is, that piety to God is the foundation of all virtue, and that virtue is inseparable from it; but that piety without the practice of virtue is itself a crime and the aggravation of all iniquity. All the virtues which are here recognized by the heathen, are inculcated not only with more authority but with more energy of argument and more eloquent persuasion in the Bible than in all the writings of the ancient moralists. In one of the apochryphal books, (Wisdom of Solomon,) the cardinal virtues are expressly named:. "If any man love righteousness, her labors are virtue, for she teacheth temperance and prudence and justice and fortitude;" which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in this life. The book of Job, whether considered as history or an allegorical parable, was written to teach the lessons of patience in afflictions, of resignation under divine chastisement, of undoubted confidence in the justice and goodness of God under every temptation or provocation to depart from it. The morality of the apochryphal books is generally the same as that of the inspired writers, except that in some of them there is more stress laid upon the minor objects of the law, and merely formal ordinances of police, and less continual recurrence to "the weightier matters." The book of Ecclesiasticus, however, contains more wisdom than all the sayings of the seven Grecian sages. It was upon this foundation that the more perfect system of Christian morality was to be raised. But I must defer its consideration to my next letter. In the mean time, as I have urged that the scriptural idea of God is the foundation of all perfect virtue, and that it is totally different from the idea of God conceived by any ancient nation, I should recommend it to you in perusing the scriptures hereafter to meditate often upon the expressions by which they mark the character of the Deity, and to reflect upon the duties to him and to your fellow-mortals, which follow by inevitable deductions from them. That you may have an exact idea of the opinions of ancient heathen philosophers concerning God, or rather the gods, study Cicero's dialogues, and read the Abbe Olivet's remarks on the Theology of the Grecian philosophers, annexed to his translations.

From your affectionate Father,

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

ZEA L.

SUGAR CREEK FALLS,

Tuscarawas county, Ohio, July, 1848:

My beloved Brother-PERMIT me to admonish the brotherhood to a greater energy and zeal in the cause which we have espoused, by converting into an essay an extract from one of the works of an eminent servant of the Lord:

"We pre-eminently need an increase of energy and zeal. He must be ignorant, indeed, who does not know that rashness often passes

for zeal, and that the path of wisdom lies between a blind impetuosity on the one hand, and a cold calculating policy on the other. But blind must he be also not to perceive that much in the Christian church, at present, which assumes the name of prudence, is timidity and unbelief in disguise.

In reference to its financial affairs, for instance, were all the maxims of worldly caution to be adduced in connexion with all the promises of God addressed to a generous, enterprising, and openhanded faith, how much easier it would be to harmonize them with those maxims than with these promises! The spirit of commercial enterprize, the ardor of scientific pursuit, or the heroism of adventurous research, takes men annually by hundreds into the regions of pestilence, or storm, or eternal ice; but no sooner does a Christian minister leave home for a foreign field of labor, than, as if a miracle of self-sacrifice had taken place, a claim is set up in his behalf for the universal sympathy of the church. Judging from the history of the church, we have every thing to hope from bold measures; but judging from our own conduct, we have every thing to fear from them. "Prove me now," saith God, "whether I will not open the windows of heaven to bless you;" but who thinks of accepting the gracious challenge? Does not our conduct, in effect, reproach the first missionaries, and charge the confessors and reformers of later days with guilty rashness? If we are only prudent, what were they? And yet we profess to admire their deeds; boast of being their spiritual descendants; and acknowledge that we owe every thing, under God, to their boldness, fidelity, and zeal. Does not the conduct of the great majority of Christians at home reproach even the laborers who are at present in the missionary field? For if those are right, must not these be wrong? If the reasons which those assign in justification of their course are to be held as decisive, then have these laid themselves open to the charge of rash and incon-' siderate zeal. And yet who does not feel that theirs is the zeal we want? The zeal of a Paul and the first disciples; of a Luther and the early reformers; of an Elias and our first missionaries; a zeal which would startle the church, and even be stigmatized by thousands of its members-for what zeal has not been?-zeal that would be content to be appreciated by the Christians of another generation. The zeal wanted is that which, while it invites prudence to be of its council, would not allow her to reign; and which, while it would economize its means and provide for real evils, would gather incitement to increased activity from the obstacles lying in its way-the zeal of our momentary but strongest impulses, made perpetual.

The energy we want is that which springs from sympathy with the grandeur of our theme, the dignity of our office, and the magnificence of the missionary enterprize. Oh! where is the spiritual perception that looks forth on the world as the great scene of a moral conflict, and beholds it under the stirring aspect which it presents to the beings of other worlds? Where are the kindled eye and the beaming countenance, and the heart bursting with the momentous import of the gospel message? Where the fearlessness and confidence whose very tones inspire conviction and carry with them all the force of certainty and the weight of an oath? Where the zeal which burns with its subject as if it had just come from witnessing the crucifixion, and feels its theme with all the freshness and force of a new revelation?--the zeal which during its intervals of labor repairs to the mount of vision to see the funeral procession of six hundred millions of souls?—to the mouth of perdition to hear voices of all these saying as the voice of one man, "Send to our brethren, lest they also come into this place of torment?"-to Calvary to renew its vigor by touching the cross? Enthusiasm is sobriety here. In this cause the zeal of Christ consumed him; his holiest ministers have become flames of fire; and, as if all created ardor were insufficient, here infinite zeal finds scope to burn; "for the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform it."

That the Lord may impart to us all a "zeal according to knowledge," is the humble prayer of

Your brother in the Lord,

CHAS. D. HURLBUTT.

MORAL SOCIETIES-No. V.

"MORAL SOCIETIES"—NO. III.

BROTHER CAMPBELL:

Dear Sir-IN this discussion I enter no plea for Free Masonry or Odd Fellowship. My business is with your argument against the Sons of Temperance. These three orders stand upon different platforms, and neither is to be condemned because the other contains a principle, or maintains a practice we cannot approve. Odd Fellowship must not bear the sins of the Sons of Temperance, nor Masonry the sins of either, nor the Sons of Temperance those of the other two. Do not understand me to say, however, that Odd Fellowship or Masonry cannot be defended. I leave the utility and excellence of these to be shown by their own peculiar advocates. I would prefer the whole argument to be aimed at the Sons of Temperance. This in fact you have done; for although you occasionally make a

dash at them combined, yet the force of your essays is directed against the Sons. One other suggestion, which is this: You can make no objection to the institution of the Sons of Temperance, as such. The git of your opposition is against Christians becoming members of the order. If none but men of the world were to constitute its membership, your opposition would cease. The order would obtain your plaudits and those of every philanthropist. Your blessings would be pronounced upon it; and its success in reforming the inebriate, and in its slow, but certain and unquestioned advances upon one of the works of the mighty enemy of our race, would be hailed by you and by all Christians as in no slight degree auxiliary to the church in its more grand and comprehensive scheme of reformation. Such a work done by men of the world, by those outside the pale of the church, would be wonderful! Such a work, the church maintaining her present position, which is not even neutral, but active, because she gives the influence of her example in favor of the use as a beverage of "strong drink," would put the church to shame, and compel her members to wield their influence against alcohol in all its forms, and would be more to be admired than any moral phenomenon the world has witnessed in the last century! Such a work by such means could not be! It were impossible. Nothing short of the power of the religion of the Redeemer of men, which is "pure and undefiled, and is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction," could originate and sustain such a work. I shall, there. fore, consider your argument as against Christians becoming Sons of Temperance, and not against the institution as such.

Whatever may be "alleged" by Sons of Temperance, who are not Christians, as to the order of the Sons of Temperance being a “substitute for the Christian church in works of humanity and mercy," it may be safely said that no Christian will make such allegation. Then, in so far as you argue against this idea, you make battle with a man of straw, and I leave him to perish in your hands. But those Sons who are Christians, say you, "propose themselves as auxiliaries to the church." Let us understand each other here. Do you mean to intimate the idea, that in works of "humanity and mercy" the church can have no auxiliaries; and that in other works it can? That every act done by every member of the church, in the field of philanthropy and benevolence, which is as broad as earth and as comprehensive as humanity, must be done by that member through the church as an organized body? and that although he is thus restricted as it regards "humanity and mercy," there are, in other works; such, for example, as a diffusion of knowledge, or a spread of the scriptures, or in all "good works" except works of "mercy,” auxiliaries to the church by which he may act? Or am I in truth to understand you to mean what you say "that a person must become in fact, if not in theory, an infidel before he can entertain for a moment the opinion that the Christian church needs any auxiliary in any one of the objects or purposes for which she was instituted by her Founder"? A careful examination of your argument has induced me to believe that when you use the term "auxiliary" you attach to it the idea of a "substitute." In this view, then, the man of straw again appears, and is, of course, easily slain. For we

agree, that whatever presents itself in the form of "a substitute for the church," must be repudiated by the church; and the man, indeed, "becomes an infidel” who can take any institution as a "substitute for the church." But if you do not use the word in this sense, and mean, really, that in works of "humanity and mercy" the church has a complete monopoly and admits of no auxiliary, whilst in other "good works" she does not monopolize the entire field and recognizes other things as helpers and assistants, and give to it its ordinary acceptation, I cannot agree with you. An issue is at once formed between us.

I controvert the proposition that in some "good works” the church has a monopoly, and in others has not, and I state that if she has it in works of "humanity and mercy," she has it in all "good actions." The evidence which proves her to have it in one, proves her to have it in all. The "disciples are the light of the world," "the salt of the earth;" and they are "to let their light shine, that men seeing their good actions may glorify their Father in heaven," &c. If these proofs sustain the proposition, and you offer them for that purpose, that works of "humanity and mercy are assigned to the church by her Founder as one great end of her existence in the world," they establish also the truths that a spread of the scriptures, a diffusion of knowledge and science, and every "good word and work," are also assigned to her. It were strange, indeed, if it were not so. Why should the Founder of the church assign to her certain good works to be done by her, and compel her to reject all auxiliaries in their performance, and assign to her certain other good works, in the performance of which she might avail herself of every auxiliary, of every aid? It cannot be. No testimony can be adduced to show it. But, perhaps, you do not design to occupy this ground. Yet do you not? I think you do, though indirectly. I am sure that in "good actions" other than those of "humanity and mercy," you have proved to the world that the church has her auxiliaries, and you have not as a Christian hesitated to use them. But of this more hereafter. The proposition, whether it is yours or not, cannot be maintained. I understand the true ground to be, that all “good actions” are assigned to the church, and that her members, as they "have OPPORTUNITY, must do good unto all;" and that in carrying out the philanthropy of the scheme of man's redemption, they may, without detracting from the church, and by assigning to her great Founder all the honor and glory, take advantage of auxiliaries and aids outside of the church, to enable them to discharge their duty in these respects. I reject the idea of a "substitute for the church;" but in the discharge of my duty as a Christian, it is not "antichurch, and promasonry, protemperance, or proanything, rather than prochurch." for me to "do good unto all" as I "have opportunity," even by the aid of an organized body, based upon the "noble" pledge as the centre of attraction, that "no brother shall make, buy, sell, or use as a beverage, any spiritous or malt liquors, wine or cider." As a Christian, I can deem and so use such an organization as "auxiliary" to the church; although a Son of Temperance not a Christian, might say or not, that the order of the Sons of Temperanae was or was not an "auxiliary to the church." The inquiry is not what they