money as his Master's, and to employ it accordingly, according to his best judgment, in the advancement of his Master's cause. S. M. backed by the almost universal practice both of the world and the church; (and when these two agree, the last may well suspect herself to be in the wrong,) contends for the former line of conduct. I am prepared to urge the greater propriety, and the greater wisdom, of the latter.

The objections I shall take to S. M.'s view of the matter are four:-1. That it is unscriptural. 2. That it excuses nineteen-twentieths of all the covetousness now apparent on every side. 3. That it is atheistic; (I speak it of the latent and unsuspected principle only.) 4. That it is opposed to our daily experience of what is practically wise and prudent.

With reference to the first point, I cannot but consider it a matter of astonishment that any advocate, of the world's usual practice, should ever venture to bring the matter to the test of God's word. I grant, indeed, that industry and prudence are frequently inculcated, both in the Old and in the New Testament,—but never are they inculcated to the length of making men "independent" of God's providence. The rule of that industry, and that prudence, is always furnished to us by God himself. In his extraordinary provision for the Israelites in the wilderness, it was his will that the people should go out and gather, each day, just that day's subsistence. Some endeavoured to do more; to be still more forethoughted, and to "make provision" for more days than one. But their "provision" rotted and cankered in their stores. Among mankind generally, especially with reference to the ordinary proceedings of agriculture,-the scriptural rule now is, to provide

according to the course of the seasons. Men are to be industrious in preparing the soil,-they are to be prudent and foresighted in casting in the seed, and they are to watch the coming of the harvest, and to seize the opportunity of laying up food for another year. Thus it is, and in just this sense and no more, that the ant is proposed to us as an example, as “providing her meat in the summer, and gathering her food in the harvest." We are bound to do as the ant does. But does the ant provide for twenty years to come? Does the ant provide for all the wants of all her children, through all the years of their probable existence? Never! The ant gathers her food in the summer, lest she be starved in the winter, following, in that respect, the plain dictate of God in his providence. But she trusts God that the labour of another spring will be followed by another harvest; and so, I imagine, ought we.

Just in the same spirit is the passage in St. Paul's epistle. He is writing to the Corinthians, and speaks of his support, his bodily sustenance, while on a visit to them, and he tells them, that even in this small matter he would not be burdensome unto them, for that he stood in the relation of a father to them, and that it was more usual and fitting that the fathers should lay up, or provide, food for their children, than that children should make such provision for their fathers. The whole matter of which he is speaking, is that of a provision of food from one season to another; a laying up the harvest of the summer against the wants of the winter; not a hoarding up of money for many years to come.

And this is all that the advocates of the "making provision" system can produce from scripture ;

one or two allusions, merely, and even these falling altogether short of the point which they are produced to prove. They speak of providing for present wants; but the position which they are adduced to support, is, that it is right and proper to provide for twenty years hence!

The whole weight of scripture, however, runs the other way. We have, it is true, one individual particularized in the New Testament, "who had much goods laid up for many years." But the appellation which the Lord Jesus at once affixed to him, is, “Thou Fool!" Yet no other act of folly is even hinted at, save that of hoarding up "for many years."

66

The direct and positive injunctions of the Saviour are among the plainest parts of holy writ, and it is really wonderful to see the whole body of Christians evading and disregarding in the most open manner, words which can bear no second interpretation, to seek, in the book of Proverbs, or in some half sentence here or there on prudence or foresight, for an excuse which may shield them in the most direct disobedience of a plain command. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth," is one of these injunctions: "Take no thought for the morrow" is another. "Take heed and beware of covetousness," is one caution given. "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven!” is another. The epistles abound with similar warnings and exhortations. Yet will men overlook or close their eyes to all these, and upon the strength of the commendation of the ant and her industry, will plunge into the very midst of that vehement pursuit of riches which is the great business and object of the world; and which is declared by the apostle to have the most

direct tendency to "drown men in destruction and perdition."

But my second objection is, that the admission of the principle advocated by S. M. really goes to justify almost all the covetousness which we see on every side. Or, perhaps, we ought rather to say, that if this principle be admitted, there is scarcely such a thing as covetousness to be found. All the perpetual denunciations which were put forth by the apostles would seem, on this hypothesis, to have been founded in error, for if there be no such thing as covetousness now, in the present externally prosperous state of the religious world, how could it have any existence among the poor, despised, and persecuted churches of the apostolic age?

We have said that, upon the principle' now advocated, covetousness must be a vice of most rare Occurrence. This will surely not be denied. "The parent," it is said, "is discharging an obvious duty in labouring diligently for the future advantage of his children." "The practice of laying aside a part of the annual income for the future benefit of his children" is "the result of that principle of natural affection implanted by a divine appointment in the parental bosom." (p. 435.)

61

Now it will surely not be attempted to argue that this justification is only to be pleaded in the case of providing for one's own children, to the exclusion of other relatives or connections. If it is right and praiseworthy to lay up" for our own sons and daughters, then it can hardly be matter of blame if one who perhaps has no children of his own, exercises a similar virtue in behalf of the orphan children of his deceased sister, or the destitute family of his

wife's brother, or any other of the numberless cases in which claims of kindred or friendship may be pleaded. The principle, in fact, cannot be compressed into narrower limits than this,-that whenever a man can point to any relatives or connexions whose own or whose children's future maintenance is matter of doubt or uncertainty,—there he is justified in " exerting his energies" in order to "make a provision" for them. Now this principle, it is obvious, furnishes a full and entire justification of ninety-nine hundredths of the hoarding which is so universally practised. Cases of miserly accumulation may indeed sometimes be found, in which the parties have not even the excuse of such an object as this. But for one of these, we meet with hundreds who are just as sedulously "laying up treasures upon earth," and who are always ready with the apology which S. M. would accept as valid;namely, that they are merely endeavouring to provide for their family. Nor are they to be stopped in their pursuit by any such reasons as S. M. proposes, of their family being "already provided for." What if the daughter be married off, with a fortune of £5000;-is not a family rapidly rising up around her, and what will £5000 be among a dozen children? Is a man to be allowed to provide for his children, but debarred from thinking of his grandchildren? No;-once admit the "make-provision" principle, and you have, in effect, declared that there is scarcely such a thing as covetousness in existence. Your neighbours are all merely doing their duty, in getting together what money they can, fairly and honestly, for their family; and we must be content to meet with a case of covetousness, perhaps once