And yet one step farther have we gone. Having established the principle that charity consists in giving without self-denial, without sparing anything which we want; and finding after all our expedients, that such a principle will not supply all that is wanted; we have now set ourselves to devise methods of serving God without any expense on our part at all. No sooner are the urgent needs of their poor neighbours pleaded, than men meet them, not with liberal, large-hearted, self-denying donations of that which is their own; but with sordid, grovelling, debasing calculations, how the evil may be remedied by new-modelling one fund, and creating a surplus in another, and appropriating a third. Insomuch that now it is scarcely proposed or even treated as conceivable, that existing evils should be remedied at our cost; but when they have become intolerable, they are to be met by laying our hands on the gifts devoted by our ancestors to some other work of piety or charity. Such is the result of giving only what we can afford; such is the fruit of our maxims; they end in sacrilege[1]. We must overthrow the founda-
- ↑ The writer is aware that this is a strong term; but he does not know how to qualify it without suppressing the truth. It is often urged that there is no sacrilege in confiscating the gifts of our forefathers, if we apply them to other religious purposes. He is unable however to perceive the distinction between confiscation to enrich ourselves, and confiscation that we may not be obliged to spend. There is a vulgar proverb which shows that English common sense has long ago decided, that a
