Many professed Christians do not act from principle in giving. The question, "How much owest thou to my Lord?" [Luke 16:5] they have never settled on their knees, in closets. No certain calculations can be made on them. Our benevolent societies know not what to expect from them. It is be feared that these statements are applicable to four-fifths of the Baptists of the South. Indeed, it is very doubtful whether as many as one-fifth manage their property with a sacred regard to the glory of God. Be thus as it may, the state of things among our churches is such as to render it proper to present for their consideration, some thoughts on pecuniary beneficence. This will be attempted in this series of articles.Beneficence is doing good - benevolence is wishing well, and there is much more of the latter than the former. It is much easier to wish well than to do well. As money is prominent among the means by which good is accomplished, the term beneficence is now generally used to denote doing good by means of pecuniary contributions. Systematic beneficence implies the adoption of some regular plan of doing good. It requires methodical arrangement in opposition to fitful impulse. It involves a course of action prompted by deeply-seated principle in contradistinction from occasional acts elicited by the effervescence of feeling. It secures periodical donations to the cause of God. It may be considered a stream which flows, not always in large volume, but with ceaseless constancy into the treasury of the Lord. Those who are beneficient according to system wait not for appeals to be made to them by the Agents of benevolent societies, but, as an Apostle expresses it, are ready of themselves. They know full well that their obligations are not affected by the presence or absence of Agents. The question of duty is not, in their judgment, a question dependent on such considerations; and hence, their contributions are not extorted by urgent solicitation, but are given whether applied for or not. They are systematically beneficent - they act in pursuance of a plan.
It should be remembered, however, that there is a difference between systematic donations to the cause of benevolence and donations proportionate to the ability of contributors. A man may cast his offerings into the Lord's treasury with the utmost regularity, and yet those offerings may bear no adequate proportion to his pecuniary resources. He may avail himself of the advantages of system, and at the same time deprive himself of those advantages which result from donations corresponding with the means at his command. Christians, while they practice systematic beneficence, should faithfully adjust their expenditures in the cause of God to their income. Their ability is the means of their obligation. The Apostle Paul establishes this doctrine. It is worthy of remark, too, that he does it in an argument on the subject of pecuniary liberality. His language is, "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." [2 Corinthians 8:12] It is evident from the apostle's reasoning that "a willing mind," or a readiness to give, is indispensable to an acceptable offering to the Lord. Where there is a willing mind the offering is accepted, provided it corresponds with what a man hath. Neither the largeness nor the smallness of the offering interferes in the least with its acceptance. The large contribution of a rich man is accepted, and the small contribution of a poor man is likewise accepted. Over the treasury of the Lord it is written in glowing capitals, "ACCORDING TO THAT A MAN HATH." The parable of the talents may be referred to in illustration of this sentiment. The servant who received five talents was held responsible for the advantageous use of five talents. He who received two was expected to employ only the capital with which he was furnished, while he who received one was required to inprove that one, and would, had he done so, have heard the eulogium, "Well done good and faithful servant." [Matthew 25:21] The approbation with which the Savior spoke of the poor widow who threw two mites into the treasury is illustrative of the same principle. What said he of her offering? "Verily I say to : u. that this poor widow hath cast more in than all they who have cast into the treasury." [Mark 12:43] The amount was not greater. Her two mites made a farthing, an insignificant amount in itself considered. Many that were rich cast in much. But in proportion to her ability she made a more liberal offering than all the rich. Let the poor copy her example.
The probability is that there never has been, and that there never will be perfect equality in the worldly prosperity of the members of any church. If then there be inequality in prosperity, there must be inequality in pecuniary contributions; for every one is required to give as the Lord has prospered him. The fact that Timothy was directed by Paul to charge the rich to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, proves that they are under obligation to do more than the poor, and more than those who possess only a competency. God surely does not require physical impossibilities. He does not, therefore, make it incumbent on those who have only a moderate portion of this world's goods to do as much for his cause as the wealthy; nor does he demand of the poor as much as those who have the means of a comfortable subsistence. Much is required where much is given, and where little is given little is required. There is, in the administration of the divine government, no deviation from this principle; for the moral law itself, while it demands for the Creator the love of the creature, adjusts the requisition to the capacity of the agent. "You will love the Lord your God with all your strength." [Luke 10:27] Whether there be much or little strength is immaterial to the argument. It is all to be consecrated to the love and service of God. And the regulation which requires us to give our property to the cause of Christ is only an amplification of the moral law which requires us to give ourselves to the Lord. If it is true that Christians themselves belong to God, it is equally true that their property is his. It would be absurd to argue that although they are the Lord's what they acquire by their exertions is not his; for they receive from him the ability to make their acquisitions. - P.
============== [From the Tennessee Baptist, December 3, 1859, p. 2, via CD edition from microfilm. Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]
More on J. M. Pendleton
Baptist History Homepage