Instead, then, of urging a rule of duty which is at once irrational and impracticable, there is another course, which commends itself to the understandings of all. For whatever may be the _practice_, of intelligent men, they universally concede the _principle_, that our physical gratifications should always be made subordinate to social, intellectual, and moral, advantages. And all that is required, for the advancement of our whole race to the most perfect state of society, is, simply, that men should act in agreement with this principle. And, if only a very small portion, of the most intelligent of our race, should act according to this rule, under the control of Christian benevolence, the immense supplies, furnished, for the general good, would be far beyond what any would imagine, who had never made any calculations on the subject. In this Nation, alone, suppose the one million and more, of professed followers of Christ, should give a larger portion of their means, for the social, intellectual, and moral, wants of mankind, than for the superfluities that minister to taste, convenience, and appetite; it would be enough to furnish all the schools, colleges, Bibles, ministers, and missionaries, that the whole world could demand; or, at least, it would be far more, than properly qualified agents to administer it, could employ. But, it may be objected, that, though this view is one, which, in the abstract, looks plausible and rational, not one in a thousand, can practically adopt it. How few keep any account, at all, of their current expenses! How impossible it is, to determine, exactly, what are necessaries, and what are superfluities! And in regard to women, how few have the control of an income, so as not to be bound by the wishes of a parent or a husband! In reference to these difficulties, the first remark is, that we are never under obligations to do, what is entirely out of our power, so that those persons, who have no power to regulate their expenses or their charities, are under no sort of obligation to attempt it. The second remark is, that, when a rule of duty is discovered, we are bound to _aim_ at it, and to fulfil it, just so far as we can. We have no right to throw it aside, because we shall find some difficult cases, when we come to apply it. The third remark is, that no person can tell how much can be done, till a faithful trial has been made. If a woman has never kept any accounts, nor attempted to regulate her expenditures by the right rule, nor used her influence with those that control her plans, to secure this object, she has no right to say how much she can, or cannot, do, till after a fair trial has been made.