arbitrary, conventional, questionable demands; they are not supererogatory, nor merely optional; they are not ultra and extravagant: they are the simple obligations of religion; they are incorporated in the very system of truth and righteousness-wrought into the very constitution of christian piety—identified with the deepest feelings of a holy heart; they are the almost intuitive apprehensions-the everyday thoughts-the familiar habits of real christians.

One of the least manageable parts of this subject is the proportion of wealth thus to be appropriated. In fixing this we shall derive great help from keeping steady hold of our principle of doing all to the glory of God. We certainly depart from that principle when we make what others give, the measure of what we give. Nor do we adhere to it when we strive to restrict our donations as far as regard to reputation and appearance will permit us. Neither

is it in conformity surely with the requirement to give the mere unmissed and unfelt superfluities of our abundance. And we are not under the influence of our rule, when determined, that whatever we give shall never touch a luxury-a vanity-a convenience-a comfort. We must also be considered as far below the mark, when the measure of our benefactions is evidently contrary to the plain and specific directions found in the Scriptures. The regulations are: "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath and not according to what he hath not,"* and to give as God has prospered every man." If then the man

of wealth makes no conscientious admeasurement of his liberality to his possessions, does he not dishonour God by living in the violation of a positive law? If there be no correspondency between the giving and the means of giving, is not the declared will of God set at nought? And if when God has prospered a man, there be no increase of benevolent communication, is not the divine law upon the subject plainly and egregiously broken? But are these apostolical directions acted upon? What means then the dull uniformity of the subscription list? Are these donors all on a level? Have they all prospered alike and in the same degree? And is the pecuniary history of each as unvarying as his contribution? Would not the Apostle's rule strangely break up this sameness? The case of the Macedonians quite justifies the expectation that the poor man will feel it as an obligation and a privilege to give something to the cause of Christ. The advancement of religion in the present day owes no small share of its means to the contributions of the poor. And if the poor give according to what they have, are the wealthier giving, in the same proportion, according to what they have? Is there the same per centage upon the thousands of the rich as upon the tens of the cottager? If men shrink from this, we beg them to remember that they shrink from the word of God. The consequences also of refusing to apply the scripture rule, tend to shew the propriety of the regulation. That proportion cannot be the right one, which if generally adopted would greatly and materially lessen the contributions to the cause of Christ. There are some who give so scantily that if their proportion of giving

were applied to all the descending grades, multitudes would be debarred from the happiness of giving. Almost nothing would be left for the smaller tradesmen to give, and impracticable fractions for the mechanic and the poor. Thus all the great institutions would be deprived of their sources of supply.

Can that be to God's glory which would, if generally acted upon, impoverish and cripple all the great religious institutions of the land? Can good men satisfy themselves to act upon a scale which if adopted by all, would make every benevolent society bankrupt, or miserably to dwindle and contract? Can a Christian knowingly adopt a measure of giving, which, if universal, would well nigh close the doors of the Bible Society, call Missionaries from their stations, check the flow of tracts, starve our ministry, break up our academical institutions, and abolish our schools? And yet we doubt not there are many filling their places as Christians amongst us, who, if they take their pencils in their hands, may speedily make a calculation which shall convict them of a disproportion which requires only to be spread in order to be ruinous to the cause of evangelization. And what a reflection for a good man! "I am contributing in that proportion to my means, that if all others contribute in the same proportion to their means, a disastrous check, if not an absolute end, must be put to all the measures now on foot for the support of christianity and the conversion of the world!"

But have we in these statements gone beyond the apostolical rule? Far otherwise. We have not come up to it. We have only presented it in one of its aspects. We have supposed the case of the rich man giv

L

ing in strict and arithmetical proportion to the contributions of those poor who give christianly and suitably. But it is a deception to suppose that this is to give "according to what a man hath," and "as God hath prospered him." It is not the faithful application of the scripture rule. What is left to the poor man is needful for sustenance and comfort. The proportion of figures is to hold therefore only to that point, in the case of the rich man, where his wealth ceases to be needful for the justifiable and becoming claims of hist station. Will it be said that what lies beyond this, is only to be taxed in the same degree as the earnings of the man? poor Is the unneeded, unused superabundance, to be placed under the same regulation as the income, or part of income, which makes the living of a man? If this overplus is subjected to the rule which affects the poor man's pittance,—is it giving according to what a man hath, and as God. hath prospered him? Whose is this overflow? What is it for in the hands of a Christian? Ought he not to ask, what demand has the glory of God upon it? Why am I entrusted with it? What are the purposes of wisdom, goodness, and mercy which it may be made to serve? Does the cause of God ask for it? Can it be made to show forth the praises of him who has redeemed me? Whilst the poor man gives what his situation will properly spare, shall I show my regard for God by merely putting a small rate upon this superfluous income? The faithful and cordial application of the principle "to do all to the glory of God," would turn a deep stream of wealth into the cause of Christ which would hasten to biess the nations. How greatly would the full recognition

of this pure and ennobling principle contribute to open the fountains of liberality, and to guide them into sacred channels! When under its powerful influence, how moderated become a Christian's views of what is needful and even of what is desirable in this world! How feebler seem to him the attractions of distinction, appearance and indulgence ! How checked and cooled are the aspirings of ambition ! How willing that his " moderation should be known unto all men!" How inviting does a lowly, unostentatious, unexpensive course appear! How pleasant to lay his treasures at the foot of the cross! How delightful to bring souls to God! How happy to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord! How reasonable a grace does self-denial appear ! How noble to live and spend for God!

One of the greatest hinderances to a well-proportioned appropriation of wealth to the cause of God, is the prevailing feeling relative to the provision which it is thought necessary to make for posterity.— Upon this subject we will venture to submit a few inquiries.

1. Is it needful or right for the sake of making or augmenting this provision, thus to restrict religious beneficence, where the income is the result of a fund which will itself be available for this alleged purpose? 2. Is it obligatory where there are no children, and but distant dependants or expectants?

3. Is it so necessary or justifiable when children

are making their own way, and are prospered of God?

4. Is it proper to do this to any great extent, when there is little prospect of a safe, wise, or good use being made of it?