makes the human will one with the divine. Theodore's manner was remarkably good for a beginner; the villagers praised his delivery, and his friends commended his appearance. But the impression of the sermon was nevertheless not of the most advantageous kind. The pastor was the first who pronounced his judgment upon the discourse. He praised not only the good delivery, but also the clear and simple arrangement of the sermon, and, for a first attempt, its extraordinary perspicuity; but he found the contents too refined and intellectual, and the view given of prayer not altogether just. The Christian, said he, may pray also for temporal blessings, if he, in imitation of Christ adds, not my will, but thine, be done. And then you have forgotten that we should especially pray for power to do right, without which our best will is worth nothing. Theodore had now no wish to dispute with him, for he was anxious to know what impression his discourse had made upon his mother, and he hastened home. He found her in great emotion. This sermon, said she, has strangely moved me, I know not whether to be pleased with it or not. I see that you can make a good preacher; but I also fear that you was right in thinking this doctrine very different from the old. have not been taught to think of prayer as you do—I have never prayed in this manner—and do not now pray so. You know I believed my prayer the cause of your father's cure from his first illness, and at present I pray daily for yourself and Frederica. Shall I now leave it off? This made a deep and painful impression on Theodore. He cried, No, dear mother, you must not leave it off! and he fell with tears into her arms. His heart was conquered, but his head was not. Frederica said that he preached almost exactly like the new fashioned preacher in the neighboring city. Thus, without meaning it, she touched Theodore's feelings deeply, for he knew that this preacher had at first attracted great numbers by the charm of novelty, but that now he had an empty church. Theodore spoke in the afternoon with some sensible villagers, and they could not conceal from him that he had caused little edification with his preaching. All these judgments were not a little mortifying; but yet he let himself be persuaded by his mother to make a second attempt. A relative had come to pay a visit, who wished much to hear Theodore preach. In order not again to come in contact with doctrinal notions, he chose a moral theme, and spoke of self-command, showing its value for virtue, and giving the means of obtaining it. With respect to this discourse the old pastor afterward made to him the following remarks. I by no means object to moral preaching; I often choose similar subjects myself; there are also in the Bible many moral exhortations. But yet one should know how to excite a love and a zeal for morality, and to set forth in a living manner its inward, living essence. You seem to me to have only considered the external works of virtue, and, as it were, its mechanism-not its inner life. Self-command has in itself no value, since a bad man can employ it; it is but the instrument and tool of virtue, which consists solely in a good state of the sentiments. It is, to be sure, hard to describe the essence of virtue; but Christ has been given us as an example and model of it, to which we can ever look. Whoever lives in communion with him, needs no description. Love will lead him to the right aim. And since Theodore has made no use of this, he has not found the way to the heart. His mother was not exactly displeased with his second sermon, but neither was she particularly pleased, and Frederica said, that this sermon made her very sad, that she could not go to work so seriously; she did what her heart prompted, and could not consider long about it; and thus she expressed an opinion very like the pastor's, that where there was an impulse of the heart, all moral preaching was unnecessary. But Theodore could not comprehend this, for having studied morality as a science, he prized too highly its merely scientific exposition. But all this indisposed him yet more to the profession of preacher. ART. V.-LETTER FROM HUMPHREY MARSHALL. [Among the other papers belonging to the Western Messenger, the following letter was put into my hands. The sickness and absence of the former Editor must excuse our apparent incivility in neglecting to notice it for so long a time. I omit those parts of the letter which the author says "are not for discussion,”— and add a few remarks.] EDITOR. To the Editor of the Western Messenger. SIR, I am a subscriber to the Western Messenger, and just having read No. 2, I proceed to express my pleasure at its tone, and manner of treating its subjects; and especially those of a religious character; and to say that your publishers will be paid its price. Of all men, surely Christian Preachers ought to be the most charitable and courteous to each other. On this topic, however, nothing more. Seeing, or supposing that I have seen, an invitation to laymen who have read scripture, to communicate the result of their researches to the Editor of the "Messenger," and thinking myself within that description, I am emboldened to make an inquiry which may lead to further communications on the subject so every way interesting as the soul of man. I pray you, sir, what is it? It seems to be a reasonable question, and should be answered distinctly, before there is much more disputation about it. Is it the eonic or demon soul of the ancient Bramins? Or if not, what then? For I do confess that the scriptures have not taught me-at least, I could not learn from them what it is. While to me it is an object of great solicitude. If it is the mere human intellect, the organ of man's moral powers only, then I shall own that I have an idea of it, and a reference to the brain may serve for illustration. I languish for information, and have reason to believe there are others as ignorant as myself-though they may have less desire for knowledge. If you answer this application, please let it appear as the text of your commentary. I am, very respectfully, Your humble servant, Frankfort, Sept. 16, 1835. REMARKS. H. MARSHALL. What is the soul? This question may either mean-In what sense is the term soul used in the scripture, and by Christians generally? What do they understand and signify by it? Or else Mr. Marshall may mean to ask, What is the essence of the soul! Is it spiritual or material, or in other words, is there any soul at all! We will try to answer both questions. The scriptures do not, any where, so far as I know, undertake to define the term soul. They use the word in the popular sense, with the meaning given it by all nations and in every language. In no language which I have heard of, is a term wanting to express this idea. The scriptures do not reveal to us that we have a soul-they take it for granted Common sense reveals that to us. I do not mean that common sense reveals to us what its nature or essence is, but common sense teaches us that there is something in man which thinks and feels, chooses, acts, loves, hates, hopes, fears, suffers, rejoices. This constitutes his personality—this makes his identity-this is his I. We take it to be an undeniable fact that men have universally agreed that there is a principle within us answering to this description. I say universally—perhaps I should qualify my remark, by excepting a few philosophers and metaphysicians. Just so there have been a few metaphysi cians who have denied the existence of their bodies, and of any outward world. These exceptions prove the rule. The Bible, then, takes its stand on human nature-on common sense-on the universal reason of man, when it uses the term soul, and the idea it designates. It assumes a fact which the intellect of the race had already established—that there is something in man, which, for want of a better word, we may call his soul. But now, if you ask what this soul is; meaning, what is its nature, what its essence; we must at once admit our ignorance. I neither know its essence, nor that of any thing else. I only know its qualities. Within me, I perceive the phenomena of thought and emotion; I refer them necessarily and inevitably to a subject to something which thinks and feels. Without I perceive the phenomena of color, hardness, extension, form; I refer them necessarily and inevitably to a subject, to something which is hard, solid, colored. These phenomena are broadly distinguished from each other, by the manner in which they are perceived. The former are perceived by the senses-the latter by consciousness. The subject of the former I call body, of the latter soul. But And I consider therefore that it is just as certain that we have a soul, as that we have a body. What we know of either are only qualities, not the essence. we are as certain that we think and love, as we are that we see and hear. by an original law of the mind which acts inevitably and universally, we conclude on perceiving color, that there is something colored, on perceiving thought, that there is something which thinks. In our seventh number we have an article to which we would direct the attention of readers who wish for further light on this topic. This article is headed "Souls and Bodies," and numbered XVI. on the cover. man. ART. VI.-CHANNING ON SLAVERY. We heard of this book from all quarters before we saw it. First we heard that an edition of three thousand copies had been sold immediately. Then we saw some remarks of Mr. Leigh in the United States Senate, in which he expressed his surprise, that the amiable and eloquent author should have written a work which appeared to him to contain abolition doctrines. Directly after, we saw the book violently attacked, and its author shamefully abused in the Boston StatesAbuse from that quarter, however, has by thoughtful men been considered as praise. Then we saw it spoken of with unqualified approbation by the Boston Register, and Recorder. The first being an Unitarian paper, might be expected to praise whatever came from Dr. Channing-but the other being the Calvinistic print, was an unimpeachable witness. The editor of this last speaks of the book as a neutral ground, a point of union for these who were opposed to slavery, and also opposed to Abolitionism, agitation, and immediate Emancipation. It seems to lay aside all party feelings, and speaks of the book and its author with a generous and noble spirit of respect and sympathy. After this, we met with a Reply to the work, written, it was said, by the chief prosecuting officer of the State of Massachusetts. The substance of this reply seemed to be "Dr. Channing is a divine-therefore, a mere theorist-therefore, he had no business to write on this subject. I am a practical man-I judge of things by my five senses. In theory, slavery is no doubt bad-bnt in practice it is very good. No doubt it is all wrong-who denies it? But then it gives us sugar and cotton. It came to us from the Past, let us send it on to the Future. Let us leave it to our children to attend to-if there is danger and evil in it—let it fall on their heads. Let Dr. Channing keep to his preaching, and not meddle with these matters." Such censure as this must, no doubt, have been highly gratifying to Dr. Channing. We once heard a very wise man say, "I never read a book till I have seen it commended by a sensible person, or censured by a fool." Of course, we felt a strong desire to get at the work itself And now, having read it, we pronounce it in our judgment, the best production of its author. In thought, unanswerable-in expression, clear, concise, and strong-in spirit, not merely religious, but Christian. Springing from the deepest fountain of duty, it flows out in the purest current of love. Though deep, yet clear; though gentle, yet not dull; How many there may be in Massachusetts that would object to such a publication, we know not-but this we know, that in KENTUCKY their number is very small. We are not afraid to discuss this or any other subject; we are not in the habit of using a gag-law; if a man has any thing to say, let him be independent, and say it. We may not agree with him, but we will not shut up his mouth. The people of Kentucky have never been afraid of discussing this subject, or having it discussed before them. We have heard lectures, we have participated in debates, in which every thing was said that could have been spoken in a free State. The excitements which raged through the land during the last summer-the threatened insurrections in the South, may have made it necessary to restrict this liberty in some places. But there was no part of the Union so free from that agitation, so calm, so self-possessed, as Kentucky. Dr. Channing, therefore is in great error with respect to one slave-holding State, at least, when he says, (p. 105,) "In the slave-holding States, freedom of speech is at an end. Whoever should express among them the sentiments respecting slavery which are universally adopted through the civilized world, would put his life in jeopardy, would probably be flogged or hung." We nowise feel either our back or neck to be jeopardized by writing and printing this article. And we think we may assure Dr. Channing, that when, by the influence of the "Statesman newspaper"-the author of "Remarks on Channing's Slavery,', and other such worthy men, it becomes dangerous for him to speak his mind in Boston, he may come to Kentucky, and say what he will—so he keep to his present courteous and gentle manner of expressing himself. To give an idea of the book and its design, we will extract nearly the whole of its introduction: "The first question to be proposed by a rational being is, not what is profitable, but what is Right. Duty must be primary, prominent, most conspicuous, among the objects of hu |