ON GIVING IN CHARITY.
It is probable, that there is no point of duty, where conscientious
persons differ more in opinion, or where they find it more difficult to
form discriminating and decided views, than on the matter of charity.
That we are bound to give _some_ of our time, money, and efforts, to
relieve the destitute, all allow. But, as to how much we are to give,
and on whom our charities shall be bestowed, many a reflecting mind has
been at a loss. Yet it seems very desirable, that, in reference to a
duty so constantly and so strenuously urged by the Supreme Ruler, we
should be able so to fix metes and bounds, as to keep a conscience void
of offence, and to free the mind from disquieting fears of deficiency.
The writer has found no other topic of investigation so beset with
difficulty, and so absolutely without the range of definite rules, which
can apply to all, in all circumstances. But on this, as on a previous
topic, there seem to be _general principles_, by the aid of which, any
candid mind, sincerely desirous of obeying the commands of Christ,
however much self-denial may be involved, can arrive at definite
conclusions, as to its own individual obligations, so that, when these
are fulfilled, the mind may be at peace.
But, for a mind that is worldly, living mainly to seek its own
pleasures, instead of living to please God, no principles can be so
fixed, as not to leave a ready escape from all obligation. Such minds,
either by indolence (and consequent ignorance) or by sophistry, will
convince themselves, that a life of engrossing self-indulgence, with
perhaps the gift of a few dollars, and a few hours of time, may suffice,
to fulfil the requisitions of the Eternal Judge.
For such minds, no reasonings will avail, till the heart is so changed,
that, to learn the will and follow the example of Jesus Christ, become
the leading objects of interest and effort. It is to aid those, who
profess to possess this temper of mind, that the following suggestions
are offered.
The first consideration, which gives definiteness to this subject, is, a
correct view of the object for which we are placed in this world. A
great many even of professed Christians, seem to be acting on the
supposition, that the object of life is to secure as much as possible
of all the various enjoyments placed within reach. Not so, teaches
reason or revelation. From these, we learn, that, though the happiness
of His creatures, is the end for which God created and sustains them,
yet, that this happiness depends, not on the various modes of
gratification put within our reach, but mainly on _character_. A man may
possess all the resources for enjoyment which this world can afford, and
yet feel that "all is vanity and vexation of spirit," and that he is
supremely wretched. Another, may be in want of all things, and yet
possess that living spring of benevolence, faith, and hope, which will
make an Eden of the darkest prison.
In order to be perfectly happy, man must attain that character, which
Christ exhibited; and the nearer he approaches it, the more will
happiness reign in his breast.
But what was the grand peculiarity of the character of Christ? It was
_self-denying benevolence_. He came not to "seek His own;" He "went
about doing good," and this was His "meat and drink;" that is, it was
this which sustained the health and life of His mind, as food and drink
sustain the health and life of the body. Now, the mind of man is so
made, that it can gradually be transformed into the same likeness. A
selfish being, who, for a whole life, has been nourishing habits of
indolent self-indulgence, can, by taking Christ as his example, by
communion with Him, and by daily striving to imitate His character and
conduct, form such a temper of mind, that "doing good" will become the
chief and highest source of enjoyment. And this heavenly principle will
grow stronger and stronger, until self-denial loses the more painful
part of its character, and then, _living to make happiness_, will be so
delightful and absorbing a pursuit, that all exertions, regarded as the
means to this end, will be like the joyous efforts of men, when they
strive for a prize or a crown, with the full hope of success.
In this view of the subject, efforts and self-denial, for the good of
others, are to be regarded, not merely as duties enjoined for the
benefit of others, but as the moral training indispensable to the
formation of that character, on which depends our own happiness. This
view, exhibits the full meaning of the Saviour's declaration, "how
hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" He
had before taught, that the kingdom of Heaven consisted, not in such
enjoyments as the worldly seek, but, in the temper of self-denying
benevolence, like His own; and, as the rich have far greater temptations
to indolent self-indulgence, they are far less likely to acquire this
temper, than those, who, by limited means, are inured to some degree of
self-denial.
But, on this point, one important distinction needs to be made; and that
is, between the self-denial, which has no other aim than mere
self-mortification, and that, which is exercised to secure greater good
to ourselves and others. The first is the foundation of monasticism,
penances, and all other forms of asceticism; the latter, only, is that
which Christianity requires.
A second consideration, which may give definiteness to this subject, is,
that the formation of a perfect character, involves, not the
extermination of any principles of our nature, but rather the regulating
of them, according to the rules of reason and religion; so that the
lower propensities shall always be kept subordinate to nobler
principles. Thus, we are not to aim at destroying our appetites, or at
needlessly denying them, but rather so to regulate them, that they shall
best secure the objects for which they were implanted. We are not to
annihilate the love of praise and admiration; but so to control it, that
the favor of God shall be regarded more than the estimation of men. We
are not to extirpate the principle of curiosity, which leads us to
acquire knowledge; but so to direct it, that all our acquisitions shall
be useful and not frivolous or injurious. And thus, with all the
principles of the mind, God has implanted no desires in our
constitution, which are evil and pernicious. On the contrary, all our
constitutional propensities, either of mind or body, He designed we
should gratify, whenever no evils would thence result, either to
ourselves or others. Such passions as envy, ambition, pride, revenge,
and hatred, are to be exterminated; for they are either excesses or
excrescences: not created by God, but rather the result of our own
neglect to form habits of benevolence and self-control.
In deciding the rules of our conduct, therefore, we are ever to bear in
mind, that the developement of the nobler principles, and the
subjugation of inferior propensities to them, is to be the main object
of effort, both for ourselves and for others. And, in conformity with
this, in all our plans, we are to place religious and moral interests as
first in estimation, our social and intellectual interests, next, and
our physical gratifications, as subordinate to all.
A third consideration, is, that, though the means for sustaining life
and health are to be regarded as necessaries, without which no other
duties can be performed, yet, that a very large portion of the time,
spent by most persons, in easy circumstances, for food, raiment, and
dwellings, are for mere _superfluities_, which _are right, when they do
not involve the sacrifice of higher interests_, and _wrong, when they
do_. Life and health can be sustained in the humblest dwellings, with
the plainest dress, and the simplest food; and, after taking from our
means, what is necessary for life and health, the remainder is to be so
divided, that the larger portion shall be given to supply the moral and
intellectual wants of ourselves and others, and the smaller share to
procure those additional gratifications, of taste and appetite, which
are desirable, but not indispensable. Mankind, thus far, have never made
this apportionment of their means; yet, just as fast as they have risen
from a savage state, mere physical wants have been made, to an
increasing extent, subordinate to higher objects.
Another very important consideration, is, that, in urging the duty of
charity, and the prior claims of moral and religious objects, no rule of
duty should be maintained, which it would not be right and wise for
_all_ to follow. And we are to test the wisdom of any general rule, by
inquiring what would be the result, if all mankind should practise
according to it. In view of this, we are enabled to judge of the
correctness of those, who maintain, that, to be consistent, men
believing in the eternal destruction of all those of our race who are
not brought under the influence of the Christian system, should give up,
not merely the elegances, but all the superfluities, of life, and devote
the whole of their means, not indispensable to life and health, for the
propagation of Christianity. But, if this is the duty of any, it is the
duty of all; and we are to inquire what would be the result, if all
conscientious persons gave up the use of all superfluities. Suppose,
that two millions of the people in the United States, were conscientious
persons, and relinquished the use of every thing not absolutely
necessary to life and health. It would instantly throw out of employment
one half of the whole community. The manufacturers, mechanics,
merchants, agriculturists, and all the agencies they employ, would be
beggared, and one half of those not reduced to poverty, would be obliged
to spend all their extra means, in simply supplying necessaries to the
other half. The use of superfluities, therefore, to a certain extent, is
as indispensable to promote industry, virtue, and religion, as any
direct giving of money or time; and it is owing entirely to a want of
reflection, and of comprehensive views, that any men ever make so great
a mistake, as is here exhibited.
Instead, then, of urging a rule of duty which is at once irrational and
impracticable, there is another course, which commends itself to the
understandings of all. For whatever may be the _practice_, of
intelligent men, they universally concede the _principle_, that our
physical gratifications should always be made subordinate to social,
intellectual, and moral, advantages. And all that is required, for the
advancement of our whole race to the most perfect state of society, is,
simply, that men should act in agreement with this principle. And, if
only a very small portion, of the most intelligent of our race, should
act according to this rule, under the control of Christian benevolence,
the immense supplies, furnished, for the general good, would be far
beyond what any would imagine, who had never made any calculations on
the subject. In this Nation, alone, suppose the one million and more, of
professed followers of Christ, should give a larger portion of their
means, for the social, intellectual, and moral, wants of mankind, than
for the superfluities that minister to taste, convenience, and appetite;
it would be enough to furnish all the schools, colleges, Bibles,
ministers, and missionaries, that the whole world could demand; or, at
least, it would be far more, than properly qualified agents to
administer it, could employ.
But, it may be objected, that, though this view is one, which, in the
abstract, looks plausible and rational, not one in a thousand, can
practically adopt it. How few keep any account, at all, of their current
expenses! How impossible it is, to determine, exactly, what are
necessaries, and what are superfluities! And in regard to women, how few
have the control of an income, so as not to be bound by the wishes of a
parent or a husband!
In reference to these difficulties, the first remark is, that we are
never under obligations to do, what is entirely out of our power, so
that those persons, who have no power to regulate their expenses or
their charities, are under no sort of obligation to attempt it. The
second remark is, that, when a rule of duty is discovered, we are bound
to _aim_ at it, and to fulfil it, just so far as we can. We have no
right to throw it aside, because we shall find some difficult cases,
when we come to apply it. The third remark is, that no person can tell
how much can be done, till a faithful trial has been made. If a woman
has never kept any accounts, nor attempted to regulate her expenditures
by the right rule, nor used her influence with those that control her
plans, to secure this object, she has no right to say how much she can,
or cannot, do, till after a fair trial has been made.
In attempting such a trial, the following method can be taken. Let a
woman keep an account of all she spends, for herself and her family, for
a year, arranging the items under three general heads. Under the first,
put all articles for food, raiment, rent, wages, and all conveniences.
Under the second, place all sums paid in securing an education, and
books, and other intellectual advantages. Under the third head, place
all that is spent for benevolence and religion. At the end of the year,
the first and largest account will show the mixed items of necessaries
and superfluities, which can be arranged, so as to gain some sort of
idea how much has been spent for superfluities, and how much for
necessaries. Then, by comparing what is spent for superfluities, with
what is spent for intellectual and moral advantages, data will be
gained, for judging of the past, and regulating the future.
Does a woman say she cannot do this? let her inquire, whether the offer
of a thousand dollars, as a reward for attempting it one year, would not
make her undertake to do it; and, if so, let her decide, in her own
mind, which is most valuable, a clear conscience, and the approbation of
God, in this effort to do His will, or one thousand dollars. And let her
do it, with this warning of the Saviour before her eyes,--"No man can
serve two masters." "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
Is it objected, How can we decide between superfluities and necessaries,
in this list? it is replied, that we are not required to judge exactly,
in all cases. Our duty is, to use the means in our power to assist us in
forming a correct judgement; to seek the Divine aid in freeing our minds
from indolence and selfishness; and then to judge as well as we can, in
our endeavors rightly to apportion and regulate our expenses. Many
persons seem to feel that they are bound to do better than they know
how. But God is not so hard a Master; and, after we have used all proper
means to learn the right way, if we then follow it, according to our
ability, we do wrong to feel misgivings, or to blame ourselves, if
results come out differently from what seems desirable. The results of
our actions, alone, can never prove us deserving of blame. For men are
often so placed, that, owing to lack of intellect or means, it is
impossible for them to decide correctly. To use all the means of
knowledge within our reach, and then to judge, with a candid and
conscientious spirit, is all that God requires; and, when we have done
this, and the event seems to come out wrong, we should never wish that
we had decided otherwise. For it is the same as wishing that we had not
followed the dictates of judgement and conscience. As this is a world
designed for discipline and trial, untoward events are never to be
construed as indications of the obliquity of our past decisions.
But it is probable, that a great portion of the women of this Nation,
cannot secure any such systematic mode of regulating their expenses. To
such, the writer would propose one inquiry; cannot you calculate how
much _time_ and _money_ you spend for what is merely ornamental, and not
necessary, for yourself, your children, and your house? Cannot you
compare this with the time and money you spend for intellectual and
benevolent purposes? and will not this show the need of some change? In
making this examination, is not this brief rule, deducible from the
principles before laid down, the one which should regulate you? Every
person does right, in spending _some_ portion of time and means in
securing the conveniences and adornments of taste; but the amount should
never exceed what is spent in securing our own moral and intellectual
improvement, nor exceed what is spent in benevolent efforts to supply
the physical and moral wants of our fellow-men.
In making an examination on this subject, it is sometimes the case, that
a woman will count among the _necessaries_ of life, all the various
modes of adorning the person or house, practised in the circle in which
she moves; and, after enumerating the many _duties_ which demand
attention, counting these as a part, she will come to the conclusion,
that she has no time, and but little money, to devote to personal
improvement, or to benevolent enterprises. This surely is not in
agreement with the requirements of the Saviour, who calls on us to seek
for others, as well as ourselves, _first of all_, "the kingdom of God,
and His righteousness."
In order to act in accordance with the rule here presented, it is true,
that many would be obliged to give up the idea of conforming to the
notions and customs of those, with whom they associate, and compelled to
adopt the maxim, "be not conformed to this world." In many cases, it
would involve an entire change in the style of living. And the writer
has the happiness of knowing more cases than one, where persons, who
have come to similar views, on this subject, have given up large and
expensive establishments, disposed of their carriages, dismissed a
portion of their domestics, and modified all their expenditures, that
they might keep a pure conscience, and regulate their charities more
according to the requirements of Christianity. And there are persons,
well known in the religious world, who save themselves all labor of
minute calculation, by devoting so large a portion of their time and
means to benevolent objects, that they find no difficulty in knowing
that they give more for religious, benevolent, and intellectual,
purposes, than for superfluities.
In deciding what particular objects shall receive our benefactions,
there are also general principles to guide us. The first, is that
presented by our Saviour, when, after urging the great law of
benevolence, He was asked, "and who is my neighbor?" His reply, in the
parable of 'the Good Samaritan,' teaches us, that any human being, whose
wants are brought to our knowledge, is our neighbor. The wounded man was
not only a stranger, but he belonged to a foreign nation, peculiarly
hated; and he had no claim, except that his wants were brought to the
knowledge of the wayfaring man. From this, we learn, that the destitute,
of all nations, become our neighbors, as soon as their wants are brought
to our knowledge.
Another general principle, is this, that those who are most in need,
must be relieved, in preference to those who are less destitute. On this
principle, it is, that we think the followers of Christ should give more
to supply those who are suffering for want of the bread of eternal life,
than for those who are deprived of physical enjoyments. And another
reason for this preference, is, the fact, that many, who give in
charity, have made such imperfect advances in civilization and
Christianity, that the intellectual and moral wants of our race make but
a feeble impression on the mind. Relate a pitiful tale of a family,
reduced to live, for weeks, on potatoes, only, and many a mind would
awake to deep sympathy, and stretch forth the hand of charity. But
describe cases, where the immortal mind is pining in stupidity and
ignorance, or racked with the fever of baleful passions, and how small
the number, so elevated in sentiment, and so enlarged in their views, as
to appreciate and sympathize in these far greater misfortunes! The
intellectual and moral wants of our fellow-men, therefore, should claim
the first place in our attention, both because they are most important,
and because they are most neglected.
Another consideration, to be borne in mind, is, that, in this Country,
there is much less real need of charity, in supplying physical
necessities, than is generally supposed, by those who have not learned
the more excellent way. This Land is so abundant in supplies, and labor
is in such demand, that every healthy person can earn a comfortable
support. And if all the poor were instantly made virtuous, it is
probable that there would be no physical wants, which could not readily
be supplied by the immediate friends of each sufferer. The sick, the
aged, and the orphan, would be the only objects of charity. In this
view of the case, the primary effort, in relieving the poor, should be,
to furnish them the means of earning their own support, and to supply
them with those moral influences, which are most effectual in securing
virtue and industry.
Another point to be attended to, is, the importance of maintaining a
system of _associated_ charities. There is no point, in which the
economy of charity has more improved, than in the present mode of
combining many small contributions, for sustaining enlarged and
systematic plans of charity. If all the half-dollars, which are now
contributed to aid in organized systems of charity, were returned to the
donors, to be applied by the agency and discretion of each, thousands
and thousands of the treasures, now employed to promote the moral and
intellectual wants of mankind, would become entirely useless. In a
democracy, like ours, where few are very rich, and the majority are in
comfortable circumstances, this collecting and dispensing of drops and
rills, is the mode, by which, in imitation of Nature, the dews and
showers are to distil on parched and desert lands. And every person,
while earning a pittance to unite with many more, may be cheered with
the consciousness of sustaining a grand system of operations, which must
have the most decided influence, in raising all mankind to that perfect
state of society, which Christianity is designed to secure.
Another consideration, relates to the indiscriminate bestowal of
charity. Persons, who have taken pains to inform themselves, and who
devote their whole time to dispensing charities, unite in declaring,
that this is one of the most fruitful sources of indolence, vice, and
poverty. From several of these, the writer has learned, that, by their
own personal investigations, they have ascertained, that there are large
establishments of idle and wicked persons, in most of our cities, who
associate together, to support themselves by every species of
imposition. They hire large houses, and live in constant rioting, on the
means thus obtained. Among them, are women who have, or who hire the
use of, infant children; others, who are blind, or maimed, or deformed,
or who can adroitly feign such infirmities, and, by these means of
exciting pity, and by artful tales of wo, they collect alms, both in
city and country, to spend in all manner of gross and guilty
indulgences. Meantime, many persons, finding themselves often duped by
impostors, refuse to give at all; and thus many benefactions are
withdrawn, which a wise economy in charity would have secured. For this,
and other reasons, it is wise and merciful, to adopt the general rule,
never to give alms, till we have had some opportunity of knowing how
they will be spent. There are exceptions to this, as to every general
rule, which a person of discretion can determine. But the practice, so
common among benevolent persons, of giving, at least a trifle, to all
who ask, lest, perchance, they may turn away some, who are really
sufferers, is one, which causes more sin and misery than it cures.
The writer has never known any system for dispensing charity, so
successful, as the one which, in many places, has been adopted in
connection with the distribution of tracts. By this method, a town or
city is divided into districts; and each district is committed to the
care of two ladies, whose duty it is, to call on each family and leave a
tract, and make that the occasion for entering into conversation, and
learning the situation of all residents in the district. By this method,
the ignorant, the vicious, and the poor, are discovered, and their
physical, intellectual, and moral, wants, are investigated. In some
places, where the writer has resided or visited, each person retained
the same district, year after year, so that every poor family in the
place was under the watch and care of some intelligent and benevolent
lady, who used all her influence to secure a proper education for the
children, to furnish them with suitable reading, to encourage habits of
industry and economy, and to secure regular attendance on public
religious instruction. Thus, the rich and the poor were brought in
contact, in a way advantageous to both parties; and, if such a system
could be universally adopted, more would be done for the prevention of
poverty and vice, than all the wealth of the Nation could avail for
their relief. But this plan cannot be successfully carried out, in this
manner, unless there is a large proportion of intelligent, benevolent,
and self-denying, persons; and the mere distribution of tracts, without
the other parts of the plan, is of very little avail.
But there is one species of charity, which needs especial consideration.
It is that, which induces us to refrain from judging of the means and
the relative charities of other persons. There have been such indistinct
notions, and so many different standards of duty, on this subject, that
it is rare for two persons to think exactly alike, in regard to the rule
of duty. Each person is bound to inquire and judge for himself, as to
his own duty or deficiencies; but as both the resources, and the amount
of the actual charities, of other men are beyond our ken, it is as
indecorous, as it is uncharitable, to sit in judgement on their
decisions.