pursuits of learning and the arts of peace? The Spartan mother sent forth her son to battle, giving him his shield, and saying "Go, my son, return with this, or upon it." The Christian mother should teach her son another lesson: "If thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst, give him drink." This seems to accord with the sentiments of Washington, as appears from the following incident. While on a journey to the frontier settlements of NewYork, soon after the close of the revolutionary war, he stopped for a night in the valley of the Mohawk, at the house of a lady whose husband had fallen in battle. She introduced her two sons to the General, with the remark, “I have devoted these sons to fight the battles of their country." "I hope, madam," replied Washington, "you will train them for a better service; I have seen enough of war."

We intend to make particular allusion to only one of the books whose titles are prefixed to our article, viz., Washington and his Generals, by Headley. Having before, in a review of Napoleon and his Marshals,' expressed pretty freely our opinion of Mr. Headley as a martial biographer, we consider it unnecessary to say much of this work, which is marked by the same characteristics as its predecessor. There are in both the same indications of hasty and careless composition, the same dashing style, the same profusion of jumbled metaphors, crude expressions, and unfinished sentences, the same disregard of sense and syntax, the same mock-heroic sentiments and rash assertions, about the same number of earthquakes and thunderbolts, with a sprinkling of avalanches, and the same signs of the author's fondness for battle scenes, and of his admiration of warriors.

"Washington and his Generals," however, is if possible, more loosely written than the other, while it lacks

its vigor and freshness; and its rapid passage through a number of editions is owing more to its subject and the popularity of its predecessor, than to any merit of the work. Its apparent inferiority in point of composition may arise in part from the fact, that Mr. Headley's peculiar style is not remarkable for those qualities which wear well. The secret of this he has inadvertently revealed in his preface. In alluding to the charge of repetition, he says,

"The intense words of our lan guage are soon exhausted, and one is often compelled, in describing thrilling scenes, to choose between a weak sentence and the repetition of strong words and perhaps simi lar comparisons."

Here lies the capital mistake of this writer. He tries to be intense, but not in the right way. A thrilling scene is to be described: his mind falters between two extremes, and it being absolutely necessary that a thrill should be produced, it decides in favor of the intense words, and now they come down up. on the reader "like an avalanche;" as if beauty, or pathos, or sublimity, in writing, depended upon strong words and startling comparisons, and not upon clear conceptions expressed in natural language, and the indescribable touch of genius given to the whole scene. It is like the mistake of the painter who wishing to produce a striking portrait, makes every feature as prominent as he can, and loses the likeness, which depends not on a Roman nose, nor a Grecian forehead, but upon the expression, which comes from a mysterious combination of all the features, and which the talent of the real artist can alone impart. Mr. Headley's repugnance to weak sentences is probably the reason why we have such strong ones as the following:-"With all his strong passions bursting, and nothing but themselves to burst upon, he became a prey to those self-lashings

which furnish the climax of rage." "The water was charmed into foam by the raining balls." "Those shattered veterans then swung, rent asunder, and rolled heavily to their camp." "The smoke refused to lift in the damp air." "The silent redoubt suddenly again gaped and shot forth fire like some huge monster." This constant effort to produce effect by the use of emphatic words and startling comparisons, running out sometimes into rant and nonsense, offends the reader's taste and presents so often the same images to the mind that they become tame and wearisome. If, frequently in the course of a chapter, and sometimes twice on a page, a charge of troops or a stroke of a broadsword is compared to a thunderbolt'-thunderbolts become as common as any sort of bolts and make no more impression, and thus tameness, the very evil shunned by the writer, comes round at last. For our own part, we prefer a weak sentence now and then, to so many strong ones "bursting and nothing but themselves to burst upon." The fault alluded to belongs not only to our author's descriptions of scenes, but to his delineations of character. The impressions which his sketches make upon the reader are at best vague and unsatisfactory on account of much confusion in the plan and conduct of the narrative, and a want of connection between the several parts. We observe, for exWe observe, for example, at the top of a page, such a topic as "His influence over others" -but in looking through the remarks under this head we find observations upon changes in a man's style of writing, or some anecdote illustrative of patriotism or magnanimity, which, by no art of construction, can be made to relate to "his influence over others." We find asserted on one page, what is denied on another, so that we are often unable to gain a distinct idea of the men brought before us or of VOL. VI.

63

the author's opinions of his own heroes. This impression however is very distinct, that there were giants in those days, and that they performed many wonderful exploits, but their individuality is lost in their greatness. The truth is, Mr. Headley is not a writer of lives. He has a talent for describing some scenes with much vividness and effect, but not for drawing characters. He repeats a great many facts, makes many sensible observations, and gives some characteristic touches; he forms a gilded frame for a portrait; he sketches, he paints, he bedizens, but he does not portray. His volumes therefore are sketchbooks-fancy pieces: they give us the scenes of the Revolution, but not the men of the Revolution.

As public observers and informers of the moral tendencies of popular books, besides expressing our own views of the subject of this work, and protesting against such delineations as are fitted to foster the war-spirit, we feel bound to notice certain dangerous statements inculcated here and there in its pages. We do not accuse its author of intending to teach anything contrary to sound morality. But, either through a propensity to say strong things in a strong way, or his absorbing admiration of military chiefs, he, at times, confounds all distinctions of right and wrong. We particularly refer to his manner of estimating character, by striking a balance between a man's good and bad qualities. He says, in speaking of General Lee, "The lamb can not become the lion, nor the lion the lamb, by any sort of cultivation. Therefore such a person is not to be judged by the extent and frequency with which he passes the line of right." "His noble generosity, magnanimous self-devotion to the welfare of others, his hatred of oppression and scorn of meanness, are to be placed against his bursts of passion, sudden revenge,

and those faults which are committed in moments of excitement. Of Paul Jones-" he was an irregular character, but his good qualities predominated over his bad ones." Of Arnold-" several stories are related of him to prove that he was dishonorable, many of which are doubtless true-but there is one in his favor outweighing them all in my estimation;" "this noble and generous act offsets a thousand accusations of meanness." Again he says of General Lee-"one ought always to average such a character as that of Lee, and let the good balance the bad." Now let us look at our author's own account of this man. "His hatred was intense and unsparing, and where it fell every green thing withered. The hostility he exhibited towards Washington, to the day of his death, is the only instance in his life when he seemed to be governed long by a revengeful feeling." "With all his strong passions bursting, and nothing but themselves to burst upon, he became a prey to those self-lashings which furnish the climax of rage." "It was this which fed and kindled into tenfold intensity, his wrath" "he sprinkled even his letters with profanity"-" his vanity, ambition and self-confidence were enormous, his morals were as bad as his manners he was terribly profane, and always followed the bent of his own passions." "His religious sentiments may be gathered from his will. After bequeathing his soul to the Almighty, he declares that he

thinks a man's religious notions are of no consequence-adding, a weak mortal can be no more answerable for his persuasive notions, or even skepticism in religion, than for the color of his skin. . . . I desire most earnestly that I may not be buried in any church, or church-yard, or within a mile of any Presbyterian or Anabaptist meeting-house; for since I have resided in this country, I have kept so much bad company when living, that I do not choose to continue it when dead." This is the character "one ought always to average and let the good balance the bad." It strikes us that such a rule of judgment confounds all moral distinctions, overlooks the ruling principle of conduct, and lessens our detestation of the most depraved characters. Every hu man being has good impulses, and does some things that accord with the rules of mere morality. Benedict Arnold committed treason but once, which, according to this philos ophy, may be neutralized by a hundred acts of bravery and munifi cence. We could multiply examples, if they were necessary, to show that such a rule applied to charac ter, as in the work before us, is most pernicious.

Of the historical inaccuracies in these narratives we shall say nothing, since our limits will not allow us to go into the necessary references and details, and other journals have al ready, to some extent, discharged that duty.

"IT is the worst of all trades," said John Newton, of the Christian ministry, "but the best of all professions ;" and a truer remark never fell from the lips of that eminently wise and pious man.

Let any one go to it as a trade, whether the gain sought be honor, influence, competence or comfort, and it will prove to him in its progress, and infinitely more in its end, "the worst of all trades." On the other hand, let any one enter it with right views and feelings, in the spirit of labor and self-sacrifice, to honor God and do good to men, and no matter what toils and privations may attend it, he will find it "the best of all professions :" the best in its discipline to his own mind and heart; the best, alike, in its restraining and reforming power; the best in all its influences, social, civil and moral, on nations and individuals, for time and eternity. Even if assailed by obloquy, opposition, or persecution, its progress, like that of the Son of God on earth, will be attended by light and blessing, and its end, like his, be the fullness of joy and glory.

"Best" as it is, however, it is not beyond improvement; for, as with every profession, its improvement is that of those who are in it; and every effort to improve them should be welcomed with respectful favor. True, it is a difficult, and too often a thankless office to give advice, though the man that suggests wise counsels, sustained and enforced by strong reasons, is the benefactor of But when it comes from one whose position gives it weight,

his race.

The Power of the Pulpit; or Thoughts addressed to Christian Ministers, and those who hear them. By Gardiner Spring, D. D., pastor of the Brick Presbyterian church, New York. Baker & Scribner, 1848.

and is the result of his own experi. ence, and is so embodied in the form of discussion, as to find easy, because indirect access to those for whom it was designed, then it may be expected to issue in great and lasting good.

Such good we expect from the work before us. Its author, subject, form, the classes it addresses, and its mode of address, are all such as to give it claims upon our notice, and interest in our hope. From few, if any in the land, could it have emanated with the same propriety as from Dr. Spring. His experience has been various, and his ministry long continued and richly blessed. He has not made it his business to amuse or alarm the community, by every now and then exploding theories, which if novel, are questionable, or if manifestly original, are as manifestly irrational and false. He has not been the lion of "anniversary" platforms, or famed as the popular lecturer, nor often appeared in the pages of periodicals and reviews. A higher and nobler praise is his due. He has stood, for a lifetime, at his one post of toil and duty; making the ministry his work and his only work; confining himself to that part of the field to which Providence directed; "deaf to all and many calls to other labors, and other fields of labor; sowing and reaping as seed-time and harvest, according to promise, have returned;" unmoved, alike, by the assaults of slander, or the praises of friendship; persevering in his toils, and, to an extent equalled by few, in his studies; his diligence unremitted, and his armor all on, while many a younger man may have been thinking of rest. The providence of God has given him a standing from which he may speak with weight; and the suggestions he offers will be

received with interest and profit by the ministry and the church.

The work is addressed to "Christian ministers and those who hear them;" and is adapted to impress and be useful to both. It opens with a touching dedication to the youthful ministry of the land, and then proceeds to speak of the great topics suggested for their. consideration. These are, the power of the pulpit; the truth of which it is the vehicle; the living teacher; the divine authority of the ministry; its aid from the power of God; the great object of preaching, and every thing subservient to it; the preach er's interest in his subject; the diligence, prayerfulness, piety, example, and responsibility of ministers; the ministry compared with other professions; a competent ministry to be procured; the proper education for the ministry; pecuniary support of ministers; prayer for them; the consideration due them; and the responsibility of those who enjoy their labors.

All these topics are presented with clearness, and pressed with the earnestness of a personal appealwith the definiteness of thought and aim that we expect in a work originating in some specific, and to its author's mind impressive occur. rence. In style, the work is chaste, serious, manly, marked throughout by strength, and often rising to eloquence. There is no affectationno wandering-no attempt at rhetoric-no puerile conceit of original. ity. All is natural, direct, and deeply solemn. We feel that the author has forgotten self in his fullness of the subject; and under the influence of this feeling, our hearts open to a deep interest in it, as the flowers open to the sun. And this interest increases to the end, until, as we close the book, we rise from its pages with thoughtful and serious spirits, with a higher estimate of the power of the pulpit, with a deeper and more chastened sense of the

meaning of the inquiry," Who is sufficient for these things?"

We do not mean that the work is perfect. Its method might be im proved. It has some verbal defects, for which, doubtless, the proof-reader is responsible, such as Charnoch for Charnock (p. 46), Waberton for Warburton, and Witsus for Witsius (p. 51), Robertson and Dickenson, for Robinson and Dickinson (p. 54), Tabot for Talbot (p. 269), &c. Mistakes like these as to proper and familiar names, are not to be class ed with such mere misprints as maker for matter (p. 196), and unexecuted for unexerted (p. 199), and care for ease (p. 323); but are deserving of special reprehension in a publishing firm, one of the partners of which, if we mistake not, has been a student of theology.

On the part of the author, we might object to his use of the word "depreciate" (p. 312), or to the construction of such sentences as the fifth on the 334th, the last on the 342d, and the first on the 345th pages. We can not agree with him (pp. 345, 346) that "public spirit" is, in any sense," the prominent feature of Christianity." We doubt the correctness of the estimate (p. 331), that "not far from seventy ministers in the American church can trace their lineage to the elder Edwards;" for though the statement has so often been made, that Dr. S. is not responsible for its repetition, yet with some means of knowing, we can not make out onethird of that number. The connect. ed statement, that "his (President Edwards') earliest known ancestor was a preacher of the Gospel, settled in London, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth," is certainly in correct in one, and alınost certainly in two respects. As to the first, Dr. Spring, being himself descended from the same stock, should have been aware, that his "known ancestors" in several lines, are easily tra ced back to a much earlier period