Chapter IV: A continuation of the same subject.

A continuation of the same subject.

Any one that is at all acquainted with Scripture, must observe, that the doctrine of the foregoing chapter is not barely founded on those...particular texts there considered, but that the same spirit of renouncing the world, is the most common and repeated subject of our Saviour's heavenly instructions.

A certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, The foxes have holes; and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head. Luke ix. 57, 58.

Another also said, Lord, I will follow thee, but let me first go bid them farewell that are at home at my house.

And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

These passages are all of a kind with what our Saviour said to the young man; they directly teach that same renunciation of the world, as the first and principal temper, the very soul and essence of Christianity.

This doctrine is pressed and urged upon us by various ways, by every art of teaching, that it might enter into the heart of every reader.

The kingdom of God, saith our Saviour, is like unto a merchant-man seeking goodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it. Mat. xiii. 45.

The doctrine of this parable needs no interpretation, it is plain and strong, and presses home the advice that our Saviour gave to the rich young man.

When it says, that the kingdom of God is a pearl of great price, I suppose it means, that a great deal is to be given for it; and when it says, that the merchant went and sold all that he had and bought it, I suppose this is to teach us, that it cannot be bought at any less price.

The modern Jews would be upon much easier terms than those who lived in our Saviour's days, if we can now tell them that the kingdom of God is no longer like one pearl of great price, and that they need not sell all that they have and buy it, but may go on seeking pearls as they used to do, and yet be good members of the kingdom of God.

Now if we may not preach such a new Gospel as this to the present Jews, I do not know how we can preach it to Christians.

This parable does not suppose, that the merchant went to trading again, after he had sold all, and bought this pearl of great price. He was content with that, and did not want any other riches.

If the kingdom of God is not riches sufficient for us, but we must add another greatness, and another wealth to it, we fall under the condemnation of this parable.

To proceed: The peaceful, pleasurable enjoyment of riches, is a state of life every where condemned by our blessed Saviour.

Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall weep and mourn. -- Luke vi. 25.

If we can think, that for all this, the joys of prosperity, and the gay pleasures of plenty, are the allowed enjoyments of Christians, we must have done wondering at the blindness and hardness of the Jews' hearts.

Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation!

It is not said, Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have enriched yourselves by evil arts and unlawful means, but it is the bare enjoyment, the consolation that is taken in riches, to which this woe is threatened.

This same doctrine is pressed upon us by a remarkable parable, so plain and lively, that one would think that every Christian that has heard it, should be afraid of every thing that looked like self-indulgence or expense in his own pleasures and pride.

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day.

And there was a certain poor beggar, named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

It came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried, and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. [2]

This parable teaches neither more nor less than what our Saviour taught, when he commanded the young man to sell all that he had. For it is the bare pleasurable enjoyment, the living in the usual delights of a great fortune, that the parable condemneth. Here is no injustice, no villanies or extortions laid to his charge, it is only a life of splendor and indulgence, that leaves him in hell.

This we are farther taught by Abraham's answer to him, "Son, remember that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy good things": this is alleged as the sole reason of his being in torments.

It is to be observed that nothing is mentioned of Lazarus but his low and afflicted state, and then it is he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Can any thing more plainly show us the impossibility of enjoying mammon while we live, and God when we die? A rich man enjoying the pleasures of riches, is for that reason found in torments; a beggar, patiently bearing want, is for that reason made the care of angels, and conducted to Abraham's bosom.

Does not this manifestly teach us that same renunciation of worldly enjoyments, as if we had been expressly required to part with all that we have?

For, if a life of splendor, and pleasure, and sensual gratifications, is the portion of those who choose to enjoy it; if it exposes us to so much woe and wrath hereafter, well might our blessed Saviour tell the rich man, that he lacked one thing, that he was to sell all that he had, and give to the poor.

If therefore this parable contains the doctrine that it first taught, if time has not worn away its meaning, it contains a doctrine that concerns all rich men, it speaks as home to them, and calls as loudly for a renunciation of all worldly indulgencies, as our Saviour did to the rich man.

So that there is no advantage got by considering our Saviour's command as a particular charge, and given to a particular young man, since it appears by other express passages and parables, that the same is required of all other rich men, as they expect any other consolation than what is to be found in riches.

If we will here also appropriate this parable to this particular rich man, we shall judge as reasonably, as if we should maintain, that the hell in which he was tormented, was made only for him, and is a state which no one else has any occasion to fear.

We must therefore, unless we will set aside the Gospel, and think ourselves not concerned in its doctrines, take this as an undeniable truth, that Christianity is still that same opposite state to the world that it was in our Saviour's days, that he speaks to us the same language that he spoke to the young man in the Gospel, that if we will not hear his voice, but indulge ourselves in the proud, sensual delights of riches and grandeur, our fate is taught us in the rich man in torments, and to us belongs that dreadful threatening, Woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.

I know it has been said by some, that all that we are taught by the command given to the young man to sell all, is this, that whenever we cannot keep our possessions without violating some essential duty of a Christian, that then, and not till then, need we think that we are called upon by Christ to quit all and follow him.

I have, in answer to this, already shown, that the thing required of this young man, was no particular duty, but that our Saviour pressed it upon all, and by a reason which made it equally conclusive for all people, namely, a treasure in heaven.

I have shown, that the same doctrine is taught in general, by comparing the kingdom of God to one pearl of great price, which the merchant could buy at no less price, than by selling all that he had; by the parable of the rich man in torments, on the account of his living in the state and pleasures of a fortune, and lastly, by a general woe that is threatened to all that are rich, as having received their consolation; so that this seems a full answer to this interpretation.

But I shall however consider it farther.

Now if this be all that is taught us as Christians, by the case of the young man in the Gospel, that we are to part with our enjoyments and possessions, when we cannot keep them without renouncing some great truth of our religion, and that till such a time happens, we may peacefully and pleasurably enjoy the delights of state and plenty.

If this be the case, I ask how a good Christian is to be assured, that this is a safe and just interpretation? How shall he be satisfied, that there is no danger in following it?

It is plainly an interpretation of our own making; it is not the open expressed sense of the words; it is an addition of something to them, for which we have no authority from the passage itself. So that it may well be asked, how we can be sure that such an interpretation may be safely complied with?

The text saith, Sell all that thou hast; this inter...interpretation saith, Ye need not sell yet, nay, that you need not sell at all; but that you may go on in the pleasurable enjoyment of your several estates, till such times as you cannot keep them without denying the faith.

So that the interpretation seems to have nothing to do with the text, and only teaches a doctrine, that might as well be asserted without this text, as with it.

I ask, therefore, for what reason we allow this passage to teach us no more than this? Is there any other part of Scripture that requires us to make this interpretation? Does it better suit with the spirit and temper of the Christian religion? Is it more agreeable to its heavenly designs, its contempt of the world, than to take them in their apparent sense?

If this were true, then the first followers of Christ, who observed this doctrine in its literal sense, and renounced all, acted less suitably to the spirit of Christianity, than those who now enjoy their estates.

This absurdity is enough to expose any pretended necessity of this interpretation; which absurdity must be granted, if we say, that this new interpretation is more suitable to the spirit of Christianity, than to take the words as still obliging in their first sense.

But to cut off all pretence of any necessity from any other part of Scripture, I have made it plainly appear, that the same doctrine is certainly taught by many other express passages of Scripture.

This interpretation therefore is as contrary to many other parts of Scripture, as to this text; it is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and is only brought in to soften the rigours of religion, that people may, with quiet consciences, enjoy the pleasures of plenty, and those who want it, spend their time in the ways and means of acquiring it.

If therefore there be not an entire change in the way to heaven; if the once straight gate be not now a wide and open passage to all full, fat, and stately Christians; if there is still any meaning in these words, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God; the sober Christian may as well doubt of this allowance of enjoying the pleasures and plenty of his estate, till persecution for the faith drives him out of it, as if he was told, that he need not resist the devil, till such time as he tempted him to deny the faith, or give up some truth of his religion.

When our Saviour gave this command to the young man, and afterwards observed upon his refusal, that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, the apostles took that command to signify the common conditions of entering into Christianity, and immediately declared that they had left all and followed him.

And our Saviour answered them in such a manner, as showed, that the doctrine then delivered, related to all mankind in the same sense, and had nothing particular in it that related to one man, or one age of the church more than another.

Verily I say unto you, there is no man that hath left his house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the Gospel's, but he shall have an hundred fold now in this present time, and in the world to come eternal life. -- Mark x. 29.

Let it now be considered, that supposing it was barely lawful to enjoy our estates; and, as the world says, live up to them; is this a state of any merit? Is there any reward annexed to it? If it is not our sin, it is at best a losing our time, and as unrewardable as sleeping.

But on the other side we are infallibly assured, that if we come up to the doctrine of the text, if we part with our worldly enjoyments and gratifications, for the sake of Christ, that in this life we shall receive an hundred-fold, and in the world to come eternal life.

Now, if such persons as these are to be thus blessed in this life, and also so rewarded in the next; it is certain that they, who are not such persons, will not be so doubly blessed both in this life and that which is to come.

But now what an interpretation must that be, which leads men from being an hundred times as happy as they might be in this life, and from such a height of reward in the next?

Is not this enough to show us, that the wisdom of this interpretation is not a wisdom from above, that it savoureth not the things that be of God?

For who can be so wise unto eternal life, who can make so much of his plenty, as by thus parting with it?

Who, that was governed by a wisdom from above would seek for an evasion, where the open sense is not only safe, but entitled to so vast a recompense, both now and hereafter?

It is to me no small argument, that our Saviour meant no such allowance, as this interpretation has found out; because it is so contrary to the perfection of the soul, and is so disadvantageous to those that follow it.

Our blessed Saviour and his apostles, both in doctrine and practice, are on the side of renouncing the enjoyments of riches; and who is he that dare preach up a worldly peace and indulgence, without either text or precedent from Scripture, and such a peace as leads men from such high rewards, both in this life, and that which is to come?

When our Saviour told Peter of his sufferings, Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee." But Jesus turned, and said to Peter, "get thee behind" me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

But after all, this enjoyment of worldly riches which this interpretation pleads for, cannot be shown to be barely lawful; this, I say, cannot be shown, without showing at the same time, that this passage, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God, is so old as to be of no significancy now; for if the difficulty still continues, the rich man must have as much to part with now as he had then.

The same must be said of all those other passages above-mentioned, concerning the kingdom being compared to one great pearl, the case of the rich man in torments, and the general woe that is denounced against such as are rich, as having received their consolation; all these, with a great variety of other texts, must have quite lost their first natural meaning, if this interpretation be admitted as barely lawful.

So that it is an interpretation that runs away from the plain open sense of the words, and leads from those great rewards that belong to it; it is an interpretation made without any necessity, not supported by any doctrine or practice of Scripture, contrary to the practices of the first Christians, contrary to the heavenly spirit of our religion, and so contrary to various plain passages of Scripture, that they must have lost their true meaning if this interpretation be admitted.

Lastly, if all that can be concluded from this command of our Saviour is only this, that we are obliged to part with our estates when we cannot keep them, without selling the truth; if sell all thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven only means, when applied to us, thou mayest keep and enjoy thy estate, till some wick terms of keeping it are imposed upon thee; this is no higher a perfection, no greater degree of heavenly-mindedness, or disregard to the world, than a Jew or honest heathen would maintain.

For who does not know that it is better to be just and faithful, than to be rich; and that a man is rather to part with his estate than to keep it at the expense of his virtue and integrity? this is only the virtue of choosing rather to be poor than a thief.

But if Christians can think that this is the highest renunciation of the world, the highest degree of heavenly affection to which they are called; if they can think that this is all that is meant by their being crucified and dead to the world, by their being in Christ new creatures, by their being born of God, and having overcome the world, they may be justly said to treat the Scriptures as the Jews treated our Saviour, when they said, We will not have this man to reign over us.

I have, I think, sufficiently shown that our Saviour required an entire renunciation of the world, a forsaking all its enjoyments, in order to be his true disciples; and that the same is as certainly required of us, as he is the same Christ, and we heirs of the same glory.

It will now therefore, I know, be asked, whether all Christians are obliged to sell their estates, and give to the poor, in order to inherit eternal life?

The absurdity and ridiculousness of such a thing, and the disorder it must occasion in life, will be thought sufficient to expose and confute all the foregoing doctrine.

As to the absurdity and ridiculousness of this doctrine in the eyes of worldly wisdom, that is far from being any objection against it; since we are assured by God himself, that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, and that the spirit of Christianity, and the spirit of the world, are as ...contrary to one another as the kingdom of light, and the kingdom of darkness.

What can be more contrary to worldly greatness and wisdom than the doctrine of the cross, a crucified Saviour? Which way could any one expose himself to more jest and ridicule than by being too meek and humble to resent an affront, and accept a challenge?

Not only rakes and libertines, but the grave, the religious part of the world, talk of the necessity of defending their honour, and reckon it a shame not to resent and fight when the affront is given.

This makes the spirit of the world; though it be as consistent with our religion to honour the memory of Cain for killing his brother, as to make it a part of honour to give, or accept a challenge.

This may serve to show us, that we must disregard the maxims and wisdom of this world, and not form our judgment of Christian virtues with any regard to it; since by it, patience and meekness may be reckoned shameful, and revenge and murder as instances of honour.

But I give now a direct answer to the foregoing question, and venture to affirm, upon the proofs I have already produced, that all Christians are really and effectually obliged to do that which our Saviour required of the young man.

Our Saviour bid him sell all that he had, and give to the poor, that he might have treasure in heaven; that is, he required him to renounce the self-enjoyment of his estate, to live no longer in the gratification of his plenty, but offer it all to God in works of charity, and relief to others.

Now the selling all, is only a circumstance of parting with the enjoyment of his riches from himself, to all such objects and uses as are worthy of it in the sight of God.

If our Saviour had told sinners that they must repent in sackcloth and ashes, I should have thoug' that sackcloth and ashes was only mentioned as a particular way of expressing a general duty, and that though the circumstance of sackcloth and ashes might be omitted, yet the thing intended, the degree of humiliation and sorrow, was always to be performed in the same degree.

I take it to be the same in the case before us. It is not necessary that a man should sell all that he hath, because that was the expression used to the young man, but it is necessary that he comply with the thing signified, and practise all that disregard of the world, and heavenly affection which is there taught.

He sufficiently selleth all who parteth with the self-enjoyment of it, and maketh it the support of those that want it.

This seems to me to be the true and plain meaning of the passage. The words, sell all, are only used as a form of speech, as a general way of expressing the parting with the enjoyment of an estate, as sackcloth and ashes were a general way of expressing repentance; and not as laying any direct obligation of parting with an estate in that particular way, any more than sackcloth is always necessary to a true repentance.

A person that was to give away his estate would surely comply with the doctrine of the text, which shows, that it is the thing signified, and not the particular manner of doing it, that is required.

Yet it is the keeping to this literal sense of the words, as if the selling all was the particular thing enjoined, that has taught people to excuse themselves from the doctrine there delivered.

For there was some pretence to think that so particular an action as the selling all could only relate to him, to whom it was enjoined.

But if men would consider that this selling all is only a circumstance of the thing, as sackcloth is a circumstance of repentance; and that the thing required is heavenly affection and devotion to God, they would find themselves as much concerned in the doctrine there delivered, as in any other doctrine of Scripture.

When our Saviour related the good Samaritan's charity, and said unto the man that talked with him, "Go, and do thou likewise," he is not exhorted to stay for an opportunity of doing the same action, but to do the same thing which was implied by that action.

Taking therefore the words in this plain sense, as an exhortation to such a degree of heavenly affection, and disclaiming all self-enjoyment of riches, and not as to any particular action of selling all, it must be affirmed that they equally concern all rich men to the end of the world, as that young man, to whom they were spoken.

For as he was called to that temper of mind, because it was a right temper for a Christian, a proper instance of his faith and hope, and devotion to God, and a right way of using the things of this world; how can it be thought, that the same temper is not equally right and Christian in every rich man now? Or how can it be thought that the rich men of this age, are not equally obliged to act conformably to the temper and spirit of religion now, as well as in the days of Christ? * Are not humility and meekness to be practised, in the same fulness that they were in our Saviour's time? But if they are, it will be impossible to show, why any other virtues should admit of any abatements.

Or can any one show a better instance of humility and meekness, than in departing from the splendid enjoyments of his fortune, to make it the support and relief of poor and distressed people, It ought also to be considered, whether it is not impossible to show that meekness and humility which was then required, unless he practises them in these instances.

Let it also be considered, that this use of worldly things is not only commanded, as suitable to the graces and virtues of the Christian life, but that the case of the rich man in torments, with the other passages above mentioned, are so many express threatenings against our disobedience.

So that it must be affirmed, that we are as much obliged to labour after the same degrees of faith, hope, heavenly affection, and disregard of the world, as after the same degrees of humility, charity, and repentance, that ever was required of any Christians.

Let it be also considered, that the command of selling all, is only particular in the expression; but that the thing required is the general temper of Christianity; as is expressed by being dead to the world, having our conversation in heaven, being born of God, and having overcome the world; these expressions have no proper meaning, if they do not imply all that heavenly affection, and disregard of riches to which our Saviour exhorted the young man.

God forbid, saith St. Paul, that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. (Gal. vi. 14.)

Now I desire to know why any Christian should think it less dreadful not to be crucified and dead to the world, than St. Paul thought it? Is not the temper and spirit which the apostle shows here, as much to be aspired after, as in any other part of Scripture?

But can those who spend their estates in their own indulgences, who live in the pomp and pleasures of riches, can they without profaneness say that of themselves, which the apostle here saith of himself?

Or, can they be said to have the Spirit of Christ, who are directed by a spirit so contrary to that of the apostle? Yet the Scripture says expressly, that if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.

Thus we see, that this renunciation of the world, which is thought too great an extreme, to be taken from the command given to the young man in the Gospel, is the common temper of Christianity, and a doctrine the most universally taught of any other. It is indeed the very heart and soul of Christian piety, it is the natural soil, the proper stock from whence all the graces of a Christian naturally grow forth; it is a disposition of all others the most necessary and most productive of virtue. And if we might now be more earthly, than in the days of Christ, we must of necessity be proportionably wanting in all other virtues. For heavenly affection enters so far into the being of all Christian virtues, that an abatement in that, is like an alteration in the first wheel that gives motion to all the rest.

I will now a little appeal to the imagination of the reader.

Let it be supposed, that rich men are now enjoying their riches, and taking all the common usual delights of plenty; that they are labouring for the meat that perisheth, projecting and contriving scenes of pleasure, and spending their estates in proud expenses.

After this supposition, let it be imagined that we saw the holy Jesus, who had not where to lay his head, with his twelve apostles, that had left all to follow him; let us imagine that we heard him call all the world to take up the cross and follow him; promising a treasure in heaven to such as would quit all for his sake, and rejecting all that would not comply with such terms; denouncing woe, and eternal death, to all that lived in fulness, pomp, and worldly delights: let it be imagined that we heard him commanding his disciples to take no thought, saying, what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed; and giving this reason for it, because after all these things do the Gentiles seek.

Let it be imagined, that we saw the first Christians taking up the cross, renouncing the world, and counting all but dross, that they might gain Christ.

I do not now appeal to the judgment or reason of the reader, I leave it with his imagination, that wild faculty, to determine whether it be possible for these two different sorts of men to be true disciples of the same Lord.

To proceed:

Let us suppose that a rich man was to put up such a prayer as this to God;

"O Lord, I thy sinful creature, who am born again to a lively hope of glory in Christ Jesus, beg of thee, to grant me a thousand times more riches than I need, that I may be able to gratify myself and family in the delights of eating and drinking, state and grandeur; grant, that as the little span of life wears out, I may still abound more and more in wealth, and that I may see and perceive all the best and surest ways of growing richer than any of my neighbours; this I humbly and fervently beg in the name, amp;c."

Such a prayer as this should have had no place in this treatise, but that I have reason to hope, that, in proportion as it offends the ear, it will amend the heart.

There is no one, I believe, but would be ashamed to put up such a prayer as this to God, yet let it be well observed, that all are of the temper of this prayer, but those who have overcome the world.

We need not go amongst villains, and people of scandalous characters, to find out those who desire a thousand times more than they need; who have an eagerness to be every day richer and richer; who catch at all ways of gain that are not scandalous, and who hardly think any thing enough, except it equals or exceeds the estate of their neighbours.

I beg of such, that they would heartily condemn the profane and unchristian spirit of the foregoing prayer, and that they would satisfy themselves, that nothing can be more odious and contrary to religion than such petitions.

But then let them be assured also of this, that the same things which make an unchristian prayer, make an unchristian life.

For the reason why these things appear so odious in a prayer, is because they are so contrary to the spirit of religion. But is it not as bad to live and act contrary to the spirit of religion, as to pray contrary to it?

At least, must not that manner of life be very blameable, very contrary to piety, which is so shocking, when put into the form of a prayer?

But indeed, whatever we may think, as we live, so we really pray; for as Christ saith, where our treasure is, there will our heart be also; so as the manner of our life is, so is our heart also; it is continually praying what our life is acting, though not in any express form of words.

To pursue this argument a little; Is this prayer too shocking? Dare we not approach God with such a spirit? How dare we then to think of approaching him with such a life!

Need we any other conviction, that this manner of life is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, than this, that the praying according to it in Christ's name, comes near to blasphemy?

Does not this also sufficiently convince us of the reasonableness of Christ's command, to forsake the fulness, the indulgence, and pride of estates; since it is a state of life that our reason dare not ask God to give us?

Let it be considered how we should abominate a person whom we knew to use such a prayer, and le- that teach us, how abominable a life that is like it must make us to appear in the eyes of God, and with this addition of folly joined to it, that we call the prayer profane, but think the life that answers to it to be Christian.

Perhaps there cannot be a better way of judging of what manner of spirit we are of, than to see whether the actions of our life are such as we may safely commend to God in our prayers.

For it is undeniable, that if they are such as we dare not mention to God in our prayers, we ought in all reason to be as fearful of acting them in his presence.

We may indeed do several innocent things which, on account of their littleness, are unfit to be put into our devotions; but if the chief and main actions of our life are not such, as we may justly beg the assistance of God's Holy Spirit in the performance of them, we may be assured that such actions make our lives as unholy as such petitions would make our prayers.

From all that has been above observed, I think it is sufficiently plain, that the present disciples of Jesus Christ are to have no more to do with worldly enjoyments than those that he chose whilst he himself was on earth; and that he expects as much devotion to God, and heavenly affection from us, as from any that he conversed with, and speaks the same language, and gives the same commands to all rich men now that he gave to the rich young man in the Gospel. __________________________________________________________________

[2] Luke xvi. __________________________________________________________________