This truism will often render weal- 
thy men obnoxious to their neigh- 
bours and fellow citizens, unless 
they are known to make a good use 
of it. When they do they become 
public benefactors. 
Avarice and perpetual accumula- 
tion is a vice, useless prodigality is 
another:, both extremes ought to be 
avoided. When childless, rich 
men ought to consider the poor or 
the public as their children. When 
they have a posterity or relatives to 
provide for, they must beware not to 
make them too rich and vicious, as 
wealth acquired by inheritance in- 
stead of personal exertions is often 
m i s-spent or squandered. It is su f- 
ficient to provide a competence, a 
share ought always to be set aside 
for useful public purposes. 
But instead of waiting till death 
comes to snatch our possessions, ift 
order to give what cannot be held 
nor enjoyed any longer, how prefe- 
rable it would be to do the good we 
intend while we are yet living: that 
we may see it and receive the bless- 
ings of those we may benefit. ■ There 
is hardly any merit to leave by will 
what can no longer be our own after 
death. Wills besides, are sometimes 
lost or setaside,or not properly com- 
plied with; we can never be sure. that 
our good intentions will be fulfilled. 
The best, safest and surest mode is 
to give while we live, that we may 
see and enjoy the beneficial effects 
of our charitable or patriotic purpo- 
ses: whereby we enjoy the reward 
of gqod deeds by praise and esteem 
in this world, and their eternal hea- 
venly reward beyond this life. 
Some religious men try to buy 
heaven! either by wills or donations; 
but no bribe will take them there! 
God reads the heart. Good deeds 
alone are of any avail. What is gi- 
ven after death, not being our own 
then, is hardly a gift, but a mere le- 
gal disposition. 
To pamper the* church or sects is 
not a good deed. It is against the 
law of God that churches should be 
rich: it is besides detrimental to the 
state, and whenever they become too 
rich, it may happen that to despoil 
them or destroy them becomes apub- 
iic duty. No perpetuity can there- 
fore belong to religious donations. 
Yet to build free churches, religious 
schools and libraries are good deeds 
and commendable. But to endow 
them richly is wrong and pernicious. 
To help missions and societies for 
tracts, temperance, peace, &c. is 
worthy of praise; but must be bla- 
med if such religious societies are 
made too rich; when something 
wrong will always happen, and the 
objects be often perverted. 
True charity and benevolence con- 
sists in giving to the poor, the help- 
less, the aged, the cripple, the lame, 
the blind, the sick, the destitute, 
the ignorant, the oppressed, the un- 
happy— to relieve, help, feed, clothe, 
instruct, support, and comfort those 
who are in need of any thing. Not 
by giving mere trifles to beggars; 
but by providing all the free institu- 
lutions of benevolence which are 
required in a crowded society and 
exuberant population. 
The rich by monopolizing the soil 
and wealth of the land, assume the 
duty of supporting those who can- 
not acquire either. By having the 
means to do much good, it becomes 
their duty to do it, The best gifts 
are those which are of a permanent 
or perpetual nature, calculated to be 
useful not to one but to many, not 
for a day but for years or forever. 
Although ostentation and pride 
may often mingle with public gifts 
as latent motives : yet charity throws 
her veil over motives and accepts 
the good intention. Patriotism does 
the same and never asks for motives. 
Ostentation is only baneful when it 
gives with a blind hand, to rich, 
useless, fashionable or extolled insti- 
tutions or individuals, instead of 
poor, useful and meritorious ones. 
Free institutions for all useful pur- 
poses of the actual improved civili- 
zation are needed all over the Uni- 
ted States. They abound in Europe 
even in the most despotic countries. 
