without some motive in so doing. The pleas of custom, fashion, education, pecuniary ability, or position in community are of no avail, when conscience, on being closely interrogated, unequivocally, though perhaps reluctantly, answers that these things are worn not for utility, but only for show, for personal adornment. And is it not to be feared there are too many who, anticipating the condemnatory verdict of conscience, studiously avoid bringing these "trifles" before this tribunal, and, hence, heedlessly follow the multitude to do evil?

Although it is clearly sinful to wear gold and other ornaments when our hearts condemn the pride or other unholy passion which prompted their use, let us not infer that the practice is innocent in all cases when we can not reproach ourselves for being influenced by such motives. There are other methods of learning our duty in relation to this subject, if this is really our desire. Let us then ask ourselves these questions: 1 Do we allow ourselves to wear those things that, before we made a profession of religion, we clearly thought were unbecoming the followers of the meek and lowly Savior, and which lessened the influence of such wearers upon us? Have we the right in this way to disqualify ourselves for usefulness to the irreligious? 2. Do we indulge in ornaments which we think improper to be worn by those who make a high profession of religion? But have not we made a high profession? Did not we, at the sacred altar, solemnly renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of this world? 3. Do we dress in such a manner as to give no occasion of offense or stumbling to others? Are we not to avoid the very appearance of evil? We may not, perhaps, be vain of our apparel; but will not others have reason to think we are? I say, have reason to think we are; for it must be admitted there are unreasonable persons who, being destitute not only of good taste, but of neatness and decency, are perpetually declaiming against those who are not as negligent, rustic, or antiquated in their personal habiliments as themselves. Indeed, such querulous people we can not, and we ought not to satisfy by yielding to their demands. For if, as Mr. Wesley says, neatness is a duty, and slovenliness a sin, we are not at liberty to sacrifice the former and adopt the latter to please any body. But there are those who, not with a captious, but teachable spirit, look to us as examples, and are prompt to tread in our footsteps. Can we with confidence say to all such, "Follow us even as we follow Christ?" In a word, do we act in these

matters with a single eye to the glory of God as proprietors of nothing, but as stewards of his manifold grace? By earnest inquiries like these, sincere searchers after duty, it is presumed, will not long remain in doubt as to what constitutes superfluity of dress, at least so far as they personally are concerned.

But in what manner is encouragement given, or can it be given, for such superfluity? Let us examine into the question.

It is sometimes given by openly advocating the use of external ornaments. It is hoped not many are guilty of this impropriety. Still there have been, and yet are, those who either ignore those passages in the New Testament which forbid their use, or so explain them as to make them of no force or effect. Thus even the pious Burkitt, in his note on 1 Peter iii, 3, says, "This text doth not absolutely forbid the wearing of ornaments or costly apparel by such persons whose quality will answer it, but only forbids pride and vanity, affectation and ostentation, in the wearing them; it is not only lawful to cover the body, but to adorn the body. Abraham had never sent earrings and bracelets to Rebecca had they been sinful in their use." The fallacy of referring to the example of an Old Testament patriarch to explain away a positive New Testament precept, in which even the "quality" are not excepted, is too obvious to require enlargement. Such pleas, together with those which point to the floral and other embellishments of nature, as justifications of gorgeous and expensive apparel, are only alluded to as proof that direct encouragement is occasionally given to this indulgence.

Superfluity in dress is more equently encouraged by example. Whatever, for instance, may be the private views or public teachings of a minister of the Gospel, if he personally follows close at the heels of capricious Fashion in the color or fabrication of his apparel, especially when showy, expensive, and inconvenient trappings are demanded by this goddess, his influence, of course, is on the side of worldly vanity; for "while precept whispers, example thunders." I know not, indeed, but that a clergyman might preach against superfluous ornaments with some degree of confidence while he has a gold watch in his pocket, and gold spectacles on his nose, as watches and spectacles are sometimes very useful articles for ministers-though some think that silver ones are equally serviceable-but how a man without blushing could declare the whole counsel of God on this subject with an enormous gold ring on his finger, such as I recently saw conspicuously

While on the subject of ministerial example, I must not omit the remark that preachers encourage excessive indulgence in dress when they allow it in their own family. It is a bad state of things when a pastor has occasion in the sacred desk to dilate on this form of pride, if one glance from his auditors at the brilliant display of jewelry upon the persons of his own wife and children is sufficient not only to neutralize all he says, but to turn his instructions into ridicule. It is, indeed, a sad affair when it is truthfully gossiped, "Our minister's family are more gayly attired than any other in the congregation." For if the preacher fail in the government of his own household, what confidence can he have of success in administering wholesome discipline to others?

In this connection perhaps allusion should be made to another source of encouragement to this indulgence. I refer to the patronage too commonly extended by Christian parents in behalf of that numerous class of Lady's Books and periodicals, in which the "latest fashions" are pictorially paraded and studiously commented upon, with elegant engravings of eminent literary, and even pious, females represented in an excessively ornate, if not really immodest costume.

Again, this practice may be encouraged by silence. Let a daughter spend a large portion of her precious time at the toilet, and habitually decorate herself with tawdry ornaments, without one word of remonstrance from her father or mother, or other token of disapprobation, and is it strange if e construes their silence into approval? So if a minister, mingling with his people, sees the members of his Church running into the extremes of fashion and extravagance in dress without either public or private reproof, it requires no labored argument to prove that he thus certainly, though indirectly, encourages such unchristian practices. For although the maxim, "Silence gives consent," may not be applicable in all cases, it does apply to those whose special business is to instruct the people in every thing, great and small, which has a bearing upon moral and religious culture.

I must not omit to remark that superfluities have sometimes been encouraged by the injudicious conduct of reformers. As one extreme begets another, the natural tendency of fanatical measures to remove this, as well as other evils, is to aggravate it. If in former times there were zealots who, in correcting violators of the rules

more important rules of Bible courtesy themselves, and abused instead of reforming transgressors, there is little occasion of complaint in this direction at the present day. In these days we very seldom, if ever, hear of ministers so far overstepping the bounds of propriety as to lay violent hands upon the head-dresses of ladies at the door of the love-feast; to rudely and censoriously reprove individual females in public places, as though any means, even the sacrifice of the charity that thinketh no evil, and is not easily provoked, is justifiable in a crusade against trinkets and ribbons; or to arrest the character of a brother minister because he can not see it his duty to wear a collarless, buttonless coat and a low-crowned, white hat. Those one-idea men are now scarce who imagine that a good disciplinarian implies chiefly a regulator of female costume, and who seem to think that the grand business of a spiritual "watchman" is gold-hunting and pearl-fishing. Few if any Christians of such extravagant views are to be seen in these times; indeed, it is to be feared the tendency is quite the opposite. We are more in danger of conniving at this sin than in manifesting improper zeal in arresting it. Both extremes, however, should be avoided, as overaction and inaction are generally followed by a similar result.

But why is it now no time to encourage superfluity of apparel?

1. The Scriptural rule on this point is applicable to all times. I can not sympathize with the views of those who seem to think that the narrow way marked out by the Savior is too contracted for these enlightened times, and that the rules of holy living which were adapted to the rude age of the apostles are too stringent, if not too vulgar, for this day of refinement. The Bible is made for man, and is adapted to all times and all classes of society. He who is too wise to be taught by the Scriptures has yet to learn that he is a fool; and he who is too refined to obey the word of God will ascertain, sooner or later, that, unless converted and imbued with childlike simplicity, his false refinement will exclude him from heaven.

2. The tendency of the age is strongly toward luxury, display, and extravagance. This is admitted to be the leading cause of the present pecuniary distress at least in our country. What, then, is the duty of the Church? To increase this evil by obsequiously imitating the world, and competing with the votaries of fashion? or to raise a standard against the corrupting tendencies of the times, and, as the salt of the earth

LITERARY WOMEN OF AMERICA.

SOME

THE AUTHOR OF "SUNNY SIDE."

BY THE EDITOR.

NOME time since a young woman, who was fond of intellectual pursuits, and somewhat accustomed to use the pen, but mainly for her private gratification, conceived the idea of sketching the character of a deceased friend. The sketch was completed, and afterward lay neglected several years in her desk. Subsequently it was rewritten, but still with no definite object beyond personal gratification. Some of her friends then suggested its publication, and the manuscript was at different times offered to five different publishers, and was as often rejected. The author's friends, however, nothing disheartened by these rebuffs, got up an edition of five hundred copies as a sort of venture. Such was the origin of "The Sunny Side," which two years from the date of its first publication had attained a circulation of forty thousand, and had thrown its charm over the hearts of hundreds of thousands.

Thousands of our own readers have already been touched by the deep pathos and charmed by the beautiful delineations of that little work, and also of its companion-"A Peep at Number Five." To such a graphic sketch of their lamented author, we are sure, will not be otherwise than acceptable.

Mrs. Elizabeth Stuart Phelps was the daughter of the celebrated American philologist and Hebraist-Moses Stuart, of Andover, Mass. In that place she was born in 1815. She strongly resembled her father, and derived from him some of her most striking bodily as well as mental peculiarities. Among her Reminiscences of her childhood occurs the following beautiful allusion to her eminent father:

her father, as well as her resemblance of him in her temperament and in many of her mental traits, she had none of his predilection for the study of languages. Indeed, that study was rather disagreeable to her than otherwise. "Her favorite department in childhood was that of the 'belleslettres;' and in this her childhood was marked by uncommon mental activity. She very early exhibited a desire to originate trains of thought, rather than to accumulate the treasures of others; and this was characteristic of her mental habits to the end of life. As early as the age of ten years, she developed a tact in narrative composition. She was accustomed at that period to amuse the domestics of the family and their friends with her extemporaneous stories; and among the relics of her writings at that time are found little volumes of narratives which she composed for the entertainment of her younger sisters. Her own earliest recollections of her mental history were those of the tales she wrote, or the materials for them which she was constantly inventing and arranging in her mind." She was passionately fond of painting, and statuary, and music. The predominancy of the nervous in her temperament gave intensity to all her emotions, and also led to a strong and decided development of all her natural traits of character.

At the age of sixteen Miss Stuart was placed under the tuition of Rev. Jacob Abbott, then Principal of the "Mount Vernon School" in Boston. Here she prosecuted her studies with great ardor and success. Mr. Abbott, himself a writer of rare excellence, especially in narrative and descriptive composition, perceived the strong bias and natural talent of his charge in that direction, and encouraged the development of that talent. He encouraged her to write for a magazine he was then editing; and several of the contributions she then made, under the signature of "H. Trusta," were twenty years later wrought into the descriptive and narrative scenes of "Sunny Side."