times and modes in which this might properly be done, and that every one had a duty to perform of this nature.  When he had finished his observations, he said the subject was open to the remarks of others; whereupon a brother instantly rose and made a very honest confession.

He said that he had never attempted to perform the duty in question without having a palpitation of the heart, and a complete turning over of his inner man.  He had often reflected upon this curious fact, but was not able to account for it.  He had not allowed this repugnance to prevent his doing the duty; but he always had to rush at it and perform it by a sort of coup de main, for if he allowed himself to think about the matter, he could not do it at all.  He concluded by saying that he should be very much obliged to any one if he could explain this mystery.

     The pastor said:  “May it not be the natural delicacy we feel, and
     ought to feel, in approaching the interior consciousness of another
     person?”

Another brother rose.  There was no hanging back at this meeting; there were no awkward pauses; every one seemed full of matter.  The new speaker was not inclined to admit the explanation suggested by the pastor.  “Suppose,” said he, “we were to see a man in imminent danger of immediate destruction, and there was one way of escape, and but one, which we saw, and he did not, should we feel any delicacy in running up to him and urging him to fly for his life?  Is it not a want of faith on our part that causes the reluctance and hesitation we all feel in urging others to avoid a peril so much more momentous?”

Mr. Beecher said the cases were not parallel.  Irreligious persons, he remarked, were not in imminent danger of immediate death; they might die to-morrow; but in all probability they would not, and an ill-timed or injudicious admonition might forever repel them.  We must accept the doctrine of probabilities, and act in accordance with it in this particular, as in all others.

Another brother had a puzzle to present for solution.  He said that he too had experienced the repugnance to which allusion had been made; but what surprised him most was, that the more he loved a person, and the nearer he was related to him, the more difficult he found it to converse with him upon his spiritual state.  Why is this?  “I should like to have this question answered,” said he, “if there is an answer to it.”

Mr. Beecher observed that this was the universal experience, and he was conscious himself of a peculiar reluctance and embarrassment in approaching one of his own household on the subject in question.  He thought it was due to the fact that we respect more the personal rights of those near to us than we do those of others, and it was more difficult to break in upon the routine of our ordinary familiarity with them.  We