Library Collections: Document: Full Text

"What further instances of this nature?"

"These might be deemed sufficient to prove exceptions; they are, however, numerous -- they almost indeed make of themselves a rule; as for example, ' He that giveth a cup of water to a disciple in the name of a disciple, shall not lose his reward.' The Saviour represents a case of desire or want in the one case, and of ability in the other. No proof here of absolute poverty or beggary, it is true, but it illustrates such a condition. We have the case given of Lazarus, covered with sores, begging crumbs from the table of Dives. We are shown the proceedings of the last judgment -- 'I was an hungered and ye gave me meat,' says the Judge, 'athirst and ye gave me drink; naked and ye clothed me; sick and in prison and ye came unto me, i.e., inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.'"

"These are all striking instances of Gospel grace to poor and undeserving sinners." said Miss Flush; "but I hardly think they can be taken to disprove the positive statement of so wonderful a saint as David. I might admit them as exceptions -- still, I should hardly be willing to say that modern paupers were exceptions to this great Bible standard, so far, at least, as my own observation has gone."

"You must certainly go and visit them. Miss Flush -- go and see the old widow Prescott. She is a very excellent old lady, and I think her a pious soul. But I wish to say further about this matter of argument on the words of David, that his language does not so much regard a state of actual need of help -- such, for instance, as our paupers are in -- as that of vagrant beggary from door to door, although even that I hold might actually be witnessed, and not vitiate the words of the Psalmist. But there is a wide difference between a necessity of help and actual strolling beggary."

"Do not the paupers stroll about begging?"

"Some of them do: it is no admission against the argument I advance if so; but I do not believe it is customary for the professedly pious even of the, paupers to stroll about the country begging for food."

"Well, Mr. Sherman, can we really put confidence in the professed piety of one who is actually in want of assistance to keep him from starving or beggary, in the face of such a sweeping standard, so plain and unambiguous as that I have called to your notice? Would it not almost lead to skepticism and infidelity to do away with the force of those words?"

"I must be allowed to say. Miss Flush, that your adherence to your own theological ideas, and your partiality for the truisms of the Bible, are deserving of great applause, viewing you merely in the light of a polemist. But I cannot avoid saying that you seem to move in a rather circumscribed orbit, which indeed hardly ever brings you where the light of the Gospel and the very words of Christ fall on you. But this is perhaps rather a consequence of your impregnable position, than an evidence of weakness."

"I adhere to it, Mr. Sherman, simply because it is represented as so absolute, universal, and necessary truth. I can not see a reason why it should be found longer among the sacred writings, if such arguments as have been advanced by you could for an instant weaken it."

"Your argument, Miss Flush, is, I think, one that proves too much, and in that light should be abandoned. Now philologists, as you know, suggest different readings of the passage itself; as, for example, 'I have not seen the righteous forsaken (even when most reduced, though) his seed were begging bread.' Whether this be admissible or not --"

"Not by me!" said Miss Flush.

"Well, let it go. But whether admissible or not, you imply that a pauper or a beggar is synonymous with one ' forsaken' of God. This, I think, is a weak point in your argument; for Job himself demonstrated, and in his own case exemplified, the contrary. Job was in the deepest affliction and poverty. His friends regarded this as you do our poor and afflicted Christian paupers, precisely -- as evidence that God considered him as a hypocrite, and had forsaken him. They overlooked his present state as one of trial and discipline, and the future as a state of retribution. (24) They said to him, ' God will not cast away a perfect man.' (Job. 8:20.) 'Whoever perished,' inquired Eliphaz, (Job 4:7,) 'being innocent, or where were the righteous cut off? But Job to this might have said, 'Was not righteous Abel cut off, being innocent?' -- and godly ' Lot driven from Sodom to a mountain cave? (25) He did say, 'Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed he the name of the Lord.' And he also said, 'What! shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?' (26) Is not this a state of trial? Do not the righteous suffer here? Must they expect only good things? Thus Job answers and reasons, ever affirming that the tabernacle of robbers prospered here; that the wicked spend here their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave, as the Psalmist himself says of them, 'Thou sittest them in slippery places, and their feet shall slide in due time.' David himself, like Job, saw the godly often in affliction, while the wicked spread themselves in wealth and power like the green bay tree. But what was Job's latter end and experience? He, the most afflicted and miserable of mortals, yet maintained through the trial his integrity, his purity, his honest trust in God; and we read that the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning."

(25) Scott, Job 8: 20-22.

(26) Job. 2.