August 2.--THOMAS GAINSBOROUGH died 1788, aged 61. He was born at Sudbury, Suffolk, and early discovered a propensity for painting; but nature was his teacher, and the woods his school, where he would pass his mornings alone, making sketches of an old tree, a marshy brook, a few cattle, a shepherd and his flock, or any other objects that came casually to view. After painting several landscapes he went to London, and received instructions from Gravelot and Hayman. After his marriage he went to Bath, where he began to paint portraits for five guineas, which price he gradually raised to one hundred. In 1774, he settled in Pall Mall, London. His last words were characteristic: "We are all going to heaven, and Vandyck is of the party." His remains were deposited near those of his friend Kirby, in Kew churchyard. On the institution of the Royal Academy, he was chosen one of its first members. His pictures are wrought in a slight manner, with great freedom of hand, and little colour, which gives a great airiness of effect. He excelled in portraits, landscapes, and in fancy pictures.

4.-WILLIAM CECIL died 1598, aged 78. He was born at Bourne, in Lincolnshire, and educated at Grantham, Stamford, and St. John's College, Cambridge. At twentyone he entered Gray's Inn, married a sister of Sir John Cheke, and was introduced to Henry VIII., who bestowed on him the reversion of the office of custos brevium, in the Common Pleas. In 1548, he was appointed Secretary of State. On the fall of the Lord Protector, Cecil was imprisoned for a short time; but in 1551, was restored to his office and knighted. On the death of Edward VI., he declared for Mary, but refused to change his religion, and took no office, but stood member for Lincolnshire. He was the first person sworn of the Privy Council in the reign of Elizabeth, and was appointed Secretary of State. In 1571, he was created Baron Burleigh, and in 1572, he succeeded the Marquis of Winchester as Lord High Treasurer. For fifty years he held the station of Prime Minister, and effected several important measures. His vigilance, talents, and integrity, enabled him to overcome great difficulties, and to the end of life to retain the favour of the Queen, and the respect and affection of the people. His second wife was the daughter of Sir Anthony Cook, by whom he had Robert, who was created Earl of Salisbury.

13.-MAXIMUS, head of the Dyotheletians in the East, died 662, aged 72. On account of his religious opinions he was seized with his disciple, Anastatius, and thrown into a prison at Constantinople, where, though they had lived above thirty years together, the master and the disciple were now maliciously separated. Respect for the old man, as a model of monastic life, and compassion for his advanced age, disposed his enemies to comparative mildness towards him at first. Threats and flatteries were used by turns. He was told that he need not deny his own convictions, but only consent to a compromise. He rejected all equivocation or concealment of his sentiments, maintaining that even an angel from heaven could preach no other doctrine. Flattery proving unavailing, he was exiled to Bizya, in Thrace. This not subduing his constancy, the old man was dragged back to Constantinople, publicly scourged, his tongue cut out, and his right hand severed at the wrist. After these brutalities he was banished to the country of the Lazians, where he soon died, in consequence of the injuries inflicted upon him for the faith which he professed.

17.-ROBERT BLAKE died in 1657, aged 59. He was born at Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, and educated at Oxford. He sat for his native town in the short parliament of April, 1640. On the breaking out of the civil war, he entered the parliamentary army. In 1649, in conjunction with two other colonels, Deane and Popham, he was appointed to command the fleet. For this new office he showed great qualification: he destroyed Prince Rupert's fleet, took the Scilly Islands, Guernsey, and Jersey, from the royalists, and was elected member of the Council of State. May 19, 1652, when sole admiral, he defeated the Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, in the Straits of Dover; and again, the following year, in the Channel. When Cromwell dissolved the Long Parliament and assumed the office of Protector, Blake sat in two parliaments which Cromwell summoned, and was soon employed by him to bring to terms the Duke of Tuscany and the Order of Malta, as well as the piratical states of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis. On the breaking out of war with Spain, he blockaded the Bay of Cadiz, and in the Bay of Santa Cruz, Teneriffe, which was strongly fortified, he attacked the Spanish fleet, silenced the forts, and destroyed the ships. He died of dropsy and scurvy as he was

entering Plymouth, was buried with great pomp in Westminster Abbey, but after the restoration of Charles II. his body was disinterred, together with those of Cromwell, Ireton, Pym, and others, and thrown into a pit in St. Margaret's churchyard.

26. SIR ROBERT PARNYNGE died 1343. He is noted for having been the first regularly bred common lawyer who was ever

appointed to the office of Chancellor in England. He was probably of obscure origin, owing his rise to his talents and industry. He filled the office of Chancellor in the reign of king Edward III., who was the first to appoint a layman Lord Chancellor of England. The first lay Chancellor was Sir Robert Bourchier, a distinguished soldier, appointed in 1340.

MARQUIS OF NORMANDY TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK.

August, 7, 1703.

The favour your Grace has done me, in writing so kindly to me of Mr. Wesley, whom I shall be ready to serve on all occasions, is enough to recommend him and his works to me. They need no other motive to make them acceptable than your Grace's approbation. I can only say this, that if the dedication had fallen elsewhere, the whole piece might have passed yet freer without censure, for I am too sensible of my own insufficiency to think I merit either his character or your Grace's good opinion. But this I can justly say, that if I value myself for anything, it is for being esteemed worthy your acquaintance, in which I entreat you to continue to make me happy, and always to pray for your Grace's humble servant, C. NORMANBY.

Pray my Lord favour me with my thanks and services to Mr. Wesley, and excuse me for not writing sooner, which has been occasioned by some little indisposition.

DR. CUTLER TO THE REV. JOHN WESLEY.

Boston, Oct. 22, 1737. REVEREND SIR,-It is now some time ago that I had the pleasure of your letter, dated July 23rd. Therein you hint your answer to my first letter, but nothing of my acknowledging the receipt of it, so that I fear my second letter, by whom sent I forget, hath totally miscarried. I am sorry, Sir, for the clouds hanging over your mind respecting your undertaking and situation, but hope God will give a happy increase to the good seed you have scattered, according to His will. The best of men in all ages have failed in the success of their labours, and there will ever be found too many enemies to the cross of Christ; for earth will not be heaven. This reminds us of that happy place where we shall not see the grieved for transgressors, and where for our well-meant labours, our

judgment is with the Lord, and our reward with our God; and you well know, Sir, that under the saddest appearances we may have some share in the consolations which God gave Elijah, and may trust in Him that there is some wickedness we repress, or prevent, some goodness by our means, weak and unworthy as we are, beginning, preserved, or increasing in the hearts of men, at present perhaps like a grain of mustard seed, that in God's time may put forth, spread, and flourish; and that if the world seems not the better for us, it might be worse without us: our low opinion of ourselves, is a preparative to these successes, and so the modest and great apostle found it. No doubt, Sir, you have temptations where you are, nor is there any retreat from them. They hint to us the care we must take, and the promises we must apply, and blessed is the man that endureth temptations. I rejoice in the

good character which I believe you well bestow on Mr. Whitefield, coming to you, and desire you would tender to him my compliments and best wishes, as also to your Rev. and worthy brother; but, I question not but his labours will better be joined with, than supersede yours, and even his, and all our sufficiency, and efficiency is of God. It is the least we can do to pray for one another, and if God will hear me, a great sinner, it will strengthen your interest in him. I commend myself to a share in your prayers for His pardon, acceptance, and assistance, and beg that my family, particularly a dear son, now curate to the Dean of Bocking, in Essex, may not be forgotten by you. I am, Rev. Sir, your most affectionate humble servant,

TIMOTHY CUTLER.

REV. J. WESLEY TO THE REV. Z. YEWDALL.

London, Dec. 31, 1783. MY DEAR BROTHER,-You fear where no fear is. I have appointed Mr. Blair to labour with you, at Cork and Bandon : and shall not alter that appointment without

stronger reasons than I am likely to see. If I live I shall probably see Ireland in summer. If I do not, I expect Dr. Coke will

Robert Blake may go just where he will. I have nothing to do with him. Three times he left his circuit, without the con

sent of his assistant. He has stupidly, and saucily, affronted almost all the leaders. His high spirit, I fear, will destroy him. Till he is deeply humbled, I disclaim all fellowship with him. I am your affectionate friend and brother, J. WESLEY. Rev. Z. Yewdall.

A SOCIETY NOT A CHURCH.

We have frequently remarked in our public addresses, that the difficulties in which the Wesleyan ministers are at present so deeply involved, have arisen from an attempt to govern Christian churches by rules and regulations that were intended by Wesley only for societies. We are pleased to find that the views of Dr. Dixon fully accord with our own. The following is the sage Doctor's most recent deliver

ance:

Methodist authorities are now blamed very much, because, it is said, none of the divisions of modern times occurred in the days of Mr. Wesley. The truth of the matter is, the task of modern administrators is infinitely more difficult than was that of Mr. Wesley. With the idea of a society in his mind, and not a church, he was not, in fact, called upon to consider the attributes, the qualities, the rights, the offices, and the government of a church. His ideal being simply that of a religious society, he went no further than to make provision for such a state of things. His course was the most simple imaginable. He could take in, and put out, at his pleasure, everything and everybody, suited or not suited to his purpose; and, in fact, constantly did so. Hence, he only considered his preachers as his helpers, and not as possessing the ministerial office. He required his people to receive the Lord'ssupper in the National Church, clearly showing that he considered their church membership as belonging to the Establishment, while their connection with him was only that of fellowship in the society. Hence he could, and perhaps properly, dismiss any preacher, if he did not suit his purpose; and, equally, dismiss members of the Society on any ground, such as infringing the rules, and so on; but, in the circumstances of the case, as their admission into his societies did not make them church members, neither did dismission excommunicate them from any church.

A man who possesses the right and the power of doing in all things exactly as he pleases, enjoys, in truth, a very easy task.

The matter assumes a very different aspect when the Methodist Body, in England and America, were led to assume the position and take the functions of a church. This has been done, in fact, in this country, though up to this moment it has not been done by any formal act. The United Society" is still our designation, and our legislation has all along gone on in the spirit of a a society, and not a church. This, we are persuaded, has been at the bottom of many of our embarrassments, and of some of our divisions. Instead of the Church-state being recognised, a small legislation has been resorted to, as occasion demanded, to meet emergencies; and often the rules, from time to time adopted, have clashed with each other. Sometimes next to everything was conceded to the official meeting at least, so they understood at the time, and so it is now understood by many; then again, this has been denied, the supposed concessions resumed, and safeguards sought against lay encroach

ments.

It is easy to see that a state of things so indefinite must tend to litigation. A confused series of rules and enactments, passed by piecemeal, and often having no connection with each other, no harmony or coherence arising out of well-considered and settled principle, developing no great Scriptural truth-all this has led to great confusion and inconvenience. The disputants on the other side, as might be expected, have claimed the benefit of this uncertainty for their own cause; and have not failed to charge their opponents with disingenuousness, and want of simplicity. Many in this country are persuaded that this confusion has arisen mainly from the fact, that at the period of the death of Mr. Wesley, our fathers failed to realize, to define, and to proclaim themselves a church of the Lord Jesus Christ. They left themselves as a society, and it is perfectly easy to see that the attributes of a society in a church, which was the case all along, during the lifetime of our founder, and a church in its own entirety must be very different. A society in a nation may be a very good thing as a society, but to

attempt to work out the interests and destinies of the nation by the machinery of the society, would be a most hopeless task. Societies are usually formed for one single purpose, whereas a community, a nation, the body politic, exists for many purposes, and has, consequently, many responsibilities, duties, offices, and privileges, which cannot belong to the society. It is very clear, that Mr. Wesley's societies in this country, were established for one particular purpose, namely, that of spiritual edification; and his refusal to ordain or recognise his preachers as ministers, and allow them to administer the sacraments, or to exercise pastoral functions, except as his helpers, clearly show his purpose to preserve the body in the position of societies alone.

When, in fact, the Methodist body assumed to itself the functions of a church, by agreeing to the administration of the sacraments, and taking upon itself the action of an entirely independent body, the natural course would have been to inquire as to the true Scriptural attributes of a church; the privileges and rights of the people; the position, responsibilities and rights of the pastoral office; the true connection and functions of church courts, as connected with the church itself; and then the relations of all officers, both with the people and the ministers, so as to cause the whole to work harmoniously together. This was not done; perhaps it could not be done; the people were divided in opinion, and the difficulties were very great. We ought not to blame others for not effecting changes which, in the cir

cumstances, were probably out of their power to effect. Besides, the men themselves had been trained in the society system, and, it is likely, had little conception of anything very material and important lying beyond their own line of operations. G.

WESLEY IN CONFERENCE.

"

Wesley was open to conviction, and easily drawn to duty; giving weight to the eastern apologue, A little child may lead an elephant by a single hair." On one occasion, when pressing upon the preachers the necessity of morning preaching, and stating that the man who did not attend to it ought to go home to his worldly occupation again, Robert Roberts arose in the Conference, and referring to an omission or two of his own, said, with a touch of severity, "Then you yourself, Sir, ought to be put away from among us." Mr. Wesley felt that he had not made sufficient allowance for particular cases, and had maintained his position with too much tenacity; and reclining back on his chair, he closed his eyes for a few seconds, during which the tears were oozing from between the eyelids, then bending forward, he remarked with great tenderness, "You may put me away, if you will?" Here it terminated : there were no back-reckonings; no backsettlements were sought out; no brand was affixed on the forehead of the offender; no humiliations followed; there was no offended pride to feed-no malignant feeling to perpetuate.

Lectures on Systematic Theology. By the Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY, Professor of Theology in the Oberlin Collegiate Institute, Ohio, America. 8vo. Pp. xviii. 996. Tegg.

A great book is a great evil. This is a proverbial observation, to the truth of which numerous readers are prepared to testify. The volume before us is ponderous; it contains nearly as much matter as the three volumes of "Watson's Institutes." Compression would have greatly enhanced its value. Mr. Finney is not a wordy, but a precise, energetic writer, though his style is too scholastic. He has unnecessarily multiplied divisions, amplified some of his subjects, and given at length numerous

quotations from Scripture. He has written for those who are willing to read, study, think, and read again. There were many of this class in the seventeenth century; but there are but few in this busy, bustling age. We make these remarks, because we think the volume is one of great worth, and should like it to be well studied by all young ministers. Dr. Redford frankly confesses that when a student he would gladly have bartered half the books in his library for a single perusal of it. The Lectures were published in America a few years ago. They have been revised, enlarged, and partly re-written by the author during his late visit to England.

The title of the first Lecture is, How we attain to the knowledge of certain truths.

We differ from the author in the first paragraph, where he affirms that "all theologiaus do and must assume the truth of some system of psychology and mental philosophy." This was not Paul's method, nor that of any inspired man. Thousands have rightly understood and successfully taught theology, without assuming any system of psychology and mental philosophy. Here, we think, is Mr. Finney's great error. He brings the Scripture to his system, instead of testing his system by Scripture. There is not a sufficiently profound reverence for the oracles of eternal truth. When Jehovah speaks, all rule, and all authority and power should implicitly bow. thirty-three Lectures on Moral Government contain a large amount of correct and profound thinking, and open a field in which the loftiest intellects may expand their powers and extend their researches. The Atonement of Christ is shown, by numerous irrefragable arguments, to have been intended for every human being.

The

On the subject of Moral Depravity, we think Mr. Finney is in error. He says, that "Moral depravity does not consist in, nor simply imply, a sinful nature, but in selfishness-in a state of voluntary committal of the will to self-gratification." He allows that human selfishness is universal. To account for this satisfactorily, we think, he will not be able, unless he grant that it springs from a sinful nature. If moral depravity consists in the voluntary committal of the will to self-gratification, how comes it to pass that no human beings have escaped it by a constant, supreme love to God Of the passages of Scripture generally adduced in proof of the doctrine of original sin, our author has not given a calm and enlightened exegetical interpretation.

There are eighteen Lectures on Sanctification that present an immense amount of sound practical divinity; but we cannot give them an unqualified approbation. His views of moral depravity lead him into error when treating of the nature of Sanctification. Again; he teaches that sanctification precedes justification, and even makes it a condition of it. Were this correct, God, in the act of justification, would be merciful, not to a sinner, but to a saint: he would justify, not the ungodly, but the godly. The Holy Spirit, who is sent forth into the heart to witness to our justification, produces our sanctification. To make sanctification the condition of our justification is to destroy the glorious Protestant doctrine of justification by faith, the pillar on which, as Luther remarks, the true church rests. We regret that Dr. Redford, the sagacious and erudite editor, did not suggest the condensation and modification of these, in many respects, invaluable Lec

tures.

Cosmos: a Sketch of a Physical Description of the Universe. By ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT. Translated from the German by E. C. Otté. 4 vols. Pp. 372, 373, 289, 312. London. Bohn.

WE have great pleasure in introducing to the notice of our readers the production of one of the most profoundly learned and scientific men which the republic of letters has ever produced. As a scientific traveller, he stands unrivalled; and now, in the eighty-third year of his age, this philosophic veteran attempts what he, with the modesty of wisdom, acknowledges to be surpassingly difficult, but what has been from his youth a cherished object of his heart to give a physical description of the universe, embracing a summary of physical knowledge, as connected with a delineation of the material universe. A lifetime has been devoted to the accumulation of the requisite materials. It is not without reason that the learned Chevalier Bunsen, in the Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, represents this production of the hoary veteran's pen, "the great work of the age."

The Natural History of the Year, for Children. Ward and Co.

A charming little work, with engravings for children of both sexes entering, or just entered, upon their teens. Lads fond of birdsnesting should read twice over pages 33 and 34.

Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Negro Life in the Slave States of America. By HARRIET BEECHER STOWE. Reprinted verbatim from the Tenth American Edition.

AN American minister informs us, that fifty thousand copies of this work were sold in eight weeks in the United States. The talented and pious authoress, daughter of Dr. Beecher, and wife of Professor Stowe, thus states the origin of the work: "For many years of her life, she avoided all reading upon or allusion to the subject of slavery, considering it as too painful to be inquired into, and one which advancing light and civilisation would certainly live down. But since the Legislative Act of 1850, when she heard, with perfect surprise and consternation, Christian and humane people actually recommending the remanding escaped fugitives into slavery, as a duty binding on good citizens,

she could

only think, These men and Christians cannot know what slavery is; if they did, such a question could never be open for discussion.' And from this arose a desire to exhibit it in a living dramatic reality.".