CHRISTIAN

BY THE

CHARITY.

REV. PREBENDARY HARRY JONES, M.A.

"Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor charity, it profiteth me nothing."-1 COR. xiii. 3.

and have not

THERE are many words which bear a double sense. Two are attached to "charity." St. Paul, in my text, speaks of one which prevailed in his own time, and has survived to ours, often to the exclusion of any other, viz. the bestowal of alms, in the shape of money, food, or clothing. This is the popular meaning given to the word now. It appears in such terms as "charitable institution," "charity school," "charity blankets," and "charity sermon," which is an appeal for money to help the "poor." Indeed, so widely is this sense of the word accepted, that we have a "Charity Organization Society " (an excellent one, by the way) formed for the purpose of enabling generous people to relieve such as are in real distress. The Bible has much to say about this kind of charity. Some of it appears in sentences read from the Old Testament before a collection of the offertory in church, and we hear of it plainly from the lips of our Lord Himself. No one denies the value of material donations to the needy, nor the duty of making them, especially by those who (as people say) are "blessed" with the good things of this world.

But St. Paul, in an exhaustive definition of charity,

takes an extreme case, and puts the popular meaning of this word on one side, as imperfect. He gives another sense to it. The bountiful donor, imagined by him, who lacked charity, would hardly be welcomed by the Judge in the day of Doom.

The Apostle, indeed, be it remarked, does not decry a bodily helping of the poor. He himself laboured with his own hands that he might minister, not merely to his own necessities, but to those of such as were with him. But he looks at the motive of the giver; and surely this must involve a perception of the best way in which we may benefit the receiver. Thus we may come to apprehend the nature of "Christian charity." The love of God is not shared by the donor unless his help be given "cheerfully," without grudging complaint at being asked to give, or protest against the exacting troublesomeness of the poor as being to blame for their poverty. He must help with some exercise of His spirit Who knows what things we have need of before we ask Him.

Now in inquiring how we should give, several thoughts suggest themselves. Let me dispose of at least one. All allow that sometimes help has unavoidably to be given openly, or on a large scale, when contributions are invited towards the support of some good work which ignorance of details, or want of personal opportunities, prevents a man from helping in private. In this case, moreover, he may receive praise of men, without forfeiting his right to be acting with true charity. This was recognized when distribution was made to the needy at Jerusalem, and givers laid their money at the Apostles' feet. The donation, e.g., of Joses, a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus (they called him, indeed, the "son of consolation "), was openly made, and specially acknowledged by the Church. Nevertheless, in most cases, the rule of Jesus must be remembered, and

how He said, "When thou doest an alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." This secrecy has a double use. It bars an appetite for praise in the donor, and spares the self-respect of the recipient, who is led to look on the gift as the act of a friend, not that of a patron. Moreover, it is advisable, as checking greedy clamour for alms, and thwarting a concourse of beggars.

But, in the face of permanent destitution, very little good seems to be done by the most generous of donations, whether made in public or private. This is a stale admission. Some people, however, have gone on filling the sieve of beggary, in the kindliest spirit, to find it empty again. Others have used discriminating schemes of distribution, and relied on the practical discernment of the Charity Organization Society. Thus, indeed, they may feel to be protected from encouraging imposture, and that certain of the "deserving poor" are helped by their gifts. This is well, so far. Many of the most needy are thus aided. But (as my old friend Hansard used to say) you cannot organize the Holy Ghost. When all is said and done towards saving the most hopeful sufferers from the slough of pauperism, close above its surface there is a film of poverty which the implement of the direct money-giver is unable to skim off. How does Christian charity, even if joined with the bestowal of all a man's goods to feed the poor, suffice to remove or dissipate this layer of industrial privation, and the mass of penury beneath it?

Does the example of St. Martin, who divided his cloak with the beggar, help us? Or are we sufficiently warned by the fate of Dives, who allowed a pauper to live on the crumbs from his table, till the angels intervened? It was not unkind of him to let a menial-fed dependent lie at his gate. We may be sure that another Lazarus filled the coveted vacancy

before Dives was buried. And an army of St. Martins would have been needed to gratify the swarm which must have envied the good fortune of their comrade. Can Christian charity such as that of this one saint solve the problem before Christians now?

Without finding in its impossibility an excuse for shutting the purse and buttoning the pocket, must we not perceive that charity means far more than a giving to the poor of that which satisfies bodily hunger?

Was Jesus pleased when the multitude sought Him because they ate of the loaves and were filled?

He fed them, indeed, and we may thus learn of Him in times of extremity; but He looked for a better appetite in them than that which He had quenched. In this, too, He surely teaches us, still

more.

Should we not think of what the poor ought to desire for themselves? Should we not do all we can to encourage a wish in them for something beyond "loaves and fishes"?

Have not these very words, indeed, been used, in contempt, by the best among the necessitous, as when they sneer at such as profess religion for what they can get in the shape of tickets and doles ?

Some philanthropists have come to see the truth of this, and sought to promote "thrift," and a more refined appreciation of human enjoyment than comes through the bodily senses. They have looked beyond the beneficence of hospitals, which train the rich man's doctor while they unquestionably heal the sick poor, and they have promoted "provident dispensaries." They have also set up Polytechnics and the like. They have encouraged the spread of elevating literature, technical education, and hailed the arrival of parish councils. All this, especially the last, indicates a wholesome growing perception that the real

wants of the "masses are not met by a permanent distribution of alms, however generous and devoutly given, or by gifts of food, fire, and clothing specially needed at times of acute general distress. The unemployed cry for work, not bread without employment. Moreover, beyond a limited appreciation of such philanthropical instructive institutions as I have referred to, even these are felt, somehow, by many, to be outside the deeper needs of those whom they are designed to benefit. They are excellent in their way, and deserve liberal support, especially as they tend to encourage more self-reliance among the careless. There is, however, a growing desire among the best of those roughly designated as the "poor for something which has no flavour of "charity," as commonly understood. It is a feeling after such relief or elevation as arises from within themselves, and does not approach them from without, however kind the motives of those who would bring and bestow it. Something like the sap of creation, which lifts the tree whose seed is in itself, and rises, so to speak, with automatic growth.

The most intelligently aspiring members of the "working class crave for that action to be encouraged which shall recognize more fully their claim as citizens to better the laws under which, unhappily, the present evil condition of so many among the "industrial population" has come about. There are, indeed, not a few who can work, but are not ashamed to beg. And there are some who subject themselves to capricious restrictions when they might fairly earn their bread.

But the most self-respecting among those I am thinking of would almost rather starve than be suppliants for alms. They resent sheer donative charity with profound repugnance, and ask for remedial measures, constitutionally inaugurated, some of which