Christianity Requireth a Renunciation of the World, and All Worldly Tempers.
By Law
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 and 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. Matt. 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 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. Luke xvi. 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 us home to them, and calls us loudly for a renunciation of all worldly indulgences, 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 their82consolation; so that this seems a full answer to this interpretation. But I shall however consider it further. 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 peaceably 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 can we be sure that such an interpretation may be safely complied with? The text saith, Sell all that thou hast; this 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 pretense 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 rigors 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 savoreth 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 offense unto me, for thou savorest 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 significance 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 that 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 wicked 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.—Law.