good, struggling, almost sinking under difficulties which he could effectually aid. A man who, if he could be content with less of state, and show, and style, in his mode of life, might afford much to the good cause. A man who is economically and successfully saving, and thinks he may as well save God's share with the rest; or even does not recollect that any accounts are kept in heaven. We hardly need specify, a quite opulent man, continually augmenting his wealth; but, though a professed Christian, regarding the slenderest outgoings, for the cause of God, as quite enough. One has come in the way of knowing, here and there, divers such individuals,-members of Christian churches,-punctual in attendance on ordinances,-("fills up his place,")-very regular in their conduct, free from the ordinary and external vices, but, while perfectly well known to be vastly rich, not less notorious for niggardly parsimony in their contributions to the cause of God-plainly "robbers of God." Now, I cannot pretend to know much of the right formation and discipline of churches, but it does always appear to me, that there must be something very unsound in the constitution of a church that retains such a member. They are expected, and justly so, to exercise discipline in various things very censurable, but not of the worst kind, (great imprudences, temporary lapses under sudden temptation or provocation, injurious actions of a minor degree, &c.) But here is a great flagrant IDOLATER in their communion, who might just as well go on his knees, and literally worship his gold and silver, if put in the form of an image. (His objec

tion to have it put in that form would be that it would pay "no interest!" yet he would affect to admire Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego!)-and it would be thought a fanatical excess to rise up and assert that he is no fit member.

But, however, we have no great number of "passing rich" men in our dissenting societies; and must mainly depend on persons of moderate (some of them very moderate) means. The claims come, indeed, very often, the stronger needs to be the impression whose claims they are, and the assurance that though men can give to God" only of what is his own," yet he accepts it, less as the payment of a debt, than as a free tribute of love to him. For it is remarkable that every form of generous language is employed by him. There is, then, a certainty that what is given to his cause will be, on the whole account, no loss. What men, in a pure spirit, render to God, will come back to them here, or meet them hereafter, in a manner to testify that their Lord has not forgotten.

And, as the "gifts OF God are without repentance," so will the "gifts To God be without repentance."

A A

354

LECTURE XXVIII.

THE LOVE OF MONEY.

1 TIMOTHY vi. 10.

"The love of money is the root of all evil.”

THE analogy between the evil things in the natural and in the moral world has some exceptions. One is suggested by our text. A mischievous vegetable root (say, of a worthless weed, or of an offensive or poisonous production) springs up into only one kind of evil. But here, in the moral soil, we have one thing named as the root of all evil. In the principles of moral evil there is a dreadful provision for supernumerary mischief.

It is not, however, meant that literally all the evils there are spring from the love of money,-but that it is the cause of many and various ones. Now surely, a vicious principle which produces so many bad effects should be exposed, and forcibly protested against. And that not seldom,-if we consider that a thing which has a variety and multitude of bad effects is always working some of them; it has not a single and temporary operation.

How comes it, then, to be so unusual, in the discourses of our Christian teachers, to fix upon this

vice with adequate terms of reprobation? Is it, that they are afraid lest they should give offence and provoke anger?-For, truly, covetousness, though its most obvious character be that of a cold and hard disposition, is yet a very irritable and resentful one. Or is it, because there is a difficulty in stating, discriminatively, what "love of money" (in kind or degree) amounts to the vice of covetousness; so that this disposition in a man might be brought plainly to the test?

We will not attribute this omission to a notion that it is no GOSPEL preaching to expose and censure an evil which our Lord and his apostles seized every occasion to condemn and warn against, in the most emphatic language.

It cannot be, neither, that the Christian ministers never descry any signs of the existence of such a thing, anywhere among their congregations, or even their churches. No; often enough, when disclosing their thoughts in converse with a few confidential friends, they are heard alluding, with imputations of this vice, to individual professors of religion, even within their own communion,-sometimes sorrow

fully,-sometimes indignantly. The indignant feeling one has sometimes heard expressed in terms to this effect namely, “When there occurs, in the conduct of some person in one of our churches, some single circumstance of very marked impropriety, perhaps from the surprise of temptation, exciting a sudden impulse of temper or passion,—we are under the necessity of taking account of it--and proceeding to an act of severe censure-perhaps to the length

of exclusion from our society. But, there is at the very same time among us, and concurring in this very proceeding, a man, of good property perhaps, who is evidently and unquestionably actuated by a constant, intense love of money. He is known by his neighbours and acquaintance to be both parsimonious and avaricious. (And of his parsimony at least, we, as a religious society, have too sensible proof.) But, he professes himself a disciple of Christ-has given a very rational and apparently sincere account of how he was brought to become such. In his religious opinions he is true to the evangelic standard. He is punctual and serious in all our religious services, public and private; quite regular, decorous, and correct in the tenour of his conduct; no scandals, no frivolities, and no transgressions of the bare rules of legal justice in his dealings. But, then, there is this one habitual, pervading vice, of covetousness. Does not this constitute a much greater amount of what is contrary to Christianity than many an act of misconduct for which we would exclude a person from our communion? But we do not know how to take formal cognizance of it, or to shape the charge against him. And so, between this difficulty, and the judgment of charity, we are constrained to keep silence, and to treat him as an honourable member of our Christian society."

Cases more or less answering to this description are far enough from being uncommon in the experience of churches and their ministers. But whatever difficulty they may involve, let not, at any