Nor can any ratio of standing property and income combined be
designated, ensuring equality. Though this might approximate towards
equalizing the burden, still the same or similar causes would prevent a
uniform pressure. Besides, calls on our benevolence are not always
equally loud or imperious; and therefore, with the same means, more is
demanded on some occasions than others.

Undoubtedly there is a certain amount of property, which, taking into
view the whole circle of one's relations, he ought to contribute in
charity. It is by no means contended that one cannot fix upon a
definite amount for himself. This he may and should do. All that we
aver is, that no general rule can be made, assigning that amount,
because no general rule can meet the ten thousand circumstances that
modify individual cases; and, therefore, obligations to comply with it
would not be universally felt. Besides, no one thinks of specifying
certain proportions of labor and attention which all are equally bound
to bestow on others; and yet, these are sometimes far more beneficial to
the suffering than gifts of money. To assign a certain number of
external acts employed in charitably distributing property, while we fix
upon no definite amount of labor to be expended in beneficence, is
making a difference without a reason; this being seen, the conscience
will not be holden, unless some scripture precept can be found demanding
the discrimination.

But could a ratio be found pressing equally upon all, it would not be
desirable. Man, while under the influence of the natural heart, if he
tries to please his Maker at all, endeavors to do it by external acts
merely; when driven from this ground, he seeks to please him by acting
out some principle of natural sympathy, conscience, or reason; when
shown the fallacy of this, he endeavors still to discharge his duties in