0tir Sniicbtetiness, n3 (2TI)rxstians, to our fellow-men. A SERMON PREACHED AT THE SITXY-SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS. CHICAGO, OCTOBER 5, 1875. J. W. ANDREWS, D. D. PRESIDENT OF MARIETTA COLLEGE. CAMBRIDGE: printed at tfje ftitocr^itJc 1875- SERMON. “ I AM DEBTOR BOTH TO THE GREEKS AND TO THE BARBARIANS; BOTH TO THE WISE AND TO THE UNWISE.” Romans i. 14. The American Board has for its object the conversion of men ; it is thus a religious organization. But it has to do with business. It must send out and sustain missionaries ; and for this end it collects and disburses large sums ; it makes drafts, and purchases bills of exchange. Its paper is known in the principal banking-houses of the world, and its credit has ever been undoubted. To carry on its religious work it employs business machinery. When it makes drafts, it provides the means of meeting them. That its officers and members are men of prayer, that its Prudential Committee, its Secretaries, its Treasurer, are all as earnest for the success of the missionary work as the missionaries themselves, does not prevent their con- ducting the whole secular machinery of the organization so as to command the approval of all intelligent business men. The same zeal for the cause is expressed by the constituents of the Board. The mission work is very dear to them. They talk of it, they pray for it. But these constituents have a secular as well as a religious relation to the Board. It is to them the Board looks for its revenue. If that revenue fails, to that extent the missionary work fails. It is the secular part of our relation to the causes of Christian benevolence that I propose to con- sider ; our indebtedness , as Christians , to our fellow-men. Paul’s language is, — “I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians ; both to the wise and to the unwise. So as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.” The word debtor refers primarily to pecuniary indebtedness, though Paul expected to discharge his obligation by personal service. It was not a specific obligation, growing out of his official position as the Apostle to the Gentiles, but a debt upon him as a Christian man, to do what good he could to 4 SERMON. his fellow-men. He could go in person, and thus by his own labor pay his debt. We must do our work mainly through the instrumentality of others, and thus our debt is to be paid by sustaining those who go. The general obligation to do good to others is as binding on us as on the Apostle. If he was indebted to them we are. I do not attempt to prove this obligation, whether we call the act of discharging it making a gift or paying a debt. The general obligation is taken for granted. And I address myself to those only who admit that the duty of doing good to others, especially spiritual good, is binding on all the fol- lowers of Christ. But instead of presenting this duty in the form of giving, as the performance of an act of charity, I wish to hold it up in the light of indebtedness. A debt, in the usual sense, is an obligation to be discharged by the transfer of property ; and therefore we must look at the nature of property. The desire of property, of ownership, is a natural desire. It shows itself in the child at an early age. Civil society everywhere recognizes the right of property, and hedges it about with all possible safeguards. The prosperity of a nation is largely dependent on the security given to property. In order to be industrious and frugal, men must feel secure in the possession of what their labor has brought them. They must not live in continual fear of theft and robbery from their fellow-men, nor of plunder and extortion from the government. The sacredness of property is seen in the estimate placed by the people on those men in office who are, or are thought to be, corrupt. No argument by the politician is more frequent or more effective than the charge of corruption. And if the charge be well founded, it ought to be effective ; the corrupt ruler, however high his station, or however great his capacity, is unfit for his place. The regard for the tenure of property is seen, too, in the criticisms made upon our general government touch- ing the management of a portion of our public debt. It is said that a government which adopts, in regard to its own liabilities, a policy that would never be tolerated in a private citizen, is doing that which tends directly to the demoralization of the peo- ple. And it cannot be denied that such criticisms are made by some of the best and wisest men in the land. Political economy is based on the desire of property. It as- sumes this desire to be universal. We speak of the laws of trade, which are declared to be invariable, like the law of grav- SERMON 5 ity, or that of electricity. By this is meant, however, not that the laws of trade are impersonal, and that there is any force exerted independent of human agency, but that from our knowl- edge of the human constitution we may predict how men in general will act in buying and selling. The laws of trade are nothing but a summary of the methods which men adopt in their efforts to promote their pecuniary interests. Other things being equal — a consideration never to be lost sight of in all that pertains to property — a man will always buy where his money will procure the most, and sell his commodities or his labor to those who will make the best return. Nor is this selfishness, though writers on Political Economy sometimes thoughtlessly say it is. It is no more selfish than it is to prefer any superior physical good to one inferior ; a good road to a poor one, for example. There is nothing sordid, of necessity, in buying and selling and getting gain. But not only does the nature of man, and the whole structure of civil society, thus recognize the right of property ; we have the divine recognition of its sacredness in the command “ thou shalt not steal.” With- out property there could be no theft. So, too, the Bible abounds with exhortations to industry. But industry tends to the acqui- sition of property. An apology seems almost necessary for presenting these ele- mentary principles concerning ownership, and yet they are often forgotten or overlooked. Not a few appear to think that the wealth of the world, or of a community, is of a given amount ; and hence that when one man grows richer some one else must grow poorer ; that whoever has more than the average must have taken that which was really the portion of others. This erroneous notion enters as a large element into the oft-ex- pressed jealousy of the poor towards the rich, — a notion which political demagogues of whatever party are so ready to foster. Property may be obtained, indeed, dishonestly, and so it may be gained honestly. There is no necessary relation between the amount of a man’s possessions and the morality of his dealings. In general, the man who prospers by legitimate methods bene- fits others as well as himself, — benefits them in the very acqui- sition of his wealth, aside from the manner in which he disposes of it. Very often there is a positive creation of wealth, by con- verting that which had little or no value into a valuable product, as in mining and manufacturing ; and of this new increment 6 SERMON. but a small part remains with him whose capital and energy have called it into being. In a country like ours, with no facti- tious social distinctions, and with no laws of primogeniture or entail, we should be especially cautious in giving utterance to thoughtless and unjust sayings about the rich. There is no merit in poverty as such, nor should any disgrace be attached to it. There is temptation in either extreme, and the words of Agur are as wise to-day as when he uttered them. The teachings of Scripture are clearly in the direction of acqui- sition. They enjoin those virtues which naturally result in the increase of property. They condemn those habits which tend to poverty. It is right to be industrious, sagacious, frugal. It is wrong to be idle, neglectful, wasteful. The man to whom God has given the ability to make money, should exert that ability, and use his gains to advance the well-being of his race. No matter how much legitimate prosperity comes to him, pro- vided he feels his indebtedness to his fellow-men as Paul did. The error is not in getting, but in keeping, or in spending un- wisely. A like thoughtlessness is sometimes seen in what is said touching the little accumulations that may be made by clergy- men. A man who devotes himself to preaching the Word, it is thought must have no secular side ; and should he, perchance, in the course of years, make some little savings, he is thought to be mercenary. Yet it is not unlikely that his contributions to the causes of Christian benevolence have, in the meantime, been larger in proportion to his ability than those of any of his parishioners. It is not only allowable, it is a duty, that the cler- gyman, with only his salary to depend upon, should lay up something against the day of need. It is incumbent upon his people to give him such support that he can do this, and yet live in a manner becoming his position. When Christians come to look upon themselves as debtors in regard to the great causes of Christian benevolence, they will cease to regard what they pay their pastor as charity. The right of property being thus founded in nature, and con- nected with all progress in civilization, being recognized and protected by the sanctions of law both human and divine, it fol- lows that debts are to be sacredly regarded. If I am entitled to the avails of my labor, whether of hand or head, then lie to whom I transfer a part, or make a pledge of transfer, is entitled SERMON. 7 to the part thus transferred, or to the fulfillment of the pledge thus made. A great part of the wealth of the world is not in the actual possession of the real owners. A man’s list of assets may be largely made up of claims against others — paper evi- dences of debt. It would be of little avail for society to protect a man in his right to his farm, his house, his store, and yet give him no protection in his claims against others. The higher the standard of commercial morality is, the more careful will be the legislation relating to the collection of debts. And this is more for the advantage of the poor than of the rich. All stay laws to prevent such collections, in the end work against the very parties whom they were intended to benefit. If society protects a man in his property, it must protect him also in his credits, as in these property largely consists. But a credit implies a debt. The credits of A. are the debts of B. Every additional safe- guard thrown around property — credits — is an additional in- junction upon the debtor to regard his debts as sacredly bind- ing. And the higher the tone of business honor the more promptly will debts be paid. A man of strict integrity who is indebted to others, regards himself as virtually a trustee to the extent of his indebtedness. He knows that a part of what he has in possession is only nominally his ; he holds it in trust for his creditors. What has been seen to be true of debts in the strict sense is applicable also to other classes of obligations. A man must provide for the support of his family. A large part of the earn- ings of men go for this purpose. It is to provide for the sup- port of families that most of the small debts are incurred, — men being under the necessity, real or supposed, of anticipating their incomes. Thus to meet his obligations to his family, a man incurs indebtedness to his neighbors. I do not say that this is wise, or often necessary. When the millennium comes it will doubtless be changed. If the rule were, not to anticipate our income, if no debts were incurred for personal and family expenses, and the necessaries and comforts of life were paid for when purchased, the world, and especially the American world, would wear an aspect of comfort and prosperity that has never yet been exhibited. The addition which such a change would bring to the treasury of the American Board, would gladden the hearts of our secretaries, and make the missionaries sing for joy. 8 SERMON. As a man in debt is not the absolute owner of what he has in possession, but holds a part for his creditors, so a man must recognize the claims of his family. His obligations to them are a species of debt, which he may not disregard. They must have food, and clothing, and education, and no place will be given to a plea on his part that his property is his own and he can do with it as ho pleases. We cannot allow him to disre- gard these present claims on the ground, even, that he is saving his property in order to leave them a larger inheritance by and by. Besides this indebtedness to one’s family there is that to the State. If there be civil government there will be expenses, for which the people must provide. Because the right of property is sacred it does not follow that a man may refuse to pay his taxes. Enjoying the protection of society, he must bear his share of the burdens. If the right of property is sacred, so is the claim of the State upon every citizen. Other debts he in- curs voluntarily, but taxes are imposed without consulting him. The money may go to support officials for whom he never voted, and for measures which he does not approve ; but, nevertheless, it must be paid. Still farther, there are obligations to the community . Outside of the family, and outside of the State, there are things to be done essential to the public weal, which the many are glad to have accomplished, but which they usually leave to a select few. It is a principle which is well-nigh cardinal in a republic, that nothing should be done by the government which can be done as well by the people in their individual capacity. In some countries the people are takfen care of by the government to an extent that hardly comports with their true manhood ; we pre- fer that our government should confine itself as closely as pos- sible to its legitimate sphere. Outside of its own province, the work which the government attempts is generally done in a bungling, always in an expensive manner. These obligations to the community, though not as generally recognized as those to the family and to the State, have still a kind of recognition, as is seen in the approbation given by the public to those who respond to them. These are regarded as the true philanthropists, the men of public spirit, the benefactors of the community. To them we owe the endowment and sup- port of colleges and seminaries, the founding of public libraries, SERMON. 9 and the carrying forward of various kindred measures for the public good. The esteem in which these men are held, and the reflections cast upon those who, while having the ability, with- hold their cooperation, is a proof that this class of obligations is recognized as imposing a kind of debt upon those to whom has been given the means of doing good. In these obligations a gradation may be seen. Few men fail to recognize the claims of their families. A larger number pay taxes because they are compelled to do it. Still more do little or nothing to entitle them to be called men of public spirit. The farther removed the object is from personal interest, the smaller is the number from whom comes the response. To carry forward measures of great public utility, through the ex- ercise of private liberality, requires men of greater breadth and higher type. It is worthy of note, also, that doing good to others, whether by personal service or through the use of prop- erty, reacts upon the character, giving it still greater breadth and excellence. The man who lives for himself becomes nar- row. Shutting the ear to the claims of others, and doing noth- ing for their well-being, has a tendency to check the growth ; while he who goes out of himself and seeks to benefit his fel- low-men, reaches a higher stature, and becomes fitted for still greater efforts. “To him that hath shall be given.” A few months ago, the papers were filled with notices of a man of foreign birth who had for many years made our country his home. His days had been given to a department of physi- cal science having no very close connection with practical life, yet in every village of the land, the name of Agassiz had be- come a household word, and multitudes who had never seen him, mourned for him as for a personal friend. What gave him this place in the hearts of the American people ? Other men have made as high scientific attainments, and have done as much to promote scientific progress. It was his disinterested devotion to his work ; his recognition of the indebtedness to the world, which God had placed upon him, in giving him this love of science, and this ability successfully to investigate the secrets of nature. When urged to devote a portion of his time to work which would bring him large pecuniary profit, he replied that he had no time for making money. In no spirit of vain- glory was this said, and with no purpose to speak slightingly of money, or to reflect upon those who had accumulated it ; for he IO SERMON. himself needed money, and often asked for it in behalf of the great enterprises with which he was identified ; and under the influence of his enthusiasm, rich men poured out their money like water. But he felt that his personal debt to the world could not be paid in that way ; he must do the work which God had given him to do. I have said that not all who acknowledge the obligation to their families will admit their indebtedness to the public in gen- eral. To do this will require a higher tone of character, and a truer perception of the connection between the individual and his race. The same statement will apply, though with more truth, to the great causes of Christian benevolence. The sin- cere, intelligent follower of Christ will see his individual obli- gation to help forward those great movements which have for their end the conversion of the world. He will see that as men are under a species of indebtedness to their families, to the gov- ernment under which they live, and to the general public, so Christian men are also under an indebtedness to the world for which the Saviour died. And as a man’s indebtedness to his children springs not from any service they have rendered him, but from the very relation in which they stand to him, so our in- debtedness to our fellow-men, whether at home or abroad, comes not from what they have done for us, but from what Christ has done for both us and them. It is thus a debt due to the Master himself. What now are the advantages of regarding our participation in the causes of Christian benevolence as a debt rather than a gift ? (a.) The feeling of responsibility will be increased. Every right-minded man regards his debts as binding. They are kept in mind, and provision is made for their payment. If, through misfortune, he cannot pay when his debt matures, he will attend to it at the earliest possible day. With giving, the case is often very different. If not convenient to give at the time, it is easy to dismiss the subject from the miud. If it is a church collec- tion, how few of those who happen to be absent go, subsequently, and make the contribution ? There may be no purpose to neg- lect a duty, but the matter is forgotten. Had the person been present, he would have given ; being absent, that contribution is lost. The idea of indebtedness would make contributions more SERMON. I I systematic and uniform, as they would be brought into the cir- cle of business transactions. Our great societies need to have a surer revenue. At present, their knowledge of the amount they will receive in a year is based too much upon the doctrine of chances. There are, indeed, some church members — in the aggregate, many — who make their gifts a matter of principle. Having a proximate knowledge of their income, they decide what part shall be devoted to benevolence in the regular channels, with perhaps a reserve for extraordinary calls. The portions thus set apart are put on the footing of other claims on the purse ; they will not be contingent on presence at church on cer- tain days ; there is a moral certainty that they will reach the treasuries for which they are destined ; they are regarded as virtual debts. What is needed is that these examples should be followed by all Christian men and women ; that there should be a practical recognition of personal indebtedness in the mat- ter of benevolent Christian work. (b.) The idea of indebtedness would cause contributions to be made more intelligently. We do not pay bills presented to us without ascertaining them to be correct. We do not settle accounts that have been settled before. We do not take up a note without satisfying ourselves that the person claiming pay- ment is the real owner of the paper. But gifts are not usually made with this careful examination. Not unfrequently they are carelessly and thoughtlessly made, especially when the object is new. Sometimes one gives to get rid of the applicant ; or, it may be, because he thinks that giving in itself is meritorious, with- out regard to the object. But there is no merit in mere giving, and to give to an unworthy object may be as wrong as to refuse 1 to give to one that is worthy. It would be a sad perversion of Scripture for one to set fire to his house, or throw himself into the sea, thinking to apply to himself the words of Christ, “ Who- soever shall lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” And this will apply not only to gifts made during the life of the giver, but to property left at death to heirs, or bequeathed for objects of benevolence. Qur debts often run into the dis- tant future. If a man needs for his business more capital than he can control, he will not depend upon banks which make only short loans, but will borrow of one who wishes to invest for a series of years. But the debtor must provide for the interest, and for the principal when it shall become due. Should not SERMON I 2 every Christian owner of property regard himself as virtually a debtor of this kind ? As having made loans which are to be repaid partly during his life, and partly at death ? The former he can attend to in person, but the others should be carefully and wisely provided for, and not left to chance. There are cases, doubtless, *in which the distribution of the estate of a Christian man or woman may be left to the law applicable to in- testates, but the cases are not numerous. Most persons should themselves make provision for this distribution. This is not the least of the great responsibilities resting upon the owners of property, and none but the weightiest reasons should be allowed to prevent its full and timely performance. How often for lack of this, has an inadequate support been left to the one for whom provision should first of all have been made, and property gone to remote heirs, devoid alike of claim and expectation. And even when there are direct heirs, it is often well for them, as for the cause of human progress, that some part of the estate should go for benevolent purposes. In this connection it may be remarked, that occasionally the subject of benevolent bequests is referred to in the pulpit, and in the religious journals, in a manner which is at least ill-ad- vised, and which probably deters many sensitive persons from making such bequests. The language alluded to implies that those bequeathing prop- erty selfishly keep what they have as long as they can ; that they hold on to it with a grasp which nothing but death can re- lax. In general, nothing can be more unfounded. Most lega- cies come from those who had already learned the luxury of doing good with money. Some need their capital for their sup- port ; it is better that their annual gifts from income should be moderate, leaving their capital itself undiminished, to be ulti- mately appropriated to some good purpose. Most of those who give liberally during life have the ability, and the desire, to make still farther appropriations at their death. It is not wise to place obstacles in their way. Some objects, from their peculiar na- ture, cannot well be brought within the sphere of regular contri- butions, and therefore are more dependent upon gifts by be- quest. A venerable man, whose benefactions in his life have been so large in proportion to his ability as to place him in the very first rank of American donors, once said that institutions of learning must depend largely on legacies for their endow- ment. SERMON. 13 (c.) The idea of indebtedness would make contributions less dependent on factitious circumstances, as the absence of debt, or the fact of a surplus. Giving is often made to depend on a real or supposed surplus ; but debts must be canceled whether there is a surplus or not. If a man finds himself no richer at the end of the year than at the beginning, he may easily per- suade himself that it is not his duty to give ; but this is no reason for disregarding indebtedness. Sometimes one says, he cannot give because he is in debt. This may be a reason for not giving very largely, but it is rarely sufficient for doing noth- ing. So long as one has the necessaries, and more or less of the comforts of life, his obligations to others should be ac- knowledged. But in many cases the debt which is pleaded in apology, is simply for profit, and implies no diminution of re- sources. The farmer has added to his farm, the merchant or mechanic has enlarged his place of business, the capitalist has borrowed money to invest in a new enterprise that promises a large return. Has the net property been diminished ? Was not the debt incurred for the very purpose of making more money ? Will the new debt invalidate any prior debt ? (d.) Contributions viewed in the light of indebtedness, will be brought more upon the footing of expenses. Gifts, in charity, are usually postponed till expenses have been provided for. But expenses cannot take precedence of debts. A man does not refuse to pay his ordinary debts on the ground that it costs him so much to live. The more he expends, the more able we may suppose him to be to meet his liabilities. And the more a man can afford in his personal or family expenditures, the more, we say, he can afford for doing good. If there is any reality in the Christian religion, it involves obligation on the part of him who professes it. And this obligation is in proportion to his ability. The more we can do for ourselves, the more we can do for others. If a man expends for himself and his family five times the amount he thought necessary a few years ago, should not his outlay for Christ increase in at least as large a ratio ? Sup- pose a man has been giving a hundred dollars a year to the support of his pastor, but this year he has expended that sum in travelling ; shall he make this a reason for giving nothing ? As our personal and family expenses should furnish no excuse for not supporting the gospel at home, neither should what we do for home objects prevent our doing for objects abroad. What 14 SERMON. the ratio between these two should be, in self-supporting churches, it may be difficult to say ; but in many churches, perhaps in the majority, the latter should at least equal the former. The wealthier churches could, of course, do much more ; for there is a limit to legitimate home expenditures, while there is, prac- tically, no limit to the spiritual wants of the world. As in a family, so in a church, there may be luxuries, as well as com- forts and necessaries, and we cannot be too careful in regard to them. Whatever may be true as to costly, luxurious church edifices, and the debts they may cause, it is clear that they ought not to diminish, to the extent of a single dollar, the sums that would otherwise go to the cause of outside benevolence. (