perhaps, that some act or institution, which they once thought obligatory, is not enjoined by Scripture, or that catechisms, and books of discipline, and public customs are of no binding obligation at all upon the conscience, and they are ready to conclude that what has no express warrant from these sources, is no law. They do not perceive, for instance, that domestic or daily worship, or that the special consecration of the Sabbath, is required in the New Testament, and they hold themselves absolved from all obligation to hallow such times and seasons. But what is the reason that lies at the foundation of every positive institution? It is utility, and utility alone. If, then, any observance is useful, if it promotes our virtue and piety, and is necessary to our improvement, it bears, in this very character, the impress of law. God wills that we should be devout and pure, that we should grow in grace and virtue; and that which we are convinced is necessary to these ends, is as much, and as manifestly, his will to us, as if it had been divinely written on tables of stone, or miraculously uttered amidst the thunders of Sinai. The beneficent universe around us echoes, with all its voices, and confirms by all its spiritual ministrations, the great law, that whatever is good for us, is right, that improvement, -improvement by all possible means put into our hands, is our bounden duty.

Now there are freedoms taken, even by sober and conscientious men, with some religious institutions which we can explain into nothing else, but a neglect of this weighty and binding consideration. We know those who do not hesitate to travel on the Sabbath, as often as it suits their convenience, and who, we are certain, would not do this if they were convinced it was wrong. We pray leave to ask such persons one single question. We ask them if they think that the Sabbath is a useful institution, and we would confine attention to that point. Is it useful to themselves? Is it useful to the community? Is it so useful that its neglect or its abolition would be an evil greatly to be deprecated? We may be mistaken, but we do not believe that any man of sense or virtue would deny us either of these positions. Can they be denied? Will any one stake the credit of his common sense and reflection upon a denial of them?

-

What then is the aspect of this practice, in which so many

indulge themselves? It is plainly this. So often as they causelessly and recklessly ride forth, or sail forth, on the Sabbath, to begin, to continue, or to end a journey, they do just as much as they can to destroy a confessedly useful, an invaluable institution. Their example but requires a general imitation, and the work of its destruction is done, - is more effectually done than it was in France by law, - and as truly done by them, as if they had held up their hands in the profane assembly of the French atheists. Example speaks louder than words, or votes. The imitation, indeed, may not follow soon; it may never follow; the Institution may stand. But it will not be upholden by their aid; it will stand in spite of them. And if they are responsible at all, they are just as responsible in the court of conscience, as if the tremendous consequences should follow. If the institution ever falls in this country, the first and fatal blow will be given by the example of respectable and influential men.

Now we will not be told by such persons as we are arguing with, that this is a matter with which conscience has nothing to do. They know very well that conscience is not tied down to the letter of a text. Let the text be as it may, or let their thoughts of it be what they may, here is the broad fact before them, that the cultivation of piety, and the welfare of society and of their country, are concerned in the support or prostration of the Sabbath; and this fact as distinctly announces to them the command of God, as if it were visibly inscribed on the very path in which they journey, or imprinted upon the very waters on which they sail.

We wish to speak temperately; we wish to speak wisely; we would urge nothing beyond the point, to which the sober judgment of every man will go with us. But really, this is a case where every thoughtful man must make an election. If he maintains that the Sabbath is not useful, and that its abolition is desirable, we have at present not another word to say. But if he does not admit this, as we are almost sure he cannot, if he believes that it is useful, then he cannot be justified to his conscience, in the neglect or abuse of it. We say again, it is a matter of conscience. If he believes, he must obey. And if he violates the dictates of that belief, we keep to this point, we are not reasoning with a man who denies the utility of the institution,-if he

believes it is useful, and violates the dictates of that belief, we see not how he can answer it, either to his conscience, or to his country, or to his God.

We have now touched upon the additional matters that seemed to us to require further notice; but we cannot leave the subject, without saying a word or two more, upon the main point discussed in this article, that is, attention to religion. We are persuaded, that the great defect in the religious experience of thousands around us, lies here, and nowhere but here.

At the risk of tediousness in repetition, we will bring forward again, a comparison which we have, in another view, before referred to. Let us suppose that there are two persons equally susceptible of impression from the works of art. The one, let us suppose, remains at home, engaged in the ordinary pursuits of life; the other is placed in Rome, for the cultivation of those powers which both possess alike. The first will feel an occasional admiration for the works of genius, as they are thrown in his way, and that is all. He is very much such a man in relation to the arts, as thousands are in relation to religion. He feels an occasional emotion, an evanescent admiration, but no actuating and governing principle. The other in process of time comes to feel a love of the arts as the grand passion of his being. It influences him in his plans, and actions, and whole life. It thrills through his whole heart, at every contemplation of his favorite pursuits. He converses in private, or he discourses in public, upon models of beauty and grandeur, with familiarity, with delight, with enthusiasm, and often with overpowering emotion. Now, what is it, we ask, that has made the difference between these two persons? And we answer, it is attention, and nothing else but attention.

And attention it is, we say, and nothing else but attention, that will make upon the mind that vivid impression of religion which thousands profess to desire. It is one of the most fixed and familiar laws in mental philosophy, that impression on every subject, other things being equal, depends on the attention given to it. But in religion, men have striven to find out some other and easier way. Frames, experiences, influences, conversions, excitements, hopes, have they looked to any thing but attention. This is a process for obtaining religion, too slow, too painful, too thorough. It

has nothing in it, to flatter pride, or to indulge indolence, or to favor the almost incorrigible reluctance of the human heart to work out its own salvation. But nothing short of this will suffice. For a fervent and happy experience of religion, attention is the least price that man can pay, or ought to pay. Let him who will not give this, be assured, that no costly offerings, nor prayers substituted for effort,no, nor repentant tears, can purchase the unspeakable boon. And the attention, too, must be intellectual, active, and faithful. It is not enough negligently to go to church, and passively to listen, either to moving or to dull discourses. It is not enough to wait upon ordinances as mere prescribed forms, as services that must be discharged to satisfy the conscience. There may be a world of formality, and very little fixed and earnest attention. The very modes of attention may be an escape from the act. There must be the act, strong, resolved, patient, persevering; and then, with God's blessing, there will be success. Then will religion be reality, beyond all other realities; and power, beyond all other powers; and joy, beyond all other joys.

We know not who will give this; but we know that they who will not give it, should not complain of their ill success. They should not tell us of their dulness, of their want of feeling and of comfort. They should not tell us, with a tone as if they distrusted the power and truth of religion, that they cannot make it a reality to themselves; that they cannot find its inexhaustible fountains of refreshment and healing and consolation; that they cannot feel its transcendent might, its transporting loveliness, and its blessed victory. They should not tell us this, nor utter a word of complaint; for the way is open, the path is plain, and the end is certain.

We will only say in closing, that we feel greatly obliged to the Compiler of the little volume which we have named at the head of this article. Such books, and many more of the same practical and devotional character, are needed, and greatly needed among us. We seize the present occasion, also, to offer our hearty commendation of the first volume of this new series of "The Christian Monitor," a commendation which we more fully expressed in preparing our last article on religious institutions, but which, with other matter, we found ourselves obliged to exclude, as that Number was drawing to a close, from the want of space.

VOL. XIV.

N. S. VOL. IX. NO. II.

20

ART. II. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D., including a Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides; by JAMES BOSWELL, Esq. A new Edition, with numerous Additions and Notes, by J. W. CROKER, LL. D., F. R. S. Boston, [Stereotype Edition,] 1832. [New Impression, New York, George Dearborn, 1833.] 2 vols. 8vo.

WHILE the new Boswell was passing through the press, it was current in conversation, that the errors which "The Edinburgh Review" had so minutely traced out, would be investigated and corrected on this side the water. But, with a trifling exception or two, we see nothing of the kind done. And whatever may be thought of the temper of that article (which is altogether an irrelevant point), their corrections of errors, mainly chronological, are, it is vain to deny it, for the most part just. For instance, the dates pertaining to Sir William Forbes, Allan Ramsay (the painter), Lord Mansfield, and Mr. Derrick ("Master of Ceremonies" at Bath), the three several and contradictory assertions or implications in regard to Mrs. Piozzi's birth and age, the inaccuracy as to Goldsmith's "Traveller," for it is not worth while to name any more, remain untouched as they stand in the London edition.

-

There are also liberties taken by Mr. Croker in his work, on the propriety of which, we cannot hesitate to say, it would not have been at all out of place for an intelligent editor here, to have sat in judgment again. We have now in mind some to which the Scotch critic, finding so much else to do in the work of animadversion, has not referred. Mr. Croker, as an attentive examination will show, has discarded from the margin, in a few instances, not only notes of his predecessor Malone, but what is hardly more devoid of apology, of Mr. Boswell himself. Perhaps some one may surmise, they were not of the highest importance. But any person having a due sense of typographical integrity well knows, that the culpability is affected scarcely at all by this circumstance. It may on the other hand be urged, that they were generally so brief, that, take them all together, not a page, perhaps, has been saved by their rejection; several of them being of that useful class of memoranda as to individuals introduced into the text, which it is so pleasant to recur to