by the Emperor to rebuild the church, and the monks were compelled to return what they had stolen. The famous St. Ambrose cried out against this sentence as though it had been the most flagrant injustice. He took the part of the Bishop and the monks, maintaining that the Emperor owed them nothing but consideration and respect. He said that there was no great harm in having burnt an heretical church, and that the rights of a few miserable Valentiniens ought not to be weighed against the prerogatives of the clergy and the honor of the monastic order. Theodosius, then Emperor, condescended to justify his action. He declared that the public interests demanded an example, and then made use of these significant words: "The monks have committed too many crimes." But St. Ambrose was inflexible: he persisted in demanding the annulling of the sentence, and would not celebrate mass for the Emperor until after this had been done.

In the East the monks are said to have been one of the main causes which led to the ruin of the Greek Empire.

At this crisis in the history of monasticism Providence raised up a man who rescued the system from its perilous situation, brought order out of confusion, and organized the scattered elements into a power which has acted a prominent part in the world's history from that time to this. St. Benedictus was the man.

HOW TO LIVE.

So should we live, that every hour
Should die, as dies a natural flower,
A self reviving thing of power;

That every thought, and every deed,
May hold within itself the seed
Of future good and future meed.

Esteeming sorrow-whose employ
Is to develop, not destroy-
Far better than a barren joy.

A COMMEMORATIVE DISCOURSE ON THE REV. ALONZO HILL, D.D.

BY REV. JOSEPH ALLEN, D.D.

I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.-2 TIM. IV. 7.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them.REV. IV. 13.

Ar the suggestion and by the request of members of the Worcester Association, and others, I prepared a commemorative discourse on the death of our beloved brother, the Rev. Dr. Hill, of Worcester. That request has been renewed by the officers of the Worcester Conference, an institution of which he was one of its most highly esteemed members.

It was meet that I should respond to the call. Although his senior by almost half a score of years, we have so long stood side by side, and have been so long and so closely united, that it may seem fitting that I should accept this ministry, and pay this tribute to the memory of my friend. For more than forty years we have lived in the same neighborhood, have often exchanged pulpits, have sympathized with each other in the trials of the ministry and in the experiences of life.

Had he outlived me, as we had reason to expect, it was understood between us that he should peform the last offices of friendship for his elder brother, which that elder brother is called to discharge for him.

Dr. Hill was ordained over the Second Congregational Society in Worcester in March, 1827. The same year he became a member of the Worcester Association of Ministers; and I might appeal to those who have been associated with him in this body in saying that to no one of his brethren is the Association more indebted for the respectable rank it has held among similar institutions than to Dr. Hill.

We did not at the time suspect how great was to be our gain by his joining our fellowship. He came amongst us a modest, somewhat diffident young man, unknown to fame -without prestige- without exhibiting any marks of superiority over his brethren in the ministry. He had received, it is true, a classical education, and had graduated with honor at our oldest college and at the Divinity School at Cambridge; and we knew, too, that he had been called, by an unanimous vote, to take charge, as colleague of the eminent and respected Dr. Bancroft, of the Second Congregational Church in Worcester, which of itself was a high honor; but he had not as yet given proof of that inward power which subsequently shone forth and gave him distinction in his chosen profession. I do not think he was conscious of possessing that power. He underrated himself, as is evident from what he says in the discourse he delivered on the fortieth anniversary of his ordination. "I did not," he remarks, "at once and without grave deliberation accept your call. For I seriously questioned my ability to fulfill your rightful expectations. Weak in body, and unfurnished with a single sermon, except those which you had already heard, I feared the mortification of a total failure, and that our connection, formed after so brief but pleasant acquaintance, might terminate in disappointment and chagrin."

The truth is, he had not come to his full growth as a scholar, as a preacher, or as a man; and although he at once drew to him a large and appreciative congregation, it was not till after the labor and experience of years, it was not, indeed, until the death of his venerable colleague, in 1839, when the whole responsibility of the pulpit and the parish devolved upon him, that he learned what was in him, and that he displayed those rare powers and gifts which made him one of our most able and popular preachers and pastors.

He was from the first, and through his whole ministry, a growing man. It was a slow and gradual, but at the same time a steady and a healthy growth; a growth in knowledge and in wisdom, in eloquence and efficiency, and in whatever

tends to make one a better minister and a better man.

He

was a student, not only of theology, but of general literature, making himself familiar with the standard works of the day, keeping up with the times, availing himself of all the aids within his reach, but never losing sight of what was to him the great object of the Christian ministry, - the moral and spiritual culture of the people committed to his charge.

The character of a bold and uncompromising reformer he he did not claim or aspire to. But he was not a time-server, nor did he hesitate to take sides, when called to choose bebetween truth and falsehood, between right and wrong. And he was a philanthropist in the best sense of that term, always ready for every good work.

As a preacher of the Gospel of the New Testament, and the Gospel of Humanity, he was able, earnest, eloquent, surpassed by few of his brethren in the ministry. His discourses were written with care, not borrowed or stolen, but the product of his own thought and study and inspiration. They were his own, - his own and not another man's, — what he had thought out and elaborated in his study, what had cost him labor, hard, persistent, well-directed labor. And they were serious, solid, earnest, evangelical in the true sense of that much-abused term, breathing the very spirit of the Master.

I think he seldom engaged in doctrinal or controversial discussions in the pulpit, and never in a narrow, sectarian spirit. For though he had strong convictions and very decided views on the leading doctrines of Christianity, which he was not backward on fit occasions to proclaim and defend, he had no love for controversy, and it was his chief aim "to win souls to Christ," to make men Christians in spirit and in life.

He was neither radical nor conservative in an invidious sense; but in a good sense he was both, acting in conformity to the Apostolic injunction, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

He believed in progress; and he meant to be and he was in fact a liberal Christian of the progressive school;

a Christian, for he recognized Jesus Christ as his Master, at whose feet he loved to sit and learn of him who spake as never man had spoken before.

Numbering among his hearers persons of a large and liberal culture, the thought of their presence could not fail to act as a constant stimulus, urging him to put forth all his strength, to employ all his resources, in preparing for the Sunday and other public services, that so he might meet his people without shamefacedness or fear.

With the progress of time there came an increase of power. He felt more confidence in himself, more self-reliance, more self-respect, and accordingly he spoke with more authority; and his words of counsel or rebuke had more weight, and were received with more deference, and produced more fruit. His talents, his studious habits, his earnest look and manner, his devoted spirit, his strong love for his profession, his high aims, in conjunction with his pure and noble life, these traits of character, these excellent qualities, could not fail to give him distinction, and to place him amongst the best ministers of the liberal faith. And it was even so. His "praise was in all our churches."

His His presence in any of our pulpits was welcomed as a benediction, and he was always listened to with a sustained and delighted interest.

Dr. Hill was known and respected not by his own people. only, not only by the denomination of which he was an ornament he was honored and his influence was felt throughout the city whose marvelous growth he had witnessed and to whose prosperity he had contributed his full share.

As a member and chairman of the school committee for a quarter of a century, and as a member of other literary and benevolent institutions, he did much for the cause of morality and science and popular education. And these labors were continued with but few interruptions for the long period of forty years. His was truly a rounded life, having been spared to complete the full period of three-score years and ten.

Dr. Hill entered the ministry not for a life of ease, not for a living, not for any low or selfish end. He chose it for its own sake, for the love of it, as it would furnish him with