If" that life is long which answers life's great end," few men have lived to a greater age than Jonathan Dymond, though he died at the early age of thirty-two-for few men have done more good.

His "Essays on the Principles of Morality" is undoubtedly the best book upon the subject; and it is worthy of remark that, though learned scholars, profound civilians, celebrated divines, and famous moralists, had all before written upon the same subject, a humble individual of the Society of Friends, bred in no academic halls, should have eclipsed them all. The plain, simple reason is that he takes the Word of God as his infallible standard of rectitude by which to weigh all actions, and that with a clear head and an honest conscience, he follows his principles wherever they lead, knowing that they can never lead wrong. It is amusing as well as instructive to see with what ease he overthrows all the previous standards of rectitude which various men had set up-as utility, expediency, &c. -and establishes the great central truth, that the Will of God is the only infallible standard by which to judge the right or wrong of actions.

LOVE THE TEST OF ONE'S CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Love is made the test of the validity of our claims to the Christian character-"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples." Again-"Love one another. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." It is not, therefore, surprising that, after an enumeration in another place of various duties, the same dignified apostle says, "Above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness." The inculcation of this benevolence is as frequent in the Christian Scriptures as its practical utility is great. He who will look through the volume will find that no topic is so frequently introduced, no

Which I had lately left ;-the grassy mound,

Where Dymond sleeps ;-and felt how small the power
Of time-worn walls to waken thoughts profound,"
Compared with that green spot of sacred ground.
Dymond! death-stricken in thy manhood's flower-
Thy brows with deathless amaranths are crowned:
Thou saw'st the world, from thy sequester'd bower,
In old hereditary errors bound;

And such a truthful trumpet didst thou sound,
As shall ring in man's ears till Time devour
The vestiges of nations;-yet thy name
Finds but the tribute of slow-gathering fame."

obligation so emphatically enforced, no virtue to which the approbation of God is so specially promised. It is the theme of all the "apostolic exhortations, that with which their morality begins and ends, from which all their details and enumerations set out, and into which they return." "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." More emphatical language cannot be employed. It exalts to the utmost the character of the virtue, and, in effect, promises its possessor the utmost favor and felicity. If, then, of faith, hope, and love, love be the greatest-if it be by the test of love that our pretensions to Christianity are to be tried-if all the relative duties of morality are embraced in one word, and that word is love-it is obviously needful that, in a book like this, the requisitions of benevolence should be habitually regarded in the prosecution of its inquiries. And, accordingly, the reader will sometimes be invited to sacrifice inferior considerations to these requisitions, and to give to the law of love that paramount station in which it has been placed by the authority of God.

HUMAN, SUBORDINATE TO DIVINE LAW.

The authority of civil government is a subordinate authority. If from any cause the magistrate enjoins that which is prohibited by the moral law, the duty of obedience is withdrawn. "All human authority ceases at the point where obedience becomes criminal." The reason is simple: that when the magistrate enjoins what is criminal, he has exceeded his power; "the minister of God" has gone beyond his commission. There is, in our day, no such thing as a moral plenipotentiary.

Upon these principles the first teachers of Christianity acted when the rulers "called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus." "Whether," they replied, "it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." They accordingly "entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught;" and when, subsequently, they were again brought before the council and interrogated, they replied, "We ought to obey God rather than men;" and notwithstanding the renewed command of the council, "daily in the temple and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." Nor let any one suppose that there is anything religious in the motives of the apostles which involved a peculiar obligation upon them to refuse obedience; the obligation to conform to religious duty and to moral duty is one.

To disobey the civil magistrate is, however, not a light thing. When the Christian conceives that the requisitions of government and of a higher law are conflicting, it is needful that he exercise a strict scrutiny into the principles of his conduct. But if, upon such scrutiny, the contrariety of requisitions appear real, no room. is left for doubt respecting his duty, or for hesitation in performing it. With the consideration of consequences he has then no concern: whatever they may be, his path is plain before him.

GREAT WEALTH NOT DESIRABLE.

It was an observation of Voltaire's, that the English people were like their butts of beer, froth at top, dregs at bottom, in the middle excellent. The most rational, the wisest, the best portion of mankind belong to that class who possess "neither poverty nor riches." Let the reader look around him. Let him observe who are the persons that contribute most to the moral and physical amelioration of mankind; who they are that practically and personally support our unnumbered institutions of benevolence; who they are that exhibit the worthiest examples of intellectual exertion; who they are to whom he would himself apply if he needed to avail himself of a manly and discriminating judgment. That they are the poor is not to be expected: we appeal to himself whether they are the rich. Who then would make his son a rich man? Who would remove his child out of that station in society which is thus peculiarly favorable to intellectual and moral excellence?

If a man knows that wealth will in all probability be injurious to himself and to his children, injurious too in the most important points, the religious and moral character, it is manifestly a point of the soundest wisdom and the truest kindness to decline to accumulate it. Upon this subject, it is admirable to observe with what exactness the precepts of Christianity are adapted to that conduct which the experience of life recommends. The care of

this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word :”— "Choked with cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection:""How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!"-"They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." Not that riches necessarily lead to these consequences, but that such is their tendency; a tendency so uniform and powerful that

it is to be feared these are their very frequent results. Now this language of the Christian Scriptures does not contain merely statements of fact-it imposes duties; and whatever may be the precise mode of regarding those duties, one point is perfectly clear-that he who sets no other limit to his possessions or accumulations than inability or indisposition to obtain more, does not conform to the will of God. Assuredly, if any specified thing is declared by Christianity to be highly likely to obstruct our advancement in goodness, and to endanger our final felicity, against that thing, whatever it be, it is imperative upon us to guard with wakeful solicitude.

And, therefore, without affirming that no circumstance can justify a great accumulation of property, it may safely be concluded that far the greater number of those who do accumulate it do wrong; nor do I see any reason to be deterred from ranking the distribution of a portion of great wealth, or a refusal to accumulate it, among the imperative duties which are imposed by the moral law. In truth, a man may almost discover whether such conduct is obligatory by referring to the motives which induce him to acquire great property or to retain it. The motives are generally impure; the desire of splendor, or the ambition of eminence, or the love of personal indulgence. Are these motives fit to be brought into competition with the probable welfare, the virtue, the usefulness, and the happiness of his family and himself? Yet such is the competition, and to such unworthy objects, duty, and reason, and affection are sacrificed.

DUELLING.

If two boys who disagreed about a game of marbles or a penny tart should therefore walk out by the river side, quietly take off their clothes, and when they had got into the water, each try to keep the other's head down until one of them was drowned, we should doubtless think that these two boys were mad. If, when the survivor returned to his schoolfellows, they patted him on the shoulder, told him he was a spirited fellow, and that if he had not tried the feat in the water, they would never have played at marbles or any other game with him again, we should doubtless think that these boys were infected with a most revolting and disgusting depravity and ferociousness. We should instantly exert ourselves to correct their principles, and should feel assured that nothing could ever induce us to tolerate, much less to en

courage, such abandoned depravity.

And yet we do both tolerate and encourage such depravity every day. Change the penny tart for some other trifle; instead of boys put men, and instead of a river a pistol, and we encourage it all. We virtually pat the survivor's shoulder, tell him he is a man of honor, and that if he had not shot at his acquaintance we would never have dined with him again. "Revolting and disgusting depravity" are at once excluded from our vocabulary. We substitute such phrases as "the course which a gentleman is obliged to pursue," "it was necessary to his honor," "one could not have associated with him if he had not fought." We are the schoolboys grown up; and by the absurdity, and more than absurdity, of our phrases and actions, shooting or drowning (it matters not which) becomes the practice of the national school.

It is not a trifling question that a man puts to himself when he asks, What is the amount of my contribution to this detestable practice? It is by individual contributions to the public notions respecting it that the practice is kept up. Men do not fire at one another because they are fond of risking their own lives or other men's, but because public notions are such as they are. Nor do I think any deduction can be more manifestly just than that he who contributes to the misdirection of these notions is responsible for a share of the evil and the guilt. When some offence has given probability to a duel, every man acts immorally who evinces any disposition to coolness with either party until he has resolved to fight; and if eventually one of them falls, he is a party to his destruction. Every word of unfriendliness, every look of indifference, is positive guilt; for it is such words and such. looks that drive men to their pistols. It is the same after a victim has fallen. "I pity his family, but they have the consolation of knowing that he vindicated his honor," is equivalent to urging another and another to fight. Every heedless gossip who asks, "Have you heard of this affair of honor?" and every reporter of news who relates it as a proper and necessary procedure, participates in the general crime.

How happy would it be for our country and for the world, how truly glorious for himself, if the king would act towards the duellist as his mother acted towards women who had lost their reputation. She rigidly excluded them from her presence. If the British monarch refused to allow the man who had fought a duel to approach him, it is probable that ere long duelling would be

King George IV.