and frankly to confess them, by giving them a character of spirituality.
I fully understand his idea: to utilize that spiritual elation which enamourment gives, in order to use this elation for God's work. That is possible, and I think that the energy of men who are in this state may be considerably raised, and may give what to us seems to be unexpectedly great results. I have more than once seen this, and I have known such cases; but what is terrible here is this, that with the destruction of enamourment (which is very possible and very probable) not only this access of energy may fall, but also every interest in God's work, of which, too, I have seen examples. And that this happens and can happen proves that God's work, the service of Him, cannot and must not lean on anything, and everything else must be based on the consciousness of the necessity and the joy of this service.
Thus it is possible (and this is often done) to increase the energy of serving God with human glory, and again there is the danger of growing indifferent to God's work the moment the approval of men is destroyed.
All this you know and have given utterance to, but I wanted to add just one thing to what I wrote to you in my last letter as to my agreeing with N——— that the union of a man and a woman is good when it has for its aim the conjoined service of God and men,—namely, that the conjugal, the bodily, tie does not exactly add strength in the service, but that for certain people, who are swayed by the restlessness of the necessity of enamourment, it removes this unrest, which interferes with the application of one's whole force to the service; and so, although chastity, if it is full, is a most advantageous condition for the service,—for some people marriage, by quieting them and removing the obstacle, strengthens the possibility of their service. But with it,—and this is the main thing I wanted to say,—it is necessary that
