the lambs had escaped injury. It must be added, that the ground also was often so imperfectly tilled as to yield but a scanty harvest, and sometimes from year to year, no harvest at all. But in this case it was common for the servants to console themselves with the reflection, that God only could give the increase, and that as he gives or withholds according to his sovereign good pleasure, no blame could justly attach to them. There were indeed a few instances of failure, where all the means of securing a crop had apparently been faithfully applied. But it often happened that those who in this manner went forth, from year to year, weeping, bearing precious seed, came again at length rejoicing, bringing their sheaves with them; and where this was not the case, it frequently happened that the seed though buried long in dust, sprang up in a joyful harvest, after the hand that sowed it, and the eye that wept over it, were at rest in the grave.

It was left in charge by the nobleman to his servants, that they should keep in good repair those parts of the farm which had been reduced to cultivation, and urge on the work of subduing the wilderness until the entire farm should become one fruitful field; and so vigorous at first was the onset upon the wilderness, that it seemed as if every tree of the forest would bow, and every acre of the farm be made to feel the plough, and to wave with harvests. But so much at length did the love of these servants wax cold, and their enterprise abate, that the wilderness regained much of its lost dominion, and all hope and all duty seemed to be limited to the defence of the fruitful fields, against the encroachments of the wilderness.

expected, or intended we should subdue the entire farm? Never. His language is hyperbolical. Another contended that the fruitful field might as well give place to the wilderness, as the wilderness to the fruitful field. He could perceive very little difference, he said, between the wild animals of the wilderness, and the tame animals of the fields. God who made them all is benevolent, and no respecter of persons, from which it must result, that they are all happy, and about equally happy; he thought it therefore a useless expense to carry the arts of husbandry to the wilderness; he could perceive but little difference between the lion and the wolf, and the ox and the lamb. All were made very good animals, each lived in his own way, and why should we disturb them.

Others who thought it would be a very good thing, to subdue the wilderness were it possible, fainted at the thought of such an undertaking. There were trees, they said, somewhere in that wilderness, an hundred miles in circumference, harder than the hardest steel, and whose roots were wrapped about the centre of the earth, so that to cut them down, or pull them up, or raise crops under their shade, was alike hopeless.And then there were lions in the way of unusual strength, and fierceness, ready to slay every man who should show himself in their dominions; and there too travellers had seen the giants, in comparison with whom they were grashoppers. If it was suggested, by any servant, that the field now cultivated, was once itself a wilderness, and that what had been done, could be done again; it was answered, that the great trees which stood here were pulled up by miracles, and that the giants and lions were all killed by supernatural aid, not to be expected now.

If any pointed to tracts of wilderness recently subdued without miracles, as difficult of subjugation as any that remained, a new host of objectors took up the argument; admitted

the possibility of subduing the wilderness, but denied that there was either time or resources. It was as much as could be done,' they said, to maintain the cultivated field from the encroachments of the wilderness, and that charity begins at home. There were fences enough to be mended, and flocks to be gathered, and weeds to be eradicated at home, and nothing should be done abroad, until the farm at home was put in perfect order. Beside, where shall we find labourers for the whole field? And even were all the products of the cultivated part devoted to subduing the wilderness, it would be in vain : forgetful that every newly cultivated acre poured into the treasury, thirty, sixty or an hundred fold; and that the resources increased, as the work to be done diminished.

There was after all, another difficulty, which was, on which side of the wilderness they should begin; some prefering to assail the forests immediately contiguous, while others prefered going quite the other side. This difficulty was however settled by the amicable agreement, that both sides should be assailed at once, and the assault continued until the servants should meet and shake hands in the middle.

In the ancient book already referred to, and which the nobleman deposited in the hands of his servants, there were rules which he directed them to follow implicitly in the management of the farm; forbidding them to make a single unauthorized experiment. In this book it was provided, that persons of competent skill in husbandry, who could exhibit evidence of friendship to their master, and would make the requisite engagements, might be received into the household of the nobleman; and for a season, those who offered themselves were carefully examined, and few were received, who did not consult in some good degree, the interests of their master. But in process of time it came to pass, that from indolence or carelessness, or false ten

derness, any person who offered himself was sure to be received, however deficient in skill, or wanting in the ordinary evidence of friendship to the nobleman. The consequence was, that many servants unskilled in husbandry, and without friendship to the master, became members of his household. These, as might be expected, were extremely liberal in their views, and charitably disposed towards all those servants, whose deportment in better days would have ensured their expulsion from the household. If any servants proposed a more strict examination concerning skill, or industry, or friendship to their mas ter, with reference to the admission of servants, they were denounced as uncharitable, bigoted and cruel. Does not charity, it would be said, hope all things, and believe all things?Do we know the candidate for admission to be a novice? why then should we torment him by unreasonable suspicions, implied in his examination? They could not doubt that he had devoted himself some where faithfully to the acquisition of agricultural knowledge, and that he was, or would be, as industrious, and skilful, and faithful, as themselves; and, as to friendship to the nobleman, "Is it not well known," they demanded, "that he had no enemies? It was unreasonable to think that he had, and if any pretended to be his enemies, or ever conducted as if they were, undoubtedly they were deceived, or from modesty merely exhibited themselves as being worse than they were. Besides, friendship and enmity are feelings of the heart, and what have we to do with each other's hearts? To our own master we stand or fall."

If at any time, attempts were made to expel from the household an idle or profligate servant, he would inquire the authority of the servants to do it, and cry persecution; when instantly, as if roused by fellow feeling, a host of sympathetic brethren would come to his aid to denounce his persecutors, and certify whom it

might concern, of his preeminent industry, sincerity, and skill. In consequence of this state of things, the business of the farm, in many parts, was wretchedly conducted. Many a field was scarcely tilled at all, but was grown over to thorns, and nettles covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down. Some servants mingled tares with the good seed, and some sowed little beside tares. At first indeed, it was done in the night, while men slept, but at length it was done openly. If any alleged that a particular servant sowed tares, it was replied, that tares and wheat were so nearly alike, that none should presume authoritatively to discriminate between them. 'It had always been disputed,' they said, 'which were tares, and which were wheat, and that every servant must judge for himself. The accused thought that he sowed wheat, and his accusers thought that he sowed tares, and he was as likely to be right as they. Besides, it was all, they said, a matter of mere opinion, for which no man should be accountable. If their fellow servant had in fact sowed tares, he had done it, they did not doubt, sincerely, and of course would be as well accepted of their master, as those who sowed wheat. But, after all, said they, of what consequence is it what seed a man sows, provided the harvest is good? What harm can there be in sowing tares, provided we reap wheat? or even if every seed produced after his kind, they could perceive no such mighty difference as to render it a matter of much consequence what seeds were sown. Among all the seeds sown upon the farm, they could not lay their finger upon more than two or three of much importance; and on the whole, they concluded, that tares sown sincerely, were even better than wheat sown hypocritically.

It was directed in the book of husbandry, that in the cultivation of fruit trees, particular attention should be paid to the root, but the same servants who thought that tares sown

sincerely, were better than wheat sown hypocritically, conceived the idea, that all attention to the roots of trees was entirely superfluous labour, that the root of the tree was dependent on the top, not the top upon the root; and that all that a skilful busbandman had need to do, was to keep his trees well pruned. They talked, and wrote, and printed, and went about with great kindness, to open the eyes of other servants to the extreme folly of delving in the dirt about the roots of trees. 'For what,' said they, can be more beautiful than leaves and blossoms, or what more excellent than delicious fruit? Let the top of the tree, they said, be duly cultivated, and the luxuriant top, if roots be needful, will produce them.' If any quoted that passage in the book of husbandry, which apostrophizing a tree says, 'thou bearest not the root, but the root thee,' it was easy to reply that the passage was mistranslated, and that it ought to be rendered as it does read in the original; thou bearest not the branches, but the branches thee.

Were it alleged, that where attention was paid to the roots of trees, they were invariably the most flourishing and fruitful. The fact would be sometimes reluctantly admitted, while that the difference was caused by the different mode of culture, would be strenuously denied.'Prove to us,' they would say, that the difference does not arise from soil or position, or the cultivation which you bestow upon the top, in commou with us; for as long as it is possible that the difference may arise from some other cause, it is absolutely certain that it is not produced by your particular mode of cultivation.'

Another charge left upon record in the book of husbandry, was, that the servants should take particular care of the sheep and lambs of the flock, to see that they were defended against the lion, who went about seeking to devour them. But those servants who dreaded so much the labour of tilling the roots of trees, found the

service of keeping the flock too laborious for pleasure, and by searching critically the book of husbandry, discovered to their great joy that there was no such animal as the lion; that the lion so often spoken of in the book of husbandry, as such a powerful and ferocious animal, was nothing but the principle of evil personified, as it existed in thunderstorms and the diseases of sheep. It is well known, they said, that thunderstorms roar, that they are noxious to lambs, and that they go about, figuratively seeking whom they may figuratively devour. When reminded that the book spoke of many lions, though of one as chief in strength and ferocity, it was easy to reply that thunderstorms were numerous, some great and some small; the greatest being called the old lion, and the rest lions, or young lions, according to their power. In like manner, they insisted, were 'the diseases of sheep personified, proceeding as they all did, from principles of disease in the animal called the old lion, or the lion, or young lion, as the disease was more or less destructive. These diseases, it was well known, caused sheep to bleat, which by a figure of speech, common in eastern countries, might be called roaring, and as disease and death decompose the bodies of animals, they are fitly compared to a lion tearing in pieces and devouring his prey. It is scarcely to be conceived how much rejoicing and self-complacency this discovery occasioned. The servants who made it and availed themselves of it, deemed themselves the most learned servants on the farm, and to express at once their estimation of themselves, and their contempt of the old fashioned servants, they styled themselves rational husbandmen. The irrational servants did in this case all to reclaim their fellow servants, which could be expected of men bereft of reason, or who never had any. They demanded, how the principle of evil in diseases and thunderstorms, which was a reality, could possibly be illustra

ted by clothing it with the animated powers and actions of an animal which did not exist. What sense could there be in calling a traitor a Judas, had no treacherous Judas existed; in calling a miser's heart, a heart of stone, if no such hard material called a stone had any being; and why call the principle of evil in disease and thunder, a lion, if there be no such living animal in the wilderness. Does not the calling of storms and diseases, lions, (said these simple-hearted servants) prove the existence of real lions ? Do the Greeks and eastern nations illustrate the power of thunder and disease by the properties and actions of non-existences? Do you find any examples of the kind in Homer, Sanchoniathon, Manetho, or the Talmuds? These questions demanding time in order to answer them learnedly, time was accordingly taken, when, after extended research, without being able to find an example in point, it was profoundly conjectured, that all the books which authorized the illustration of the properties of real existences, by the properties and actions of nothing, were destroyed in Herculaneum, or burnt in the Alexandrine library.

BUNYAN.

Anecdotes of the late King of England, George III.

(Concluded from page 637.)

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS.

Many attempts were made during the late reign in favor of what is called Catholic emancipation, and to remove all those barriers, which excluded Roman Catholics from the highest offices in the state. In 1807, when Lord Grenville applied to the king on this subject, we are told (on the authority of a letter of Sir H. Harper,) that his majesty replied, 'My lord,— I am one of those who respect an oath. I have firmness sufficient to quit my throne and retire to a cottage, or place my neck on a block or a scaffold, if my people require it; but I have not resolution to break

that oath which I took in the most solemn manner at my coronation.'*

was

At another time, being further urged by one of his ministers on this subject, he said with much good nature, and with a conciseness that common to him, 'Tell me who took the coronation oath? did you or I? The pleader was not stopped by this pointed reply, but was proceeding, when the king interrupting him, said, 'Dundas, let me have no more of your Scotch sophistry; I took the oath, and I must keep it.'-Rippon's Sermon.

His late majesty having had frequent occasions of speaking to an emminent manufacturer who employed many hands, one day asked him

whether he was an alderman of W—, and being informed he was not, wished to know the reason; the person replied, that being a Protestant Dissenter, he could not obtain the qualification but by receiving the Lord's Supper-the required test. 'Very right, very right, exclaimed his majesty, 'I like a man to be consci*That part of the coronation-oath, which the king supposed to militate with the claims of the catholics is as follows:

The Archbishop says, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the protestant reformed religion as established by law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by the law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?

do.'

The King replies, "All this I promise to

entious.' Sometime afterwards one of the princesses called at the warehouse in London, and said to Mr. B. You are a great favorite with his majesty.' Mr. B. answered, It gave him pleasure to hear it, but he was not conscious of having done any thing to obtain his majesty's favor.' The princess then reminded Mr. B. of the above conversation; she said his majesty had related the whole to the queen and the princesses, and had added, "I like B.——, I wish every one to be conscientious.'

MISCELLANEOUS.

At the late public meeting at Weymouth, the Rev. Dr. Cracknell introduced the following anecdote of his majesty, which supplies another illustration of his habitual piety and nice discrimination. My late friend, Mr. Wathen, the celebrated oculist,' said the doctor, related to me that in one of his interviews with the king, he observed to his majesty, I have often thought of the words of Solomon, When the righteous are in athority the people rejoice,' and if your majesty could always appoint servants of that character, the voice of rejoicing would be heard throughout the empire.' 'Wathen,' replied his majesty, 'these are the men I have sought for; but when I have required their services, I have often been disappointed, for I find men distinguished by habits of piety prefer retirement ; and that, generally speaking, the men of the world must transact the world's business.'

Samuel Miller, D. D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Church Government, in the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, at Princeton. Baltimore, 1820.

We do not deem it a course that