is a mountain either better or more beautiful for being covered with a
verdant mantle from the top to the bottom? Is it either better or more
beautiful for having no abrupt sides, difficult of ascent,--for rising
and falling by almost insensible degrees? We think the contrary. The
variety of scenery presented by mountains in their present state, is
most beautiful. The abruptness of the sides of mountains contributes
infinitely both to the beauty of the mountain, and to the beauty of the
earth in general; and the toil of climbing up the steep ascent of a
mountain is one of the blessings and pleasures of life. We should be
sorry if there were no hills so steep as to be difficult of ascent. We
should be sorry if the earth had no mountains with abrupt sides, and
black, and brown, and rugged faces. We should be very sorry if the face
of the earth were covered with one unvaried mantle of green. Green is
very pleasant, and it is well that the greater part of the earth is
covered with green; but variety also is pleasant; and green itself would
cease to be pleasant if there were nothing else but green.

Wesley adds, that there was probably no sea on the surface of the earth
in its paradisiacal state, none until the great deep burst the barriers
which were originally appointed for it; and he adds, that there was not
then that need of the ocean for navigation which there is now, as every
place yielded all that was necessary to man's welfare and pleasure. We
answer. The idea that the ocean was given to facilitate communication
between different nations, makes us smile. Suppose there had been no
ocean, should we have had a long way to go to get into the next country,
the country nearest to us? Just the contrary. If there had been no
ocean, there would have been land in its place, and we should neither
have had to cross water nor land to get to it. It would have come up
close to our own country. We have all the same travelling in order to
have communication with the inhabitants of other countries when we have