you that are full, for ye shall hunger." Precisely the same doct teaches in the parable of Dives and Lazarus. To his disciples he "Sell that ye have and give alms,"--"Lay not up for yourselves t upon earth." In like manner when a rich young man asked him should do to secure eternal life, Jesus told him that, if he wished t at the acme of moral perfection, he must sell all that he possessed, a the proceeds to the poor. When the young man had gone away ful, Jesus told his disciples that it was easier for a camel to go the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of and that it was profitable for a person to forsake, not only hou lands, but even the nearest and dearest kinsfolk, for the sake of h dom. (Matth. xix. 16. Mark x. 17. Luke xviii. 18.) To me, th drift of Jesus's teaching appears to imply that, of necessity, wea curse, and poverty a blessing,-that the former is a sign of ung and the latter a mark of piety; and also that he intended the being poor, as a perpetual obligation, to extend to all Christians age and clime. Both the manner in which he always inculcated t in connection with precepts which, evidently, he intended to be P and the practice of the primitive Christians, prove indisputably would have all his followers to part with the whole of their weal to become the blessed poor entitled to the kingdom of heaven.

་་

His Sermon on the mount is replete with this doctrine. repeatedly enunciates the precept-"Take therefore no thought morrow "-"Take no thought for your life what ye shall eat, or shall drink; nor yet for your body what ye shall put on," Sho Lordship say or think, with others, that the words "Take no t in the original, mean— Take no anxious thought-do not lavish ate care on the things of this world," and so on, the answer is, Greek words employed here-μη ουν μεριμνήσητε -as your Lord knows, simply mean-Take no thought, or care—be not careful. nothing whatever in the expression which justifies the idea of thought." The verb-μepuvaw, employed here, means merely to be careful, to heed, and is most frequently, in the English versio New Testament, translated care, and that in such connections a exclude the idea of any particular anxiety, such as is sought to be to the word in the precept under notice. The same Greek wo dered-care and to care, in 1 Cor. vii. 32-34; xii. 15. Phil. ii. · and 1 Pet. v. 7. In neither of these places is the idea of anxiety implied than ordinarily in the word, care. When Paul tells the Pl to "be careful for nothing," he clearly means that they should cern themselves about earthly things. When Jesus says "Li for the meat which perisheth," (John vi. 27.) he means more than no anxious thought for your life what ye shall eat.' On this poi left no just ground of doubt; for he has amply illustrated his p

It is true at

reference to birds and lilies. Immediately after proclaiming the precept of taking no thought of life, he adds,-" Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them,"-"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." Jesus here fully explains what he means by taking no thought of life. Just as the fowls of the air do nothing towards providing for their future subsistence, and as the lilies do nothing towards preparing their beautiful vesture, so Christians should do nothing towards providing food and raiment, should take no thought whatever of the things of this lif This, unquestionably, is the doctrine taught by the Founder of the Christian religiou, not only in this precept, but in a vast number of other faces in the Gospels. But your Lordship will admit that this heavenly doctrine is at perfect variance with the sermon already mentioned. in that sermon, you made one attempt to harmonise the doctrine of the propriety of accumulating wealth with the teaching of the New Testain t by citing Jesus's injunction to "make to yourselves friends of the mamn.on of unrighteousness." (Luke xvii. 9.) But permit me to say that this illustration was a most unhappy one. For, if your Lordship's view of this passage is correct, it implies that Jesus commends the unjust steward, saying that he had "done wisely" in cheating his master, and urges Christians, in the same manner, to make "friends of the mammon of unrighteousness." Other divines feel great difficulty in dealing with this passage; but your Lordship appears to entertain no doubt as to its real meaning. If, however, it were admitted that Jesus in this passage taught that Christians should amass wealth, the concession would imply that his doctrine here is at variance with the whole of his teaching on all other occasions. When he sent his apostles to preach, he told them to take with them neither gold nor silver.—But I must desist.

My apology for thus troubling your Lordship is, that I humbly think I have, at least, a moral claim upon the bishop of the Diocese in which I live to set me right on theological matters, concerning which my error may be of spiritual consequence; and that especially when my perplexity has been caused by your Lordship's sermon.

If any of your clergy had preached a doctrine I could not harmonise with any portion of the Gospels, I should, in these days of all sorts of heresy, attribute it to their deficient knowledge of Gospel truth; but to your Lordship this cannot apply

Trusting that your Lordship will condescend to set me right on the foregoing subject,

I have the honour to be, my Lord Bishop,

Your Lordship's most obedient and humble servant,

EVAN POWELL MEREDITH.

To the Right Reverend,

The Lord Bishop of Llandaff.

SIR,

Bishop's Court, Llandaff,

August 16th, 1865.

I beg to acknowledge the favour of your letter, in which you inform me that you noticed a striking difference between the doctrine propounded in my sermon, on Eccles. vii. 12, and that which pervades the whole of the four Gospels. As you had formed this opinion, it was an act of kindness on your part to let me know that such was the case; for it gives me an opportunity of saying that you appear entirely to have mistaken what I said. You are, certainly, quite under a misapprehension in saying that I told you that it was good to accumulate riches; " that I attributed "the wretched condition of the poor to the want of riches;" that "I spoke in the highest terms of exertions to amass wealth, and pronounced poverty a curse. That my memory might not deceive me, I looked last night over the portion of my sermon which relates to money, and could find nothing whatever from which such conclusions could be drawn.

With respect to your own expressed opinions upon money and poverty, and your interpretation of passages of Scripture in support of them, you must pardon me for not entering upon them. My incessant occupations would not allow of my commencing a correspondence which might possibly be a protracted one. And it is needless that I should do so. But I am glad to have had the opportunity of disavowing the sentiments which you have ascribed to myself.

Sir, your faithful Servant,

I am,

Permit me to thank your Lordship for your letter of the 16th inst. wherein you say that I appear entirely to have mistaken what you advanced in your late sermon, at Monmouth, and add-"you are certainly quite under a misapprehension in saying that I told you that it was good to accumulate riches,' that I attributed 'the wretched condition of the poor to the want of riches,' that, I spoke in the highest terms of exertions to amass wealth, and pronounced poverty a curse.

Your Lordship will pardon me for saying that, in citing the foregoing passage from my letter, you have slighty modified my expressions.-My words were these:-"Your Lordship told us that it was good to accumulate riches, and make such good use of them as the founder of the Monmouth, Free Grammar School had made. You dwelt on the wretched state of the poor, attributing it to the want of riches. You enumerated some of the evils which poverty engenders. In short, you spoke in the highest terms of exertions to amass wealth, and pronounced poverty a curse. These, verbatim et literatim, vere the words I used. But your Lordship writes

that, after looking over the portion of your sermon which relates to money, you could find nothing whatever from which such conclusions could be drawn," meaning the conclusions I had drawn in the passage just quoted from my former letter; and therefore you infer that I have entirely mistaken what you said. I acknowledge that it is possible for me to have mistaken the whole drift of your discourse; but I submit that it is not very probable that I did so in this instance; for, in common with three or four other persons present, I took down the whole of your Lordship's sermon as you delivered it; and I have since found my notes, in the main, corresponding with those of, at least, one of the gentlemen present, who, in short-hand, wrote down your discourse.

I shall now take the liberty of submitting to your Lordship a portion of the beginning of the sermon, as taken down at the time, not by me, but by a short-hand reporter; after reading which, and comparing it with your MS. your Lordship, I think, will not see any reason to say that your discourse is very grossly misrepresented.

Eccles. vii. 12. For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence; but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.' In these words, the wise man contrasts both of the objects which are naturally esteemed by mankind to be worthy of possession; and he shows how the one is surpassed by the other. But while he does not fail in drawing a just comparison, he takes no pains to detract or lower the one, in order to increase the higher attributes of the other. He has not put it that riches cannot satisfy all our longings, that they cannot satisfy the immortal soul; he draws no alarming picture of riches, as our Lord did when on earth; but, giving due credit to the possession of money, and the craving of human nature for it, he strikes a balance, and points out one special property which money cannot purchase,-'But the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.' If we consider the advantages of the age in which we live, we cannot but see that wealth is more sought after than ever. There is no country in which there is so much craving after riches as there is in our own. Men who have secured a competency, upon which they can, with their wives and families, retire from the turmoil and troubles of commerce, instead of doing so, enter afresh on reckless and hazardous speculations, in order to achieve greater riches, and that no one shall pass them in the race. Now, it cannot be said that all this energy is expended on that which is worth nothing whatever: for wealth contributes to the comforts and adornments of life. If there were nothing of value in wealth we should not have it so often quoted as comparisons in spiritual matters; and a higher authority even than the wise man in the text, would not have said, 'make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.' Poverty is a source of unbounded evil. with which many of the cottages of this country are afflicted, but which wealth can remove. How often has money relieved a poor man out of his troubles and distresses, and made a miserable home a happy one! As to sickness, it is true that riches cannot absolutely keep it from us, but much may be done by the possessors of competent means, to ward off sickness, and to restore them again to health when afflicted, while the poor man, on the contrary, is exposed to the ravages of disease, and labours under great

disadvantages from his inability to afford means for procuring the necessary preventives, and restoratives, and comforts, which the rich man possesses.'

Such is the tenour of your Lordship's discourse on the first head. But I must desist at present from citing any more. I could add that your Lordship used expressions quite as strong, if not stronger, in showing that, nationally considered, "money is a defence."

Now the question is, whether I am justified in saying,- 1st "that your Lordship told us, "it was good to accumulate riches," if we made good use of them,―2ndly "that you dwelt on the wretched state of the poor, attributing it to the want of riches,"-3rdly that "you enumerated some of the evils which poverty engenders,"--4thly that you spoke in the highest terms of exertions to amass wealth; and-5thly that you pronounced poverty a curse. These five predicates, I submit to your Lordship, are fairly deducible from the whole drift of the extracts just cited from the report of your sermon. Let me beg to illustrate this a little further.

1. After describing the eagerness of people to acquire riches, you say-"Now it cannot be said that all this energy is expended on that which is worth nothing whatever; for wealth contributes to the comforts and adornments of life. If there was nothing of value in wealth, we should not have it so often quoted as comparisons in spiritual matters." &c. Ergo, the accumulation of wealth is good, or the "comforts and adornments of life" are not good, &c.

2. You say that the cottages of this country are afflicted with the evils of poverty, and that, differently from the rich, the poor man is exposed to the ravages of sickness, from want of wealth. Is this not to attribute the wretched state of the poor to the want of riches?

3. You describe the " great disadvantages under which the poor man labours, "from his inability to afford means for providing the necessary preventives, and restoratives, and comforts," in sickness.

And

4. You exclaim, "How often has money relieved a poor man from troubles and distresses, and made a miserable home a happy one!" you teach that, in case of persons afflicted with illness, much may be done by the possessors of competent means to ward off sickness, and restore them again to health." If this is not to "speak in the highest terms of exertions to amass wealth," I am unable to imagine what can be so.

5. You say "Poverty is a source of unbounded evil." Is this, I deferentially ask, not equal to "pronouncing poverty a curse?" or is it not even stronger language? It is true that, when I wrote my first letter to your Lordship, I had not my notes directly before me, so as to quote your expressions, word for word, as I have now just done; but I think that the foregoing proofs show that in no particular did I deviate from the meaning of that part of the discourse with which I dealt.

The matter standing thus, I must repeat to your Lordship that there appears to be a direct contradiction between your doctrine and that of Jesus, in reference to riches. You say-" Poverty is a source of unbounded evil; but Jesus says "Blessed are ye poor,-Blessed are ye that hunger." You exclaim-" How often has money relieved a poor man from his troubles and distresses, and made a miserable home a happy one!" but Jesus exclaims-"Woe unto you that are rich,"-"Woe unto you that are full." You say that all the energy expended in the accumulation of wealth cannot be said to be worth nothing,-you declare wealth