be more opposite to their ideas than the fictitious joys of Odin's hall. Those persons who make happiness consist in quiescence may find it in perfection in Shakerism.

A question naturally arises, whether their system will be of long continuance. I know of no particular cause why it should not, except that the accumulation of wealth may produce a change in their character and habits. When the Benedictines established themselves at Monte Cassino, they were poor, and at least negatively virtuous. They afterwards became rich and depraved. Can we suppose that wealth will be less influential on the Shakers than the Benedictines? And that the Shakers will become rich, I see no reason to doubt. A society where no idlers are allowed, and where none able to work, either male or female, are excused from contributing to the common welfare, must in the common course of things acquire large property. When property more than sufficient for its object is possessed by those who have no intellectual pursuit, the danger of its abuse is increased. St. Jerome, it is said, subdued his passions by learning Hebrew. The secret no doubt was, that his mind was employed on an object sufficiently strong to engross his undivided attention. But

if the Shakers refuse to allow themselves to devote their time to study, the effect of wealth will probably be to introduce excess in the pleasures of the table. Luxury and laziness are generally concomitant, and when once yielded to, produce other evils. If the principles of Shakerism be able to preserve all its professors from contagion, under circumstances like these, a novelty will be exhibited in the moral history of man.

Archbishop Leighton expressed his regret that at the period of the Reformation all monastic establishments were destroyed; and a writer in a late number of the Quarterly Review advocated the propriety of establishing a Protestant nunnery. In the example of the Shakers we have a specimen of the kind. But notwithstanding the comparative mildness of the regulations, and the strictness of morality which I believe to prevail amongst them, I do not think they exhibit such a view of human happiness as to render it desirable to have their example followed. Even if learning were introduced and encouraged, the most formidable objection would remain; namely, that the monastic life is contradictory to the dictates of nature. Christianity doubtless requires, that nature shall be brought under regulations productive of individual and

general good; but it does not require that nature shall be so thwarted as to deprivé us of enjoyments compatible with our duties to God and the harmony of creation. The married state, when entered upon with prudence and affection, is found to improve the disposition and enlarge the heart. It adds more than any thing else to the sum of human happiness. The formation of a state of society where it is prohibited, is as unnatural as a government, where there is no will but the will of a despot.

The mention of government reminds me that that of the Shakers is professedly a theocracy. Whatever alteration is proposed, either in the laws or the executive officers, is discussed by the body at large. But no division on a question ever takes place, it being their opinion that the spirit of judgment is given to some, and must be yielded to by the rest. I I suppose that the aged and a few leading characters decide the part to be taken on all momentous occasions. Unanimity is probably secured by the fear that refractoriness may be followed by expulsion. If any breach of harmony occurs, the knowledge of it is confined to the members, all their proceedings except worship, being confined exclusively to themselves. Their general prosperity and good

order are indicative of a government competent to its purpose; yet Shakerism as a system, appears like some complex piece of mechanism, beautiful and regular, but liable to be put out of order if any of the concealed springs lose their elasticity.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE INDIANS.

He

HAVING mentioned the state of religion in general, and of that of several independent societies, I am led by a natural chain to take some notice of the Indians, whose religion seems to demand more notice that it has hitherto obtained. When Penn first landed in Pennsylvania, he was so struck with their Jewish countenances, and with the similarity of some of their customs to those of that people, that he conjectured they might be the descendants of the lost ten tribes. supposed, what has since been proved true, that Asia and North America were so nearly contiguous, that they might have migrated from one continent to the other. Whether the Indians Penn saw, were of different aspect to the other tribes cannot now be known, but none of the present race, so far as my observation goes, and judgment may be formed from portraits, are like the Jews. I certainly saw a youth among the Seneca Indians, whom if I had met in Houndsditch, or in any other street in London where they haunt, I should have taken for one of them;