but a question of time, for that decision, pronounced upon earth and ratified in heaven, sealed its ultimate doom.

Samuel Hopkins did not rest content with that resolution, nor confine his exertions to his own church or locality. He sought out men, both in his own country and in Europe, who held opinions similar to his own, and with them kept up an active correspondence. Among his fellow clergymen too he was unwearied, and he had a practical mode of proceeding well illustrated by the following anecdote, told by an American biographer. Among his clerical triends was one Doctor Bellamy, who had a slave. To him went our abolitionist, and told him of the sin of slave-holding. Dr. Bellamy replied, justifying it by custom, by Bible quotations, and finally, when driven from those points, by the plea that the man was SO faithful and attached that he did not want to be free. That brought the argument to a point where theory ceased and fact became possible, and Hopkins seized the turning point.

"Will you," said Hopkins, "consent to his liberation, if he really desires it?" "Yes, certainly," said Dr. Bellamy. "Then let us have him up," said his guest.

The slave was at work in an adjoining field, and, at the call of his master, came promptly to receive his commands.

66 Have you a good master ?" inquired Hopkins.

"O, yes, massa; he berry good." "But are you happy in your present condition?" queried the Doctor.

"O, yes, massa; berry happy." Dr. Bellamy here could hardly suppress his exultation at what he supposed was a complete triumph over his anti-slavery brother. But the pertinacious guest continued his queries.

"Would you not be more happy if you were free ?"

"O, yes, massa," exclaimed the negro, his dark face glowing with new life; "berry much more happy!"

To the honour of Dr. Bellamy he did not hesitate.

"You have your wish," he said to his servant; 66 from this moment you are free."

to something being done in Africa itself, for he was instrumental in forming a society for the purpose of educating black missionaries for that country; and in 1773, and again in 1776, he and Dr. Ezra Stiles issued an appeal to the Christian community for assistance to carry out the project. One of the black pupils he himself educated. Newport Gardner went from Boston to Africa as a "missionary twenty years after his old teacher had died. This Gardner was a native of Africa, and a slave of Captain Gardner of Newport. His own name was taken from the place and the designation of his master. The captain allowed him to work during his overtime for himself, and the negro toiled all the harder because he laid by his earnings to buy himself and his family for himself. Sometimes, by working harder than usual (or was required), he would get a whole day. Still the amount accumulated but slowly, and the poor fellow in his despair resolved to pray. So he gained a day, and instead of labouring, shut himself in his hut and sent up unceasingly to Heaven his petition for freedom. He had communicated his intention to Dr. Hopkins and one or two other friends, and while he was praying the doctor was with his master, entreating him to give his servant his liberty. His persuasions prevailed, and the captain sent for the negro. He was told that the slave had gained that day. "No matter," said the master, "I must see him." And when Gardner, giving up his prayers, came with reluctance, expecting, perhaps, to be scolded or punished for some unconscious fault, the document securing his freedom and that of his family was put into his hands. It seemed to him that his prayer was answered directly from heaven; and though we have on record the human agency of Hopkins, who shall say that the All Just and All Merciful did not lend an ear to the bondsman's supplications.

We have before mentioned, that when at New Barrington, Hopkins owned and sold a slave. When he became aware of the wrong of slavery, he would not retain the price of innocent blood, and devoted the money to the education of some negroes. Often after, he gave for like purposes sums out of all proportion to his limited

The War of Independence for some time interrupted the labours of Samuel Hopkins. The island on which he resided was in 1776 taken possession of by the English troops; and he passed the year 1777 preaching at Newburyport. About the time of his going away, he published his "Dialogue concerning the Slavery of the Africans;" showing it to be "the duty and interest of the American States to emancipate all their slaves." This was dedicated to the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and was re-published and widely distributed by the New | York Abolition Society, in 1785. He returned to Newport early in 1780, but found a desert where was once the garden of New England. The hand of war had been laid heavily upon his congregation, which, once wealthy, was now poor and cast down. Worse than all, the scenes they had gone through had changed their natures for the worse. The commerce of the place was gone. His meeting-house had been converted into a barrack, the pews and seats used for fire-wood, and the bell stolen. Here the character of the man showed itself. He was offered appointments at other places which would have given him both influence and competence; but he thought that where there was so much need of him there was his place, and taking up his old position, he lived till the day of his death without regular salary, subsisting upon such voluntary offerings as his flock could afford to bestow. Thus

he preached on till he was eightythree, one of his habitual hearers being William Ellery Channing, who ever had the deepest reverence for the devout beauty and earnest, sincere strength of his character. Differing as they did as theologians, they both held the same doctrine of unselfish benevolence, being the essential element of Christianity. Hopkins's last sermon was preached on the 10th of October, 1803, and on the 12th of November, "full of years and of honours," he was gathered to his fathers. He ended calmly, or rather joyfully, a life well spent, saying to a friend, “I am feeble, and cannot say much;-I have said all I can say." And adding, "Now I am going to die, and I am glad of it." He was buried in the ground adjoining the meeting-house, and the funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Hart, a life-long friend, nearly as old as himself

We have taken but little notice of the theologian in this sketch. His works in that character-worthy of attention as they are as the utterances of a sincere, earnest man-are passing into oblivion. But when the religionist shall have been utterly forgotten, many a lover of freedom will venerate the me mory of the early opponent of slavery, and call down blessings on him who formed that Newport resolution, which must ever be associated with the name of Samuel Hopkins, the first of the Abolitionists.

THE royal message which recalled George Canning from his place of embarcation for India to take the post of Foreign Secretary in the British Cabinet, on the death of Lord Castlereagh (August, 1822), reached him at the house of Sir John Gladstone, a wealthy Liverpool merchant. From the window of Seaforth House, Canning is described by his biographer as looking out upon the sea that he supposed was soon to separate him-perhaps for ever-from the Europe whose destinies he was unconsciously about to influence beyond any man of his day; while, sporting on the beach below him,

were the three sons of his host, the youngest of whom, William Ewart Gladstone, is now M.P. for the University of Oxford, Privy Councillor, and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On the rule invariably observed in the BIOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE, of writing only the public lives of living men, we abstain from saying, and make no pretence of knowing, more of Mr. Gladstone's private history than may be found in the "Parliamentary Companion," or other ephemeral compilation of particulars that might be extracted from the register of the parish in which he was born or married

and of the schools and colleges he attended. Our information under this head may be given in a couple of lines. -He was born at Liverpool, in the year 1809; was educated at Eton, and at Christ Church, Oxford; and, having spent a short time in continental travel-after the manner of young gentlemen from time immemorial-he entered Parliament, in 1832, as member for Newark. It is from this latter point that we will pursue his careeras yet short, but eventful and suggestive. It will be remembered that the general election of 1835 took place on a dissolution of the first reformed Parliament by Sir Robert Peel, on his hurried return from Italy to take the Premiership. It is significant either of the paucity of Sir Robert's materials for the construction of a ministry, or of the early promise of young Mr. Gladstone, that, immediately on his re-election, he was appointed UnderSecretary for the Colonies, having the new Premier (the Earl of Aberdeen), for his chief. This able and promising government fell before a hostile majority on the Irish Church question, in May of the same year. Mr. Gladstone, of course, went over with his party to the opposition benches, proved himself one of its most frequent, though not obtrusive, speakers, and was reelected for Newark on the same interest (the Duke of Newcastle's), at the general election consequent on the death of William the Fourth.

In the following year he distinguished himself by a speech on the Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship, defending the planters from the imputations upon them; but far more by the issue from the press of an octavo volume, "The State in its Relations to the Church." There can be no more satisfactory proof of the ability and influence of this work, than the fact that it was honoured, so early as April 1839when it had already reached a second edition-with an elaborate notice in the "Edinburgh Review,"-an article immediately recognized as Mr. Macaulay's; included in the authorized collection of his "Historical and Critical Essays;" reprinted, with the article on "Ranke's History of the Popes," in "The Traveller's Library ;" and usually considered as the conclusive reply of the party opposed to Mr. Gladstone, to his doctrine and argument.

The judgment of so high an authority as Mr. Macaulay, is so esssential to a just estimate of Mr. Gladstone's public character and position, that we will take the trouble to condense and copy the opening passages of the article in question :

"The author of this volume is a young man of unblemished character, and of distinguished parliamentary talents, the rising hope of those stern and unbending tories who follow, reluctantly and mutinously, a leader whose experience and eloquence are indispensable to them, but whose cautious temper and moderate opinions they abhor. It would not be at all strange if Mr. Gladstone were one of the most unpopular men in England. But we believe that we do him no more than justice when we say that his abilities and his demeanour have obtained for him the respect and good will of all parties. His first appearance in the character of an author is therefore an interesting event; and it is natural that the gentle wishes of the public should go with him to his trial.

"We are much pleased, without any reference to the soundness or unsoundness of Mr. Gladstone's theories, to see a grave and elaborate treatise on an important part of the Philosophy of Government proceed from the pen of a young man who is rising to eminence in the House of Commons. There is little danger that people engaged in the conflicts of active life will be too much addicted to general speculation. The opposite vice is that which most easily besets them.

"We therefore hail with pleasure, though assuredly not with unmixed pleasure, the appearance of this work. That a young politician should, in the intervals afforded by his parliamentary avocations, have constructed and propounded, with much study and mental toil, an original theory on a great problem in politics, is a circumstance which, abstracted from all consideration of the soundness or unsoundness of his opinions, must be considered as highly creditable to him. We certainly cannot wish that Mr. Gladstone's doctrines may become fashionable among public men. But we heartily wish that his laudable desire to penetrate beneath the surface of questions, and to arrive, by long and intent meditation, at the knowledge of great general laws, were

much more fashionable than we at all expect it to become.

"Mr. Gladstone seems to us to be, in many respects, exceedingly well qualified for philosophical investigation. His mind is of large grasp; nor is he deficient in dialectical skill. But he does not give his intellect fair play. There is no want of light, but a great want of what Bacon would have called dry light. Whatever Mr. Gladstone sees is refracted and distorted by a false medium of passions and prejudices. His style bears a remarkable analogy to his mode of thinking, and indeed exercises great influence on his mode of thinking. His rhetoric, though often good of its kind, darkens and perplexes the logic which it should illustrate. Half his acuteness and diligence, with a barren imagination and a scanty Vocabulary, would have saved him from almost all his mistakes. He has one gift most dangerous to a speculator, a vast command of a kind of language, grave and majestic, but of vague and uncertain import; of a kind of language which affects us much in the same way in which the lofty diction of the Chorus of Clouds affected the simple-hearted Athenian.

“ ὦ γῆ τοῦ φθέγματος, ὡς ἱερὸν, καὶ σεμνὸν, καὶ τερατώδες.

"When propositions have been established, and nothing remains but to amplify and decorate them, this dim magnificence may be in place. But if it is admitted into a demonstration, it is very much worse than absolute nonsense; just as that transparent haze, through which the sailor sees capes and mountains of false sizes and in false bearings, is more dangerous than utter darkness. Now, Mr. Gladstone is fond of employing the phraseology of which we speak in those parts of his works which require the utmost perspicuity and precision of which human language is capable; and in this way he deludes first himself, and then his readers. The foundations of his theory, which ought to be buttresses of adamant, are made out of the flimsy materials which are fit only for perorations. This fault is one which no subsequent care or industry can correct. The more strictly Mr. Gladstone reasons on his premises, the more absurd are the conclusions which he brings out; and, when, at last his good sense and good

nature recoil from the horrible practical inferences to which his theory leads, he is reduced sometimes to take refuge in arguments inconsistent with his fundamental doctrines, and sometimes to escape from the legitimate consequences of his false principles, under cover of equally false history.

"It would be unjust not to say that this book, though not a good book, shows more talent than many good books. It abounds with eloquent and ingenious passages. It bears the signs of much patient thought. It is written throughout with excellent taste and excellent temper; nor does it, so far as we have observed, contain one expression unworthy of a gentleman, a scholar, or a Christian. But the doctrines which are put forth in it appear to us, after full and calm consideration, to be false, to be in the highest degree pernicious, and to be such as, if followed out in practice to their legitimate consequences, would inevitably produce the dissolution of society."

The question with which Mr. Gladstone had ventured to deal, was preeminently the practical question of the day, as it has been one of the loftiest subjects of speculation, with philosoThe problems that Plato had underphers and statesmen, in every age. taken to exhibit, in his "Republic," in a state of solution, so to speak, were substantially the same which the Dissenters of Nottingham and Manchester discussed in public meeting, and of which Daniel O'Connell attempted to compel the settlement, for at least one branch of the empire, by a thinly disguised display of physical force. In the debates on the Irish church, commenced with, and protracted through, every session of the Parliaments that sat from 1832 to 1838, there was involved, to the consciousness thoughtful men, a profoundly deeper and far more difficult question than was apparent to "the Parliamentary rabble," or the turbulent agitator, or the excited public. It was a sense of this that brought Dr. Chalmers to London, to deliver his lectures on church establishments perhaps the most eloquent and least satisfactory of his voluminous performances; for they contained little that had not been advanced by Hooker, Warburton, or Paley, and that little had an air of commercial utilitarianism, which Mr.

of

Gladstone would probably feel degrading to the theme. The "Student of Christ Church and M.P. for Newark," -as Mr. Gladstone wrote himself on his title-page-was content neither with the "judicious Hooker's" notion of an ecclesiastical polity, nor with Warburton's theory of a contract; whilst Paley's argument from utility he pronounced to be "tainted by the original vice of false ethical principles," and Dr. Chalmer's refutation of the supply and demand scheme he deemed questionable." He boldly climbed to the altitude of what he deemed an absolute moral truth, and thought to bring down thence express authoriza tion for established churches-or rather, to lay upon the conscience of rulers the obligation of maintaining that co-relation of naturally opposite systems, known as the alliance of church and state. He thus states his general proposition, which, he thinks, must surely command universal

assent:"

"Wherever there is power in the universe, that power is the property of God, the King of that universe-his property of right, however for a time withholden or abused. Now this property is, as it were realised, is used according to the will of the owner, when it is used for the purposes he has ordained, and in the temper of mercy, justice, truth, and faith which he has taught us. But those principles never can be truly, never can be permanently, entertained in the human breast, except by a continual reference to their source, and the supply of the Divine grace. The powers, therefore, that dwell in individuals acting as a government, as well as those that dwell in individuals acting for themselves, can only be secured for right uses by applying to them a religion."

"The powers that dwell in individuals acting as a government," he elsewhere describes by resembling the magisterial to the parental character. In other places he expressly declares, "The governors are reasoning agents for the nation. in their conjoint acts as such ;" and denies that the people are entitled to more than a beneficial use of the funds raised by taxation.

In these two sentences we have indicated the prominent characteristic Mr. Macaulay would say the fundamental errors of the book ;-the con

founding of individual with corporate functions, and the self-deluding use of analogical, in the place of inductive, reasoning.

It is obligatory on a man that he be religious, it is therefore obligatory on any body of men that they be religious. Such, we believe, is a fair epitome of Mr. Gladstone's "argument for the obligation incumbent on governors as men. Now, if by this be meant, that associations, like individuals, are morally bound to act from the purest motives, and to the highest ends, the assertion is merely a truism. But the proposition, as it stands, is one of those plausible errors so logical in form, while utterly illogical in spirit-that are best refuted by pushing them into the realms of active life. This is what the Edinburgh Reviewer has done. By a great number of supposititious examples, vividly presented, he shows that society would go to pieces if this rule were attempted to be enforced. But, we think that with any intelligent definition of religion itself, the proposition is incompatible. A priori, as well as practical, considerations, are fatal to it. In the atmosphere of common sense, it cannot draw a single breath. Even by a change of expression, the thing intended is instantly destroyed. Put the sentiment, for instance, in this form-Whatever is incumbent on a man in one capacity, is incumbent upon him in any capacity;and the absurdity of the conclusion sought to be established is evident at once. Yet is there no unfair exchange of phraseology; for it is only because man is a social being, that he has more than one capacity of action. Even in the most rudimentary forms of combination,-in the relation of parent and child, of master and servant, for example-new duties, with their corresponding rights, immediately arise. If religion be a personal obligation-if it be anything more than the practice of unmeaning ceremonies-if it be a certain state of intellect and heart-the father or the employer can have no business to enforce religious observances upon his household; for he thereby invades that private right which is necessarily involved in the private obligation. The influence of example and of solicitation is the only force which he can legitimately put into operation; and he must remember how