Chapter V. The Spirit Of Covetousness.
CHAPTER V. THE SPIRIT OF COVETOUSNESS.
Covetousness in Ministers has almost grown to a proverb. Judas is an awful example of its consistency with the highest Ministerial gifts. It is not the fault of any Ecclesiastical system, but the natural principle of a corrupt and selfish heart. It readily appended itself to Popery, from the transfer of the aggrandizing spirit of the system to individuals. But Judas and Demas had been its victims long before “the Man of sin” sprang up in the Church. It has attached itself to Protestant Establishments—in the higher departments, from the influx of wealth—and in the lower departments, from the lack of sufficient means to meet present demands and future exigencies. In this latter view, especially, it allies itself to every system of Protestant dissent, with an influence as habitual and destructive as in any Ecclesiastical Establishment.
The frequent Scriptural connexions of this selfish principle with the sacred office,595 were doubtless intended to warn the servant of God of a most prevalent temptation. Our Church, without any express mention, has pointedly alluded to it in each of her Ordination services. She warns her deacons from the word of God, that they not be “greedy for filthy lucre.” She exhibits to her priests the awful picture of “a hireling,” 596 at the same time instructing them “how they ought to forsake and set aside (as much as they
THE SPIRIT OF COVETOUSNESS. 131
may) all worldly cares and studies;” and questioning them again more closely about their diligence and readiness in “laying aside the study of the world and the flesh.” She deems it necessary to give to her highest order of Ministers this solemn charge: “Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf; feed them; do not devour them.” 597 It was a blot on the celebrated heathen moralist598 that, while he vehemently declaimed covetousness, he was throughout his life, a slave to the base traffic of usury. How discreditable is earnest preaching against this besetting sin, if our personal habits, or family holdings, exhibit its pollution! When we warn our people against “the love of money, as the root of all evil,” 599 they will look into our own garden for this destructive weed which may possibly be growing there, even while we seek to root it out of every garden in our parish.
Covetousness is very distinct from frugality, which is a real duty—implying a well-directed and moderate use of the things of this life—“owing no man anything “—“using the world, as not abusing it,”—like a good steward, making such provision for the present necessity as will prevent our families from becoming burdensome to the church. This, with Christian contentment, forms a right character. But covetousness is an inordinate thought of, desire for, and employment in, the care of this world. Its palpable exhibition is seen in a habit of saving—or watching too closely over what we have, and in a rooted reluctance to part with it. This is generally connected with a lack of consideration and sympathy for calls of distress, and with a very limited consecration of our substance to the extension of our Redeemer’s kingdom. The reports of our Religious Societies often mark a somewhat unaccountable average of subscriptions from those whose capabilities are so widely disproportionate.600 This may often arise from the great variety of channels into which the benevolent fund is distributed; but does it never originate in lack of economy, self-indulgence, or covetousness?
132 VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.
Specious forms of this principle often belong to those who are highly connected in the world; and the injury—unconscious perhaps to the individuals themselves—is generally exhibited in a lowered standard of separation from the world, in an unspiritual cast of mind, walk, and conversation, and in a straitened Divine influence on their work. In Mr. Cadogan,601 the dignity of the Ministerial character rose superior to the adventitious circumstances of his elevated rank, without any degradation in his personal claim to respect. And the spirit of simplicity and holiness maintained throughout his course, was honoured with particular tokens of his Master’s approval.602
In the more ordinary walks of the Ministry we may discern “the cloak of covetousness”—in a mean attention to small matters—in the motives that influence our plans of economy—in carefulness to maintain present appearances—in contrivances to shift expenses onto others—in the pleasurable excitement from the prospect of gain—in an undue depression from the disappointment of it—in the natural current of our thoughts in the direction of the world—in the readiness to put lesser matters on a level with religion. All or any of these acts of this detestable principle must deaden the exercises of the Christian life and Ministerial energy.
We may refer also to a rigorous enforcement of ecclesiastical claims—a litigious and unconciliating spirit, ending in a fatal loss of our most important influence. Without any fair ground for the charge of injustice or extortion—there may be a lack of tenderness and recollection of the main ends of our office, and of the sole purpose for which a maintenance is secured to us.603 Whatever consideration may belong to the due support of our family, yet the noble
THE SPIRIT OF COVETOUSNESS. 133
spirit of the ministry rises above selfish considerations, and fixes on the great trust committed to us.604 In prospectively regarding also the rites of our successors, we may keep in mind Bishop Taylor’s wholesome caution—“Do not let not the name of the church be made a pretence for personal covetousness—by saying this, you are willing to remit many things, but you must not wrong the Church; for though it is true that you are not to prejudice your successors, yet many things may indeed be forgiven on just occasions, from which the Church will receive no inconvenience; you may be sure that there are few things which you are bound to do in your personal capacity, but you are obliged to perform that, and much more, as you are a public person.’ 605 Even a heathen has remarked, that ‘there is no more plain sign of a narrow and little mind, than the love of riches.’ 606 And what need is there for a constant guard against those inclinations and occasions of temptations that feed the power of this subtle principle! How hard is it to habitually maintain a practical belief of the Scriptural declarations of the fearful influence of riches on our spiritual interests, and by consequence, on our Ministry!—“You, O man of God” (is the fatherly counsel to a young Minister) “flee these things.” 607 In the return of Apostolic simplicity, self-denial, and love, we may anticipate a Pentecostal effusion of the spirit upon our Ministrations.
Covetousness is far more specious than worldly conformity. It has much to plead under the cover of necessity, justice, prudence, and economy. Yet we may detect its real character under all its deceptive garbs. Is not the straitness of means often an excuse from the exercise of Christian charity, while little or no restraint is laid upon the expensiveness of the dress, the table, furniture, or mode of living? Is not the charitable fund sometimes, in seasons of depression, the first that is curtailed? And do we not continue to “dwell,” as before, “in paneled houses, while the house of God lies waste?” 608
134 VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY
Self-denial in the family economy must also exercise a wholesome restraint. The education system (when engaged in principally to keep up appearances, or for the worldly advantage of children), and the adoption of worldly maxims in the education and management of our families (which in Mr. Scott’s judgment ‘constitutes a considerable part of the sins of the church in the present day’), come under this censure. It is also too plain that the families of Clergymen are sometimes brought up to worldly expectations, rather than as disciples of the cross, and citizens of heaven. Too much weight can scarcely be given to Mr. Scott’s inestimable instructions, as the embodied and most successful principles of his domestic system. ‘We are to live’ (he remarked) ‘at the altar; but a living, a bare decent maintenance, without any avaricious or ambitious views of advancing ourselves or our families, should content us.’ It was upon this principle (his son informs us) ‘he acted through life—not that he in any way reflected on clergymen who were born to wealth, or on whom Providence otherwise conferred it, if only they made proper use of it. Aspiring after it was what he condemned.’ His favourite maxim was—(what is best for the soul is really best for us,’ and ‘he ever looked upon worldly possessions with a jealous eye, for his family as well as for himself.’—‘The grand secret of his success’ (that which gave him, as he tells us, the most satisfaction in the retrospect at the close of his life) appears to have been this—‘that I always “sought “for my children as well as for myself, in “the first place, the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”‘ ‘This view’—his son observes—‘would extend to the value, practically and evidently set on eternal things in preference to temporal things: and very particularly to the disposal of his children in life, the places of instruction to which they should be sent, the families they should visit, the connections which they should form, and the openings which should be embraced or rejected for them.’ 609
Covetousness in all its varied forms is more easily detected in a Minister than in private Christians. The sources of his clerical income, being drawn from his people, are generally known; and consequently its capabilities and disposal are matters of public comment. Besides, “as a city set upon a hill, he cannot be hid.” 610 Any marks of vicious indulgence upon the appearance of his household
THE SPIRIT OF COVETOUSNESS. 135
will be “known and read by all men.” The Apostle’s appeal to God on this point 611 doubtless opens to us one of the grand mainsprings of his success. On the other hand, there is no more fatal hindrance to the Ministry, none that makes our person and labours more contemptible in the eyes of the world, than this idolatrous principle. It counteracts the grand design of our office, which is to draw men from earth to heaven. It cankers many sources of our usefulness—such as simple devotedness to the work, charity and hospitality, according to the extent of our means. It hinders the spiritual elevation of the soul, and denies the consecrated character of our office.612 George Herbert’s primitive Parson, therefore, ‘labours most in those things, which are most apt to scandalize his parish. He is very circumspect in avoiding all covetousness; neither being greedy to get, nor niggardly to keep, nor troubled to lose, any worldly wealth; but in his words and actions slighting and disesteeming it; even to wondering that the world should value wealth so much, which in the day of wrath has not one drachm of comfort for us.’ 613 The most effectual preventions of this corroding passion are—to have but few wants—to learn from our poor Christian day-labourers to cultivate faith for the future—to live not for men or for time, but for eternity—to have the glory of God, and the good of our fellow-creatures constantly in view—to study our Master’s life and example—to obtain a gradual conformity to its spirit by habitually eyeing the cross—and to remember, as Ministers, that an earnest desire to gain continually more souls to God is the sole avarice permitted to a pastor.614
136 VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY