THE case of conscience with which your letter begins is such as would puzzle a much more expert casuist than I ever expect to be; and, therefore, after reading all that you have written upon the subject, as explanatory of your views and feelings, I feel more disposed to commend you in prayer to the teachings of God’s most Holy Spirit, than attempt to darken counsel by words without knowledge. I am sensible, however, that this may originate in an unwillingness to meet a difficulty from a consciousness of the scantiness of my spiritual information, and from a fear of the consequent poor opinion you might entertain of me for my want of success, I will, therefore, hazard a few remarks. It has always struck me that the creature occupies an improper place when we consider it in any way essential to our good, when we fancy that there is any absolute and positive necessity for the presence of any one thing in order to constitute us happy. It was God’s declaration to Abraham, “I am the Almighty [_the all-sufficient_] God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” And St. Paul so fully realized this, that he lived, as it were, completely independent of the creature; he found his God an all-sufficient portion, quite adequate of himself to satisfy the largest desires of his soul. He could, therefore, _take pleasure_ in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, &c.; for he experimentally found that, as his afflictions abounded, his consolations did much more abound. In a word, he discovered in his God a happiness which was not merely independent of the creature, but which flourished and abounded under circumstances most likely to interrupt or destroy it. The fact is, that the creature is only an _arbitrary channel_, the pipe, if I may so speak, which a God of love has been pleased to choose, in order to convey his benefits. The pipe is neither the benefit, nor the source; and, of course, though it is conducive to our comfort, though it may in many respects be _subservient_ to our welfare, yet it is by no means _essentially necessary_, for God is the God of all consolation, whether intermediately or immediately conveyed, and should He, on any occasion, see fit to remove the medium, the same and even more abounding happiness _may_ be received immediately from Himself; and since God is infinite in his wisdom and in his love, this _will_ be so, provided it be for our good. And if we need not the former quantum of happiness, if it would prove injurious to us, is it not a mercy that it should be denied? But perhaps you will ask, How are we to know whether we love the creature too much or not? How is it to be ascertained whether we regard it as essential to our good, or merely subservient to it? This may be ascertained in two ways—1st, How do we feel when our channels are removed? Does it seem as though our all were gone? If after a prop has been removed from under us, we immediately fall, it is evident that our