no permanent vitality, and, so long as moral fidelity shall be essential to its success, never can have, until an effectual medicine shall be found for the diseased hearts of the people; and this medicine can only be found in that gospel which substitutes for the moral impotence of the 7th of Romans, salvation from all sin, now and forever.

The same deficiency of moral basis is observable in the working of all those reforms which, like Temperance, have for their object the abolition of personal vices. The abandonment of false dietetic habits, lasciviousness, and all other forms of sensuality, requires an energy of will which the mass of the people have not, and never will have, under the 7th-of-Romans administration. Moral reformers and physiologists may run to and fro, and knowledge of the natural laws' may be increased ad infinitum, and still there will be no radical and lasting reform-nothing but the fitful and backsliding righteousness of the revival system, till men get power to will healthily as well as to see clearly. That power belongs only to a sound heart; and soundness of heart comes only by that grace which saves from all sin.

So the social reforms, of which abolitionism is the most prominent representative, sadly need soundness of heart to work with, and to work upon. We fully believe that the mass of the people in this country are convinced that American slavery is a sin against God and man. 'But (says a churchtrained conscience) what then? Sin is not a very dreadful affair. Every body sins. The church and clergy sin. The best of men sin in thought, word and deed, continually. Is sin to be turned out of the world? Certainly not till it is turned out of the pulpit, the church, and other respectable places. It is as much the privilege of nations to sin, as of individuals—and more, if any thing.' What does it avail to expound the wrongfulness of slavery to consciences that think in this way, and to wills that are paralized by such thinking? Let it be understood that sin is to be actually turned out of the world, and let abolitionists begin the business in themselves and work at it till they have established in the heart of the nation a new moral standard, by which all sin shall be branded with infamy and set apart for the curse of heaven, and slavery will soon be at the mercy of their arrows, stripped of its harness.

The false religions of the country frustrate abolitionism not only by filling the spiritual atmosphere with the smoke of the 7th chapter of Romans, but by direct opposition. The abolitionists say themselves that the churches are the chief bulwarks of slavery-the strongest barrier which their cause has to encounter. To them therefore the most vital question is, How are the churches to be overthrown? We answer confidently,-not by mere direct competition or assault, but by bringing forth the true religion against them. The religious department of human nature is the very sanctuary of strength.' The instincts of men demand a religion with more energy than they demand any thing else. Mere moral and benevolent enterprises can never satisfy this demand; and therefore they can never compete successfully with the religious systems which have possession of the market. When abolitionists make a direct issue with the churches, and the abstract question whether philanthropy or religion should have the precedence, is presented to the people, the

churches have the advantage, because all true instinct decides that they are in the right. Religion is rightfully the centre, and not the satellite of philanthropy. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' Love is the child of faith. Veneration is in truth, as it is in the brain, higher than benevolence. So the mere pulling-down system will never avail against the churches. Men will instinctively, and we might say reasonably, cling to a very corrupt religion, rather than have no religion at all. The true policy then, as well as the duty of abolitionists, is to arm themselves for conflict with the churches, by receiving true religion to their hearts and giving it the avowed ascendancy over all their movements. Then the issue will be, not between false religion and a secondary enterprise of benevolence or no religion at all, but between false religion and true religion. Let the gospel of holiness, with all its Bible-armor, be brought into the field to lead the van of the anti-slavery host, and their lingering contest with the churches will soon be decided.

It is possible that slavery will soon be overthown in this country,-but not by moral influences. Political jealousy is eyeing it fiercely, and meditating its destruction. If it perishes by the stroke of political and physical power, what real gain, we may ask, will accrue to philanthropy? We will say nothing about the possible convulsions and horrors of the catastrophe; but if slavery's fountain, the selfish heart, is not changed, not a tittle of the inner store of human cruelty will be annihilated. Oppression in some other form, equivalent to slavery, will take its place. So long as the issues of the world's heart are murder, theft, covetousness,' the strong will surely enslave the weak, in fact, if not in form. Can true philanthropists content themselves with labors which only shift the mode, but touch not the vitality of social evil? If abolitionists desire the actual and permanent triumph of their principle, they must, first of all, set the battle in array against the devil's slavery;'EMANCIPATION FROM ALL SIN' must be their watchword. Evil will never begin to die at the root, until it is exposed to the heart-purging power of the gospel of holiness. Then, and not till then, that true reform which has no draw-back will be begun.

Association puts forward the most confident and plausible pretension to the honor of being the all-comprehensive, and therefore primary reform. But it confesses that good men are essential as its antecedents; and this amounts to a confession that the reform which makes good men must go before it. It is related that a vagrant once called at a house by the wayside, and told the people that he was not a beggar, but he merely wanted the loan of a kettle to make some 'stone soup' for his dinner. They granted his request, and the more readily, because they were curious to learn the method of making a soup that cost nothing. He gathered a few stones, and putting water to them, hung them over the fire. As the people watched the boiling of the pot, he observed in a careless way that a little salt, if it was at hand, would improve the soup somewhat. Accordingly they put in some salt. After a while, he suggested that a handful or two of flour would not be amiss. So a good thickening of flour was added. Finally, he said if they had any spare meat-bones about, it would be well enough to put them in; not that they were necessary at all, but they would improve the flavor. The people, wish

ing to give the experiment every advantage, put in a number of rich bones; and when at last they were allowed to taste of the stone soup,' to their astonishment they found it excellent! We think of this story when we hear Associationists vaunting the all-redeeming power of their system, and yet asking for good men to begin with. If they can find means to put the salt of brotherly love, the flour of industrious and enterprising habits, and the meatbones of wealth and good morals into their pot, we have no doubt that their 'stone soup' will be very good.

It is too evident to need demonstration that religious unity must be the basis of all other valuable and permanent unities. Fourierists talk much about the necessity of 'congeniality' in those who attempt Association. But what congeniality can there be without unity of religious faith? Is not religion pre-eminently an affair of the heart?" When two young persons of different and hostile religious sentiments associate for matrimonial life, do not all sagacious friends fear that their congeniality will prove to be only skin deep? Experience has already proved that all the advantages and attrac tions of Association are not able to draw its votaries out of their respective religious orbits, or to prevent the collisions incident to a system which brings independent spheres so near that their orbits constantly cross each other. If Fourier expected to introduce harmony into human society without first establishing religious unity, we are bold to say that he was a superficial philosopher, ignorant of human nature, and of the true doctrine of unity.

Association can escape the evils resulting from religious differences, only in one of two ways. It must either select for its experiments none but those who have no heart-religion, and care nothing about it, or it must address itself to the task of developing a religion which shall prove itself strong enough to supersede all others and reconcile all honest hearts. The former of these ways is the shortest and easiest, and seems to suit the hasty genius of the Fourier enthusiasm best. But we are sure that the latter will be found the safest and most economical in the long run. We regard the establishment of religious unity as entirely feasible. Let the gospel of holiness do its work in the heart, and sin, the radical cause of all religious differences, will be taken away. Let men truly join themselves to the Lord, and they will have one spirit; and unity of spirit will lead to unity of faith.

We are confident that reformers generally feel the want of what the Fourierists call organization of industry'-we mean the organization of the different branches of reform. If unity of purpose and harmonious distribution into series and groups is desirable in physical labor, how much more is it to be desired in the higher moral movements which are in progress. But unity implies a central and presiding power. Accordingly, the classes that are interested in the various reforms have long been instinctively groping about for some generic principle back of them all, and combining the strength of all. One cause after another has been proclaimed by its more ardent advocates the rightful centre of unity. But the world of reform is yet a' chaos without form and void.' The king-bee has not been found, and the swarm is flying to and fro without concert or aim. The considerations which have been presented in the preceding survey of the reform field, embolden us to nomi

nate the gospel of salvation from sin as a candidate for the primacy. That gospel and the reform-spirit were born and bred side by side. Were they not made for each other? Was not the match between the religion of the one and the morality of the other made in heaven? We believe assuredly that the stone which the builders have rejected, will yet be the head of the corner.'

§ 67. LEADINGS OF THE SPIRIT.

WE have not a doubt that believers are now, as they were in the times of the primitive church, directed more or less by the Spirit, in respect to their outward movements. And by this we mean, not merely that their judgments are guided, or that they are assisted in choosing their course by the openings of Providence, but that that they are inclined to go this way or that, or to do such and such things, by a spiritual force which operates like instinct.It will be sufficiently evident from the tenor of the doctrines of this book, that we are not despisers of such leadings. Yet we are obliged to confess that we have seen many and monstrous abuses growing out of the practice of thinking and talking much about instinctive impulses; and we propose in the present article to bring to light some of those abuses, and to suggest some cautions on this subject to those who need them.

1. The mere fact that we are under the sensible influence of some spirit, and that we are directed in a supernatural manner to go or to do thus and so, is not to be taken for evidence that we are under the influence of the Spirit of God. Other spirits can operate on our instincts as well as the good spirit. It is known to all who have witnessed the phenomena of Mesmerism, that a mere human spirit can entirely control an impressible person, leading him about by blind impulse, causing him to think, desire, and will, at the pleasure of the magnetizer. It is not to be doubted, therefore, that the gods many and lords many' of the invisible world, have the power of leading human wills. We gather from the narrative in Luke 22: 3, that Judas was led by an instinctive impulse from the devil to go to the chief priests and betray Christ. Indeed it is expressly said in 2 Tim. 2: 26, that they who are in the devil's snare, are taken captive by him at his will. Many of the vilest impostors we have ever met with, were most abundant in their professions of being led by the Spirit, and doubtless actually were led in a very wonderful manner by a spirit, though not by the Spirit of which they professed to be the subjects. So also many well-meaning persons have affirmed that they were led by the Spirit of God to perform unreasonable, scandalous and pernicious acts; and we see no reason to deny their sincerity in this affirmation, or the reality of the impulses under which they acted; but we do not therefore admit or believe that the spirit which led them was really the Spirit of God. Every one who has had much spiritual experience,

must have met with instances of contradictory leadings-cases in which, either the same person was led to do certain things and then to undo them, or different persons were led in opposite and irreconcilable courses. It is impossible, on any rational grounds, to ascribe such clashing directions to the operation of one spirit. God certainly does not contradict himself. It is manifest therefore, that in such instances there is an evil spirit leading, on one side or the other. The sensation or experience of the subject in all cases of spiritual leading is probably the same, and accordingly is spoken of in the same terms by all. If a man says, "The Lord told me to do thus and so,' we need not doubt his sincerity, or the reality of his spiritual impressions in the case, but we may reasonably doubt till we have other proof than his assertion, whether it was the Lord who produced those impressions, or some other spirit; for it is certain that there are as many kinds of leading powers that put Thus saith the Lord' into the mouths of their agents, as there are independent and hostile spiritualists in the world. It is plain, therefore, that a man ought not to lay to heart the flattering unction' that he is on good terms with God, merely because he is led by a spirit in a supernatural manner; and also that believers ought not for such a reason only, to place confidence in spiritualists who come among them.

The fact that a man habitually ascribes his actions and teachings to a su pernatural influence, may be taken as some proof that he is a spiritualist, in distinction from a mere carnalist; and so far it is in his favor. But since there are bad as well as good spiritualists, and the bad are quite as forward in proclaiming that 'the Lord told them to do this and that,' as the good, we are bound to require other tests of the presence of God's spirit than the mere affirmation or belief of the individual, or even our own certainty that he is led and taught by some kind of inspiration. Spirits are to be tried and proved as well as other things; and the mere fact that a spirit has the power of leading even with superhuman foresight and accuracy, is not sufficient proof that it is trust-worthy. We must seek the radical distinction between true and false spirits, in their moral characters and not in their physical powers. We need not fear to trust as divine any spirit which evinces to our consciousness or to sufficient observation, that it crucifies self and enthrones Jesus Christ; but without full evidence of this, all manifestations of the leading or wonderworking power are to be counted as nothing.

2. Admitting that a man is really led by the Spirit of God, yet if his leadings are only of the external kind, such as to go or do thus and so, they are no evidence that he is born of God. The prophets under the Jewish dispensation, before regeneration came, were led by the Spirit in a great variety of external ways, and quite as wonderfully as any can pretend to be at the present time. Moreover, many of the most notable examples of spiritual leadings mentioned in the New Testament, such as those of Philip, and Peter, (Acts 8: 26-39, and 11: 12,) occurred during the transition period of regeneration, previous to the actual attainment of the new birth by the primitive church. The various external gifts of the Spirit (leadings among the rest) abounded in that church from the day of Pentecost forward; but the second birth was a later blessing. And we have plain intimations that those