was the cause of their marvelling? The miracle wrought. Was it a remarkable miracle? Yes. Let the teacher dwell on the wonder. What manner of man was Jesus? Unlike all other men in wisdom

and power.

IMPROVEMENT. Dwell upon, 1, The importance of having Christ as our friend 2, The duty of prayer, especially in every period of trouble.

:

SEPTEMBER 24.

Morning Reading, 1 Sam. xxviii. Afternoon Lesson, Matt. viii. 28-34.

regions of Gadara.

NOTES ON THE LESSON.

Opposite

The

VERSE 28. Where was the country of the Gergesenes ? Galilee. Into what part of the country did Jesus come? Mark v. 1. How many "possessed do Mark and Luke mention. Mark v. 2; Luke viii. 27. How do you account for this difference of statement. Mark and Luke mention the most remarkable case only. What made these persons so fierce, and what else is said about them in Mark and Luke? Their being possessed. Mark v. 3-5; Luke viii. 27-29. What made them come out of the tombs? They dwelt there. Mark v. 3.-Verse 29. What did their crying out in this manner prove? That they knew Jesus. What did they fear? That he was coming to judge them. What do we learn from this? That evil spirits have not yet received the just and full punishment of their sins. Give their language as recorded by Mark and Luke. Mark v. 7; Luke viii. 28.-VERSE 30. Where did they feed and to whom did they belong? Was it lawful for Jews to keep swine? Lev. xi. 7, 8.-VERSE 31. Why did the devils ask for this? They knew he would dispossess them, and wished to remain in the country. Mark v. 10. Had Jesus commanded them to come out? Yes. Mark v. 8.-VERSE 32. Why did Jesus permit the devils to cause this loss? 1, To convince the Sadducees of the existence of evil spirits: 2, To show them that they sinned in keeping swine: 3, To remove a great temptation from them. How many swine were there? Mark v. 13.-VERSE 33. Why did the keepers flee? In fear and to tell the news. VERSE 34. Was not this a foolish and unkind request? Yes. They ought to have rejoiced. 1, They were selfish; preferring swine to their fellow-men's happiness: 2, They were ungrateful: they ought to have adored him who gave such proofs of his power: 3, They were infatuated; they ought to have asked Christ to stay

with them.

IMPROVEMENT. Dwell upon the folly of preferring worldly possessions to the presence and favour of Christ.

Afternoon Reading, Gen. ix. 1-19.

Afternoon Lesson, Mark v. 15, 18-20.

NOTES ON THE LESSON.

VERSE 15. Where was the dispossessed sitting? Luke viii. 36. What did this posture denote ? Acknowledgment of Christ's

power in casting out the devil, gratitude, and reverence. Who clothed him? Probably Christ's disciples. Ought the multitude to have been afraid? No. If they had known more about Christ they would have rejoiced in his great power.-VERSE 18. Was the dispossessed in the ship when this request was made? The ship (which was small) touched the shore; and when Christ entered the dispossessed may be supposed to move as if to enter also, when Christ forbad him, and the request was made. Why was the request made? 1, From a sense of gratitude: 2, From affection for Christ: 3, From a feeling of confidence in Christ's protection.-VERSE 19. Was not this a trial to the man? Undoubtedly. What is the account in Luke? "God" instead of "Lord" Luke viii. 39. What do we learn from this? That Christ is God.-VERSE 20. What did this prompt obedience show? Sincere gratitude. Anything more? Yes; great faith. In leaving the presence and protection of his best friend, that he might do his will. What is meant by Decapolis ? The region of ten cities. Some were on one side, some on the other, of the sea of Galilee. Decapolis means ten cities." What is meant by all men ? All to whom he spake of his

cure.

IMPROVEMENT. Dwell upon the similarity between those who were possessed, and all sinners-on the power of Christ to remove evil influences from our hearts-and on the importance of telling others of the cures he is able to effect.

POVERTY OF MEN OF GENIUS.

Many of the most celebrated writers have had neither hereditary dignity, nor yet been favoured by fortune with numerous and noble patrons and friends, enjoyed any peculiar privileges, or found strewed in their path any advantageous opportunities for the acquisition of knowledge, but such as their own genius invented and plied. The mine has been opened and worked by themselves alone. Edmund Halley was the son of a soap-boiler of Shoreditch, Dr. Mountain of a beggar, and Milton of a money-scrivener. Cervantes, the great Spanish writer, served as a common soldier. Voltaire was the son of a

vintner, and Rousseau of a cobler; Dodsley served for a long time in the humble sphere of footman. Gay was an apprentice to a silk mercer; Johnson was the son of an inferior bookseller; and Akenside and H. Kirke White were the children of butchers. The father of Franklin was a journeyman printer, and of Whitfield, an innkeeper. The celebrated Bishop Prideaux worked in the kitchen at Exeter college. Richardson was for seven tedious years an apprentice at a printing-office, when he would steal the hours of sleep for study, and scrupulously buy his own candles that he might not defraud his master. Hooker, when visited by Sandys and Cranmer at Drayton-Beauchamp, was found with a Horace in his hand, quietly watching over a flock of sheep. Pierre arranged, completed, and published his "Studies of Nature," and Addison wrote his "Campaign," in a garret. Lord Chief Justice Saunders was once a poor errand boy, and learned to write on the steps of the chambers where he was waiter.-Dr. Edwards's Piety and Intellect.

REVIEWS.

The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent: a Sermon preached before the University, in the Cathedral Church of Christ, in Oxford, on the Fourth Sunday after Easter. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., &c. 1843.

"Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" Oxford in flames, the whole land in a blaze, and all through the few sparks, the "little fire," contained in this sermon! Great events do indeed spring from small causes. Who would have thought some ten or fifteen years back that Oxford could by any possibility become so combustible ?-much less that the country in which Wickliffe lived and preached and wrote so many generations ago could contain any materials in it which might serve to add to the conflagration? Who, we ask, would have thought it?

But strange things come to pass; and this is one of them. The "cathedral church of Christ, in Oxford," witnesses a novel sight, on "the fourth Sunday after Easter," in the "year of grace," 1843. It is the month of May, and the middle of the month. While the metropolis is in a feverish state of excitement-its religious heart beating high-bible society, missionary

society, tract society, sunday school society meetings and anniversary gatherings of all kinds keeping up the pulse at a rapid rate; while all this is going on in the mother city, Oxford must not lie quiet, dozing itself to sleep under its canopy of steeples and towers, belfries and college halls. Is there religion in London, and shall there be none in Oxford? Indeed it shall not be. Have we not a cathedral, and a devout fraternity; and above all a "ghostly Father," who can set our spiritual nature in motion? And so the cathedral is in request, and the service determined upon, and the preacher appointed, we need not say who. The spacious building is crowded with worshippers and hearers, and speculators and profane. Even the curious solely are there also, anxious to see what can be seen and hear what may be heard. According to some of the London papers, fashionable ladies set off from the West End to Oxford, willing to die of travel almost rather than miss the occasion: the consummation of all earthly and, for the present, heavenly desire being a sight of Dr. Pusey, or to touch the hem of Mr. Newman's garment.

Well, we dwell no further on the scene, but its results. The sermon is preached, and it proves a sermon of sermons-nothing less than the one before us. Though the subject were connected with comfort, as the title teaches us, little was the comfort of some hearers, and less the comfort of the renowned preacher. "Tis rank heresy," said some. "Tis very popery," said others. "Tis pure Anglican church doctrine," said a third party. "Tis true edification," said a fourth. Thus there was much division and great discomfort as the result. The London meetings, meanwhile, went off very well, there being much to "report" of, and much to do. But here, at Oxford, the work was of a difficult kind—namely, to talk.

And now what shall we say of this notable discourse? What indeed can we say, but that it is very much like popery-if it be not popery itself? "On Sunday last," says one of the provincial papers, "the Rev. J. Moore, Roman Catholic priest, read to his congregation in the mass-house, in Bath Street, the sermon for preaching which Dr. Pusey has been suspended; and commenting on the said sermon, described it as a pure exposition of Roman Catholic doctrine. We will not weaken this fact by any extended observations." No, truly; there is

little occasion. The priest is not likely to read Protestant doctrine to his flock; and if Dr. Pusey is his favourite, and furnishes him with his homilies, there is little difficulty in ascertaining the complexion of the doctor's religious opinions.

But our readers shall judge for themselves what this sermon contains, and thereby what reason they have for increased faithfulness in contending earnestly for "the faith once delivered to the saints." A few extracts will be the shortest way of aiding them in their decision.

The text is "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The preacher, after a short introduction, proceeds to show that the "Holy Eucharist" is a great comfort to the penitent as preserving and enlarging natural and spiritual life. This is effected through eating of the bread and drinking of the cup-not as memorials of Christ's body and blood, but as "his very body and blood.” In the following words we have with sufficient clearness the preacher's views.

"Receiving him into this very body, they who are his receive life, which shall pass over to our very decaying flesh; they have within them him who is life and immortality and incorruption, to cast out or absorb into itself our natural mortality and death and corruption, and shall live for ever,' because made one with him who alone 'liveth for evermore.""

It is difficult to cram a greater amount of error into a small space, than is contained in such a passage as the above; and yet the sermon abounds with similar passages. Here we learn that in receiving the bread and wine we receive Christ bodily"they have within them, him who is life, &c." Further than this, that as Christ is life, so by receiving him in the bread and wine we partake in body and spirit of his immortality. The life passes over to "our very decaying flesh." A common man might ask "how, then, is it that they who communicate die?" And, certainly, we are entitled to demand of the Oxford tractarians, who hold such views as these, proof of their assertions in the incorruptibility of that flesh of theirs which has received life, in receiving and incorporating into its substance the consecrated and transubstantiated bread and wine.

It will not do for Dr. Pusey to get rid of such an objection as this by such remarks as the following: