to us.

meet on the same common ground, and to act in concert respecting the general interests of religion, without keeping distinctly in view those principles, which stamp the character of actions in the sight of heaven. To be more specific. The simple act of giving money to a religious object may be regarded as a truly religious act, while the motive may be such as God cannot approve, and as the giver himself would be unwilling to avow before his fellow men. I am aware that the prerogative of searching hearts is not committed I am aware too that for certain purposes, and to a certain extent, the motives of actions, apparently good, are of little importance. The beggar's hunger may be as effectually relieved by bread given from ostentation, as from Christian benevolence. If I contribute to send the preaching of the gospel to a heathen, the value of the benefit to him depends not at all on the temper in me, which prompted the contribution. A Bible, given by an infidel, is as precious in its contents, and may be as useful as though given by an apostle. But in respect to the spiritual state of the giver, the motive is of infinite importance; because on this absolutely, and this only, the moral worth of the action depends. And shall we undervalue and dishonor the Bible at home, in the very act of sending it abroad? Shall the man by whose liberality we are enabled to bestow this treasure on others, be tempted to forget the claims which this holy book

asserts over his own heart, and the terms upon which it offers him salvation?

In our efforts to spread the light of the Gospel in remote countries, we must take care not to extinguish nor obscure its light in our own. Now this danger consists in a want of practical discrimination as to the motive of our actions. It results from a kind of implied and indefinite understanding, that whatever has the appearance of respect for religion, is religion. And the course of things in regard to our public charities, I fear is too much adapted to cherish this mistake.

Worldly men may aid these charities from the impulse of conscience, from social sympathies, or from regard to personal reputation. He who hates the truth, may promote benevolent institutions, to appease that disquietude which the absolute neglect of all religion must produce in his own bosom; or to exhibit his generosity to a public object, or his compassion to those whose condition and privileges are far inferior to his own. Yet the most equivocal expressions of respect for Christianity, in a man or woman of elevated station, is easily construed into demonstration of personal religion. The Prince is a patron of the Bible Society; his name is blazoned in capitals on its subscription list; his presence at its anniversary is hailed with acclamations; his speech in favour of the Bible is interrupted with bursts of applause, is echoed

through the country in every hamlet, and is the theme of eulogy in every Gazette. But who is this friend of the Bible? A man perhaps who suffers it to stand as an ornament to his library, in all the elegance which art can give to its exterior; while he loves not its doctrines, and fears not its threatenings, and has scarcely read a page of it in his life. A man whose morals not only are in fact, but are commonly known to be at open variance with the spirit and requisitions of this holy book.

Now, while such gross perversion of sentiment is wrought into systems of public charity, and receives the sanction of Christians and ministers, what must be its influence on the multitude of thoughtless men, who wish to embrace any views of the gospel, rather than those which alarm and humble them as sinners? What must be its influence on the man himself, whose fatal ignorance of his own spiritual state is thus strengthened by the undistinguishing testimonies of respect which he receives from Christians, while he secretly rejects and perhaps reviles Christianity itself. O, with what dismay must he hear from the mouth of his enthroned Judge; "These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself, but I will reprove thee."

Do I mean to say then, that it were better if worldly great men were open opposers of Christian

institutions? No :-but it were better if they were real and consistent Christians. Nor do I mean that all such men, who promote these institutions, are included in the description which the poet gives of one, "who for the bane of thousands born,

Built God a church, and laugh'd his word to scorn."

Our age furnishes examples of illustrious rank united with eminent piety. And where it is otherwise, there is often an inherent antidote to its own mischief, connected with a profligate character.

But in respect to the numerous class of decent, sober, respectable men, who yet "love not our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," there is much danger that they will substitute an approbation of Bible societies, and other evangelical charities, for vital religion.

It has been so common for men to indulge an immoderate, selfish love of money, that the use of it for any benevolent purpose, is, in itself, laudable, and draws after it the approbation of every ingenuous mind. The danger of deception here, lies in the fact that the motive, which prompts the charity, is supposed to correspond in nature with the object to be promoted. If this were a road, a canal, or a commercial enterprise, mistake would hardly be possible. But it is religion that is aided, and this, whatever be the state of the heart, is presumed to sanctify the motive of the agent.

The child claims no merit for buying his baubles;

while he gives his little contributions to missions, perhaps with the heart of a little Pharisee. Shall he be discouraged then from his charities? God forbid. Let him be stimulated to increase them; but let him also be instructed in the spirit of the gospel.

poor

Hin

Take an illustration of my meaning from a letter, addressed by a missionary in Bengal, to some children in this country. "Pray," says he, "for the doo children. O could you see the little creatures placing their lighted lamps at the water side, in honor of their imaginary gods!—could you see them making idols of mud, and offering to them, at the river side; above all, could you see their dead bodies floating down the river, or torn by the frightful birds of prey, and mangled by dogs and jackalls, you would pray for them, you would pity them; nay more, give your cents and silver for their instruction. your Let me know what you will give, and then I shall know how much you love Jesus."

That these facts are stated with the purest motives, and that they ought to awaken emotions of pity in every bosom, cannot be questioned. But what is pity towards objects of wretchednesss? Is it the same as love to Jesus? In itself, it is an instinct, found in every man, good or bad, who is not a monster. It is found in many animals towards the suffering of their own species. And shall the exercise of this instinct be identified with holy love? Shall such senti