that he should receive at his hand; and
because the Jews were required to pay a tithe of their yearly increase
for the support of the Levites. Arguments have been adduced to show
that this ratio in charity is obligatory on all; at the same time, it has
been acknowledged not to be enjoined in the New Testament. We think,
however, the ground untenable; and all efforts to designate this or any
other fixed proportion as universally binding, both inexpedient and
unscriptural.
In the first place, it would not be equal. An alleged requisition, not
pressing equally upon all in its ordinary operations, cannot rise out of
the necessary relations of the spiritual universe, and therefore is not
essential to a moral government. It can be made obligatory on the
conscience only by a positive precept from the Great Lawgiver himself.
But no ratio of income, universally applicable can be assigned, pressing
equally upon all. While one's income may be large, his debts may
likewise be large. Another's health may be feeble, his family numerous,
and his expenses great; while his neighbor's constitution may be
vigorous, his family small, and his necessary expenditures few. Thus
circumstances may render it a greater sacrifice for some to give a
twentieth, a fiftieth, or even an hundredth of their income, than for
others to bestow one half, or indeed, the whole of it, and thousands
besides.
One's entire possessions must be taken into the calculation. Take a

simple case. Two men start in business together; both plan and toil for
ten years. One has an expensive family, parents to maintain, children to
support and educate; he has been withal unfortunate, and has laid up
scarcely a thousand dollars. The other has no family, has prospered and
accumulated ten thousand. The eleventh year Providence smiles upon
both alike; the income of each is a thousand dollars. Now, would it be
equal to require of both respectively a hundred in charity?
Nor can any ratio of standing property and income combined be
designated, ensuring equality. Though this might approximate towards
equalizing the burden, still the same or similar causes would prevent a
uniform pressure. Besides, calls on our benevolence are not always
equally loud or imperious; and therefore, with the same means, more is
demanded on some occasions than others.
Undoubtedly there is a certain amount of property, which, taking into
view the whole circle of one's relations, he ought to contribute in
charity. It is by no means contended that one cannot fix upon a definite
amount for himself. This he may and should do. All that we aver is,
that no general rule can be made, assigning that amount, because no
general rule can meet the ten thousand circumstances that modify
individual cases; and, therefore, obligations to comply with it would
not be universally felt. Besides, no one thinks of specifying certain
proportions of labor and attention which all are equally bound to
bestow on others; and yet, these are sometimes far more beneficial to
the suffering than gifts of money. To assign a certain number of
external acts employed in charitably distributing property, while we fix
upon no definite amount of labor to be expended in beneficence, is
making a difference without a reason; this being seen, the conscience
will not be holden, unless some scripture precept can be found
demanding the discrimination.
But could a ratio be found pressing equally upon all, it would not be
desirable. Man, while under the influence of the natural heart, if he tries
to please his Maker at all, endeavors to do it by external acts merely;
when driven from this ground, he seeks to please him by acting out
some principle of natural sympathy, conscience, or reason; when shown

the fallacy of this, he endeavors still to discharge his duties in some
way without the entire consecration of the soul. Now, does not the
advocacy of a general ratio obviously fall in with this depraved
inclination, tend to flatter this pride of heart, and to encourage this
aversion to entire self-immolation? Indeed, founded on this principle,
the work of benevolence is extremely liable to degenerate into sheer
superstition. The payment of the stipulated sum is soon thought to
render one worthy of Divine acceptance; and thus, instead of gushing
from the heart, charity becomes a mere mercenary business, scarcely
rising to the dignity of a virtue. This the experience of the religious
world proves, as is evidenced by the views and conduct of