recorded from the lips of the dying. But if it is extorted, or even drawn out in the most delicate manner, it is of little worth." p. 256.

The following paragraph refers to a subject on which one would think it unnecessary to give any directions. We are compelled, however, to believe, and not only to believe, but to know, that these directions are needed, and are sometimes. most shamefully disregarded by friends and ministers.

"We close this series of directions with one which might very properly have been placed at the commencement of it. In all our intercourse with the sick, we must acknowledge and submit to the authority of the physician and friends, in respect to the extent to which we may go in regard to a spiritual influence upon them. We ought not to violate, by stealth or otherwise, the wishes of those on whom Providence has placed the responsibility, and to whom he has given the control. I will not say that there may not be some rare exceptions, but certainly no one can doubt that where parental authority, in a case fairly within parental jurisdiction, or the orders of a physician who has the responsibility of life and death resting upon him, rise up like a wall in our way, there Providence does not intend that we shall go. Whatever good we might fancy we could do by violating these sacred powers, we have no right to violate them. In fact, we should do no good to violate them, for we should create a suspicion and jealousy which would close many more doors than we should thus unjustifiably open. It is well for the spiritual friend of the patient to have an understanding with the physician, and obtain some knowledge of the nature of the disease, especially in respect to its influence on the mind; and then to endeavour to fall in with the plan of cure pursued, at least to do nothing to interfere with or thwart it. We are bound to do this, even in a religious point of view; for the hope of salvation, in the case of a sick sinner, lies generally more in a hope of recovery, than in any reasonable expectation of benefit from spiritual instructions given upon a dying bed.". - pp. 257, 258.

It is not to be inferred from the previous remarks, that the book we are noticing is designed to be a guide or text-book in the work of charity. It was not the author's purpose, nor is it his view of the way to do good. Visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, dispensing alms of any kind, he treats as some of the ways, but not emphatically the way. The promotion of personal piety is, as we have said, his leading principle, that which he considers the great work and way. And this, first, in regard to the individual himself who aims to do good. His best preparation for the work, his most power

ful instrument in any and all circumstances, will be a principle of deep, calm, enlightened, fervent piety. He who has this, can never fail to do some good, however limited his other qualifications, or few his opportunities. He who wants it, though with other qualifications of the highest order, and the richest opportunities, will be sure to do nothing or to do harm. The first duty, therefore, is to cherish our own piety, and cause it to become a principle of life and all action, if we would do permanent good in any province. The next duty is to cultivate the same principle of piety in those whom we are to benefit. This is essential. It is to be thought of and labored for, not as the end but as the beginning of true benevolence; the best preparation for other good, the best preventive of all evil. A common idea is, and most charitable effort goes upon this idea, that when physical suffering is removed, the piety of the sufferer may then be promoted. Mr. Abbott's idea would seem to be, that piety is first to be promoted, in order that physical suffering may be not only removed but prevented. He admits that temporary relief must first be given, before any thing can be done, that actual present suffering must be relieved at all events, whatever the circumstances and however great the guilt of the sufferer. But he contends that moral and physical evil are so intertwined, that the latter hardly admits of a separate remedy, and that the removal of the former should be regarded as not only the greater good, but the truer alleviation. Hunger, disease, and misery cannot be warded off, so long as there is sin. Remove the sin, and the evils which it causes or aggravates are removed with it. "Regeneration cuts up the root of wretchedness, and every bitter fruit will soon disappear. The ragged, hungry, diseased, and miserable vagabond will soon be found clothed and in his right mind." This is the principle and the rule. There are exceptions; but they do not subvert the principle, and they will diminish in number and power, in proportion as the rule is remembered and faithfully followed.

There is nothing new in these views; but they are of the first importance, and are here well presented. We are but beginning to understand, to what a sad degree the time, the wisdom, the prayers, and riches of the world, in its essays of benevolence and institutions of charity, have been wasted upon the effect, instead of being directed to the cause, of evil. The symptoms only have been relieved, and relieved in such a way VOL. XXI. 3D S. VOL. III. NO. III.

40

as to feed the disease. Moral evil is the great destroyer. What other evil will compare with it? how many evils would exist without its presence? Is there one benefit, of any name or kind, that can be conferred upon man, which would not be facilitated or enhanced, by the implanting of religious principle, the promotion of personal piety? How great the mistake, that they only can do good who have money! This has been considered as preeminently the means of usefulness, and that which it could directly purchase, relief from bodily suffering and outward want, as the end. Christianity is teaching the world, that piety embraces both the means and the end, and that its great instrument is sympathy, sympathy with Jesus, the omnipotent physician, sympathy with man, the sinner and the sufferer. May the time come, when all ministers of good shall feel, with the writer before us, that "the great work of benevolence in this world is the work of coöperating with God in attempting to REDEEM THE HUMAN RACE FROM ITS SINS."

We may speak of Mr. Abbott's book as proposing two principal ways of doing good; the one, by means of charity, which we have now explained, the other, by means of Christianity as a system, the church, acting upon the community and mankind. Not that there is such a division in the book itself, for, as we have intimated, there is a want of division and clear arrangeBe that as it may, all that we have to say of the work will be brought under this division.

ment.

The chapters on public morals, and the church and Christian union, are not the least important. If we mistake not, they will draw the most attention, and find some objectors among the author's religious friends. We have already seen doubts expressed in one Orthodox journal, in regard to the soundness of these views. We cannot expect, though it seems not much to expect of Christians at this age of their religion, that any one will find a general response, who advocates entire Christian union, and pronounces differences of forms not essential nor insuperable. This is the stand which Mr. Abbott takes, with manly and Christian independence. He regards "denominational jealousies" as a fruitful source of evil, and without reason or excuse in themselves. He pronounces "censoriousness and party spirit, the bane and the destruction of the Christian cause." He acknowledges that much of the action and conflict of the church militant, is for victory over opponents, more than over sinners; that one denomination often "shows itself far

more afraid of the progress of the opposing one, than of the progress of sin." He affirms that forms and modes of organization hold a very subordinate place in the Scriptures and in the scale of means by which the church is to be sustained and religion extended. Not that forms are unimportant, but that differences of form are not essential. And yet they are the chief cause of contention and discord. Even among those denominations. which most nearly approach each other, separated by nothing but modes of organization and forms of worship, coöperating in many good works, passing under the common name of Orthodox, there are yet insuperable barriers raised by an inordinate attachment to forms, rousing some of the worst feelings, and leading to the virtual condemnation and excommunication of each other. From the manner in which Mr. Abbott speaks of this, we infer that there is even more of jealousy and alienation among the different portions of the true church, than we had supposed. We say the true church, for we are not presumptuous enough to imagine, that even Mr. Abbott, much as we respect him, has any idea of including or considering Unitarians, when he calls upon the various sects to overlook minor differences, and come together in the spirit of mutual confidence and coöperation. If he does intend to include us, we owe him our thanks for an unwonted civility. We presume, however, that our first impression is correct, and that we can claim no other share in the state of things here described, than that of humble observers.

"The present state of things is certainly melancholy in the extreme. Each of the several great denominations, considering its own peculiarities essential to the character of a true church, the members of one are suspicious and jealous of the other. They must necessarily be so, for they must regard all others as schismatics. They may, indeed, allow that many of the members of other communities, as individuals, are good men, but as organized into ecclesiastical bodies, they must deem them irregular and schismatical. Thus the members of each denomination excommunicate the others, and must do so as long as they maintain that their own peculiarities, though not necessary to personal salvation, are essential to the character of a true church. There is, accordingly, between these denominations, at the central points, in great cities, suspicion, jealousy, mistrust, manœuvring and counter manœuvring. And the evil influence spreads out to the remotest extremities, among the remote and thinly-peopled districts of the country."- p. 220.

Nor does our author think very highly of the efforts usually made to obtain relief from these evils; either the contentions by argument, which, as they proceed upon the assumption, by each party, that its own modes are exclusively valid, end in nothing but more obstinate adherence to these modes, or the attempts at partial conciliation, by proposing a union in plans and measures, "the parties each still thinking, that its own church is the only true one." There is good sense in what is here said of the "fit of love and coöperation," which sometimes comes over the different denominations. We ourselves have something to learn on this point. Many attempts have been made recently, to bring about such a union of sects, whose common action on great subjects we might be allowed to share. We know the motives in those of any name who propose plans and yield points for conciliation. We believe it is the crying sin of the churches, that there is so little of this spirit, and that all the fruits of the little there is, are poisoned by some breath of discord. We believe all the other causes of infidelity combined, the influences that embolden and aggravate it, are not greater than this one, -the rent, wrangling, criminating, disgraceful state of the churches, and sects, which bear the name of the Prince of Peace. We look for little progress in the power and glory of Christianity, whatever professions may be made, or appearances presented, or soundness boasted, or growth anticipated, while this cankering disease lurks at the heart, and manifests itself, without shame and even with pride, in every member. Far rather would we bear the sin of the worst heresy, if it were with a free conscience, and a humble love of the brethren, than meet the face of Jesus with this inconsistency upon the soul's front, and endure his calm but withering look for disregarding his repeated exhortations to "become perfect in one "; to love one another, as the mark of being truly his disciples, and the only way to make the world believe and know that God sent him. It surpasses our understanding, that ministers and churches dare to disregard such precepts, and assume the responsibility of denying the right and restraining the power of others, to work together with them and with all for truth. Still, to recur to our first view, so long as this is their feeling, we desire to work by ourselves. It is a severe demand upon one's self-respect, though that we could meet if it were all, to ask a privilege which no man has a right to withhold, nor in fact the power to give, as it is given of God in our natures,