longer be engaged as an instructer. It was now but rarely that he appeared in the pulpit; but whenever he did so, as some of yourselves have informed me, his discourses were characterised by all their former richness in solid doctrine, and were made more than usually solemn by the seriousness of his demeanour, as one standing, as he felt he did, on the verge of the grave. It was, as you know, when matters were in this state, that his colleague was also laid down upon the bed of sickness, and with Mr Brash's illness he profoundly sympathised, and often expressed himself as afflicted both on his family's account and on yours. It was, however, a great relief to his mind when you succeeded in getting your now sole surviving pastor and our beloved friend, Mr Ker.

Though I have thus purposely dwelt at some length upon Dr Kidston's connection with this congregation, it is meet that I also glance at his more public relationships to the Church and to society. His long and great usefulness to our church courts is well known. For nearly twenty years he was clerk to the Synod.

It may be also proper to mention, that for the long period of forty-one years he had held the same office in the Presbytery of Glasgow, on retiring from which, some time previous to his resignation of the Synod clerkship he received a very handsome and valuable testimony of regard from his brethren in and around this city. It was well-deserved; for a more obliging, painstaking, and hospitable official than he was never lived, as many now living and labouring in all parts of the country can testify.

In all other respects, Dr Kidston was equally public-spirited. In him benevolent, charitable, and missionary societies ever found an influential patron and a generous subscriber. He lived at the period of the rise of the missionary enterprise, and gave to it his heart and his hand when it needed support. Thus he came into contact with the fathers and founders of the London Missionary Society, whose spirit he admired, and whose zeal he emulated. In general, he was found ever in the very front rank of all measures for the revival of religion. Whoever might be present or absent, Dr Kidston was always there. He was the the warm friend of the slave, and advocated his emancipation with the philanthropists of his time. He was the friend of Israel, and longed and prayed for their conversion to God. He was the friend of the poor, and for more than sixty years abetted every scheme in this city for the amelioration of their wretchedness. He was the friend of all and every Christian who loved

the Lord Jesus, and at once threw his whole heart into the projected Evangelical Alliance. When nearly eighty years of age, he went to London, and attended all the meetings in Freemason' Hall which issued in its formation. He took a remarkable interest in the proceedings; giving his counsel in the midst of the great and the good ones gathered from all the ends of the earth; and was chosen to preside over one of its devotional meetings. It was indeed a pleasing spectacle to witness one on the very verge of that happy world where schisms and dissents are unknown, diffusing the spirit of his own Christian charity over the representative sections of the Church militant, and as it were enjoying the prelibations of heavenly love out of the cups of Christian union here. To the very close of his life his heart continued with the grand object of the Alliance; and only a few weeks ago, when I was leaving him to attend its annual meeting in Dublin, he expressed his wish that he had been able to accompany me. This ardent love of Christian union existed, on his part, long, long before the idea of the Evangelical Alliance had been mooted. As far back as 1793, nearly sixty years ago, Dr Kidston was the moving spirit in the formation of a 'Friendly Clerical Society' in Glasgow, consisting of ministers of different denominations, and which was greatly blessed for the cultivation of brotherly love. This society consisted at first of eight members, and was composed of ministers of three different denominations-Messers Stewart and Dunn of the Relief Synod; Messrs Pirie and Kidston of the Associate Burgher Synod; and Messrs Mushet, M'Leod, Williamson, and M'Intosh of the Established Church. Ere long were added to it the late Drs Mitchell and Muter, with Dr Love, and Messrs Begg, M'Laurin, and M'Kenzie of the Established Church; Mr Fairlie of the Associate Reformed Presbytery, and Mr Brodie of the Relief Synod. In latter years still, the late Messrs Macfarlane and Watson of the Relief, with Mr Carment of the Establishment, joined the society. If I mistake not, our excellent friend, the Rev. Dr Stuthers, of this city, was also one of its members, and is now its sole survivor. In the minute-book of this brotherhood, which was kept by Dr Kidston, he states: 'Our little society was a novelty, highly gratifying to the benevolent heart. It happily united all the different denominations in this part of the kingdom, for the purpose of cultivating Christian intercourse and friendship. It tended greatly to forward, in this part of the country, the general union and cordial co-operation of Christians in their exertions to send the gospel to the heathen

world.' This society met once in the two months, and held its meetings alternately in the private residences, or in the vestryrooms of its members. That it had something sincere and earnest in its constitution, is evident from its having existed nearly thirty years. Hence the ardour and promptitude with which Dr Kidston hailed the idea of the Evangelical Alliance, and which made many wonder that at eighty years of age he should feel and take such a deep interest in its success. After all, 'there is nothing new under the sun.' If Dr Kidston was not the father of the Alliance, he was certainly one of its most distinguished progenitors.

Perhaps it may be as well in this connection to notice, what all who knew him can testify was a strong feature in his character-his love of peace. If ever the blessing pronounced to the peacemaker was deserved by any, it was by him. Hence in his congregation, in the Presbytery, and in the Synod, all his efforts were to maintain and promote peace; and he was very often successful when others failed. To such duties he ever brought an amount of common sense, which had the effect of subduing high-spiritedness in a singularly short period, and of bringing about a comfortable settlement. This disposition made very active in the preliminary steps to the two great unions which took place during his life in our Churchthat of the two great branches of the Secession in 1820, and that of the Relief and the Secession in 1847. It was perhaps from their appreciation of his peaceable spirit, and active exertions to promote union, as much as from his venerable age, that he was chosen to be the first moderator of the united Church-an office, the duties of which he discharged with much of the wisdom and promptitude of his best days; and when, at the opening of the Synod following, he preached what was called the Synod sermon-which was afterwards, at the Synod's request, published-he gave one of the best proofs that, like Moses of old, 'his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.' His physical strength was no doubt somewhat weakened; but the eye of his mind was as clear as ever, and the pith of his judgment by no means enfeebled. That sermon will remain as a rare specimen of the sound old theology in which he had been trained, and the excellence and adaptation of which, to all holy ends, he firmly maintained to the last-not with the mere doggedness of attachment to old things, but with the manly convictions of a mind which was habituated to weigh well the merits of every subject before decision was reached. In illustration of some of these traits of his public character, I might refer to

his long presidency over the Glasgow Missionary Society, whose jubilee sermon he preached and published some years ago; and to his presidency also over the Glasgow Society for the Emancipation of the Slaves. But on these, and others of a kindred and deeply interesting nature our space forbids us to enter in the present number. (To be continued.)

EDITOR'S LIBRARY.

SIX LECTURES ON THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. By JOHN COOK, D.D., Minister of St Leonards, St Andrews. Paton & Ritchie, Edinburgh.

1852.

IN these Lectures the Evidences, External and Internal, are gone over in the usual order, without the slightest attempt at originality, and yet in an agreeable and impressive manner.

THE THRONE OF INIQUITY. By Rev. A. BARNES. Delivered by request of the London Temperance League, in Surrey Chapel, London, August 8, 1852. London: W. Sneedie. THIS is an able discourse on the subject of Intemperance, and the duty of civil governments in reference to it.

The principles in legislation which Mr Barnes conceives bears on the air, and which he illustrates in detail-are, 1. Society has a right to protect itself. 2. Society should not, by its laws, protect evil. 3. Society should not undertake to regulate evil by law. 4. Society has a right to take efficient means to prevent or remove an evil. 5. Society has a right to prevent or remove an evil by destroying private property, or rendering it valueless if necessary. The following is the close of the Sermon:

As showing the nature and the extent of the burdens resting on the community as the result of the license system, and the traffic in intoxicating drinks, it may be proper to refer to some statistics respecting the Philadelphia alms-house, -an institution that may be properly regarded as furnishing a fair illustration of the working of the present system throughout the land. It is taken from the report of the Guardians of the Poor: The number of cases treated in the Hospital, in 1851, was 5000. Intemperate, males, 2709; women, 897; total, 3606, out of 5000. There were also of mania a potu, with slight delirium, 343; ditto, with hallucination, 114; violent mania, 157:total mania a potu, 614.' Nearly four thousand persons supported at the public expense in a single city and county, as the result of the traffic in intoxicating drinks,

and more than six hundred afflicted with the most dreadful form of insanity that ever comes upon man; a business tolerated, protected, sustained by law, and requiring heavy taxes on the sober and industrious for its support! What other conceivable business is there in a civilized and Christian land would be protected or tolerated, which would, in a single year, and every year, in a single county, dethrone the intellect in more than six hundred cases, and convert more than six hundred citizens into frightful maniacs? Should an evil like this be protected by law; should it be assumed that it is to continue to exist; should an attempt be made merely to regulate it; should it have the patronage of the State, and be made legal; should a virtuous community consent to be taxed to sustain it; should intelligent and pious men lend their countenance to it? Shall a man be restrained from setting up a slaughter-house, or a glue manufactory, or dye-works, at my door, and allowed to open a fountain that is certainly destined to corrupt the morals and the peace of the neighbourhood; that is to multiply crime and pauperism, that is inevitably to ruin the bodies and the souls of men?

We shall be told, perhaps, that the proposed law is a restraint on freedom. My country is free, and this country is free; but neither the one nor the other is, or should be free for everything. They are not free to sell lottery tickets, or to set up nuisances, or to counterfeit coin, or to open houses avowedly of infamy.

We may be told that it is wrong to prevent men by law from drinking what they please. That is not the point: it is that the State shall not authorize them to manufacture and sell what they please.

We may be told that it is impossible to carry the legislature for the passage of such law. That will depend on the wishes of the State, for our legislators are the representatives of the people, and, in a free country, a people can do as they please.

We may be told that the people cannot be brought to such a state as to demand the passage of such a law. That remains to be seen. It is not absolutely certain what would be the effect of a popular vote on the subject, if the question were submitted to the people. And, besides, it is to be assumed in every free country, that the people can be induced to demand the passage of any reasonable and just law, and that they can be prevailed on to send representatives that will do it. Moreover, it is supposed that there may be hundreds of intemperate men themselves who would vote for such a law-men who see the evil of their course, and their danger; men who desire to reform, but who have not strength

to resist temptation; but who would feel that the brighter days of their early years would revisit them again, if the temptation were removed for ever from their reach.

We may be told that it would be impossible to execute such a law, and especially in our great cities. That may be so; but it is never to be assumed that a law deliberately passed by the representatives of the people, and after it has been fairly before the minds of the people, cannot be executed. What law is there that has not been executed? What law is there that cannot be? The remedy for obnoxious laws in a free country is not resistance, but change; and it is always to be assumed by legislators, and by the people, too, that a law can be executed, and that it will be executed, until the contrary is proved.

But it may be asked still, what if we fail; fail in getting the law; fail in its execution? I answer in the words of Lady Macbeth, we fail. So be it. We fail now. We fail in all our attempts to stop the progress of intemperance. We fail in moral suasion. We fail under the existing laws. We fail in societies; by all appeals; by all arguments; by all methods of influencing the public mind; by all preaching and and lecturing; by all parental counsel, and by all the portraying of the wide-spread evils of intemperance. In all these things we fail, while the law patronizes it; while the State legalizes it; while the statutes of the land authorize it-and in such efforts we must always fail-just as we would in banishing lotteries, or in closing gaming houses that are sanctioned by law. But suppose we do fail. The evil cannot easily be worse, and we shall have made one more effort to remove that great curse that has settled down on the world. there is a God in heaven, and men in a righteous cause, when they put their trust in him, do not ultimately fail.

But

PRIZE ESSAY ON EDUCATION. By Rev. DAVID

SMITH, A.M., London: James Blackwood. 1852. THE Educational Institute of Scotland, at their annual meeting in 1850, set apart a small portion of their funds to be given as prizes for two essays, one on a subject connected with the Theory, and another on a subject connected with the Practice of Education.

The Essay now laid before the public was found to be the best on the first subject. It treats of the branches of Education which ought to be embraced in a school curriculum; their adaptation, respectively, to form the character, and develope the mental faculties; and the order in which they should be produced to the mind. We earnestly recommend it to the attention of parents and teachers.

LECTURE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF CHRIS

TIAN ETHICS. Published at the request of the Paisley Young Men's Christian Association. Paisley Robert Stewart, 1852. MR DICKSON is a metaphysico-poetical genius. He has faults which he will soon rectify, but which will, for a time, lead some to question his talents. These faults chiefly concern his style, which is sometimes exceedingly beautiful and eloquent, but not unfrequently deficient in simplicity. Mr D., however, is no commonplace man, and will, ere long, we trust, secure for himself a high position, both as a writer and preacher.

In the lecture before us, the author, after stating that 'simplicity in complexity, marks and forms true greatness, and by happily illustrating the proposition, by a reference to the material universe-this approaches the point-the great law of love, which in the sequel becomes the subject of his discussion.

If the Bible be from God, as nature and man are, then the Bible will be stamped with the same feature of simplicity in complexity. Leaving its doctrines apart, which, though truly manifold and complex, are yet conspicuously pervaded by a principle of absolute simplicity, let us turn, in accordance with our subject, to its duties. In a revelation, we should expect that the entire series, or code of precepts, respecting our behaviour towards God and towards man, would be embodied. We find that they are. From Genesis to the Apocalypse, there is not a single duty which we owe to our Maker, nor a single obligation under which we can lie to our neighbour, omitted in the catalogue. They may be numbered by hundreds and by thousands, so minute and particular is the detail. Here certainly is complexity, a complexity absolutely bewildering. Opening the book of Exodus, we find the myriad multitude of particulars resolved into ten great comprehensive generals. This is surely a huge step through the wilderness of variety, to the simplicity of unity. But still, ten are not one. We have not therefore reached the unity of which we are in quest. We turn to the Evangelical narratives, and in Matthew we read, 'Then one of the Pharisees who was a lawyer, asked Jesus a question, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, this is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Here is a still nearer approach, through complexity, to simplicity. The ten precepts have been

reduced to two, but still two are not one. Duality is not unity. Looking a little more closely into this generalisation, we find, wonderful to tell, that the process has actually reached to absolute unity. How is this? The objects of these two precepts are different; but mark, the duty incul cated in both is the same, the simple, the sublime duty of Love. All our duties to God are summed up in Love; all our duties to man are comprised in Love. Love is the one precept, the one obligation, in which all others are bound up. It is the great whole, of which all ethical laws are parts. It is all, and it includes all. It is at once the fixed centre, the permeating principle, and the enclosing circumference of the moral sphere. What relations can be more complex than those between man and God, and between man and his fellows; and what duties can be more manifold and interwoven, than those arising out of these relations; and yet, behold a miracle, a moral miracle, which I believe, however simple the thing may be when stated, none but a Divine intelligence could have wrought. The convolved and intertwisted multitude is reduced to one solitary law, to one autocratic and imperial principle, the law, the principle of Love. Here then, of a truth, is simplicity in complexity. I have no hesitation in ŝaying, that had I no other evidence that Jesus was the sent of God than this single generalisation, I would not refuse to set my seal with the utmost confidence and cordiality to his supernatural and celestial origin.

The same simplicity in cemplexity observed in the material and moral universe. shines conspicuously in the world of the Bible; and, if I reject the divinity of the Scriptures I must renounce the divinity of nature. One grand characteristic has been woven into all that the Diety has made, and into all that the Diety has spoken.

THE CABINET.

THE greatest honour you can do Christ this side the grave, is to trust more to his love, and go daily to him, that you may trust him more still, and commit every concern of yours into his loving hands and tender care.—Romaine.

CHRIST has the same love in his heart now, as he had when he was nailed to the cross; he has not changed his heart; though he has changed his state and changed his place, yet his heart is still the same.Romaine.

THOMAS GRANT, PRINTER, EDINBURGH.