Lawgiver; but this very attachment to law strengthened their attachment to liberty, if, indeed, it was not identified with it. They saw in the records of their history, that their Sovereigns had never been their absolute masters; that the law which prescribed the obedience of the subject, set limits to the power of the Crown; and that, in some form or other, by themselves in the ancient gathering of the wise men, (the Wittenagemote,) or, subsequently, by their representatives, they had always had a real, though a subordinate, share in the government. They had no reference to the vague maxims of an abstract philosophy; but, looking at existing charters and laws, they claimed what they considered to be their ancient and legal birthright of constitutional liberty. They knew, indeed, that at different times, the Sovereign had disregarded these rights, and acted contrary to them; but they knew, too, that these were exceptions, and that though sometimes their birthright had been in abeyance, the title had never been extinguished. They were, therefore, prepared to hear these portions of their history quoted as precedents, and they were ready with the reply. The public mind, too, was gradually, but certainly, advancing to another point. Seeing that the Monarch quoted exceptions for precedents, it would be necessary to guard against their recurrence; to mark, more distinctly, the limits within which the sovereign power was to be confined, and to strengthen the means by which transgression was to be prevented. In particular, the power of Parliament in reference to the public purse, both as to the grant of money and the control of its expenditure, was to be fixed and acknowledged.

To all these claims James was directly opposed. Pedantic and vain, little acquainted with English law, and inflated with the conceit of his own influence and power, he claimed absolute sovereignty as of divine right; and his tools and flatterers among the Judges and lawyers sought to establish his claims by quoting, as established and governing precedents, those proceedings of evil times which they must have known to be only exceptions, and by keeping out of sight all those portions of the record which related to the real character of the constitution.

These references to the existing state of English affairs when Parliament met in 1621, are indispensable for the correct description and understanding of those subsequent proceedings in which Sir Thomas Wentworth bore so large a share. Nor will a remark or two in anticipation be needless. The son and successor of James appears to have been trained to believe in the perfect justice of his father's claims. It is the characteristic of a truly wise man to arrive at his decisions by examining, not one, but every, class of the premises which bear upon them. The education of Charles had been completely one-sided. Every law, every fact, in English history which seemed to prove the absolute supremacy of the Crown, had been carefully placed before him. And these, taken by themselves, would undoubtedly have justified the conclusion at which he arrived. The fault of his instructers was, that these were not the only facts and laws to be examined. And this, likewise, was the great fault of Charles himself. The facts and laws of which the consideration was omitted, were contained in the same records which furnished the others, and it was impossible that they should be entirely overlooked. Charles must have known their existence, if he had chosen to remain in ignorance of their precise character and bearing. In him, one-sidedness was not only an error, but fault, involving a deep moral guiltiness. A Prince acting under the influence of the true fear of God (and as Charles professed so much attachment to religion, we have a right to make the supposition) would have examined the whole case, and endeavoured, disentangling what was complicated, and explaining what was occasional or obscure by what was evident and fixed, to bring into a just and happy order the principles of the already-existing, though not fully-formed, constitution. Such a benefactor to the country he might have been; but he chose to hazard all in the endeavour to set aside all in the past which related to the subject's liberty, and to retain only what served to establish the Crown's supremacy.

Such, generally speaking, were the subjects which occupied the minds of those who took a part in the affairs of the nation when the pecuniary necessities of James obliged him, in 1621, to assemble a Parliament.

(To be continued.)

SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS.

EXODUS XXI. 24. "Eye for eye," &c.-Selden observes, "This doth not mean, that if I put out another man's eye, therefore I must lose one of my own; (for what is he the better for that?) though this be commonly received: but it means, I shall give him what satisfaction an eye shall be judged to be worth." This is no doubt the correct understanding; for we nowhere find that this law was ever literally carried into effect. In the same way were understood the laws of retaliation among the Greeks and Romans. Perhaps the spirit of the law was, that the injuring party should in justice receive a punishment similar to the injury he had inflicted, but was allowed to redeem his eye, tooth, &c., by a suitable payment to the injured person.

Verse 30. "He shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him."―This is the only place in which compensation, in lieu of capital punishment, is expressly permitted; but that it was allowed in other cases, where the law denounced capital or corporal punishment, may be inferred from different passages. Thus in Num. xxxv. 31, 32, such compensation is expressly forbidden in cases of murder, or for enabling the homicide to leave the city of refuge; but the interdiction is not applied to any other offence of man against man. The practice among the Bedouins may serve in some degree to illustrate this subject, as well as the nice balancing which the law of retaliation operates in producing. In case of murder, the friends of the murdered may, at their option, either retaliate or accept a heavy blood-fine. But no other offence is, in practice, liable to capital or corporal punishment. Pecuniary fines are awarded for every offence; and as they are generally heavy, in comparison with the delinquency, the dread of incurring them tends much to keep the wild natives of the desert in order; the nature and amount of the fines which immemorial usage has assigned to particular offences being well known to the Arabs. Burckhardt says, "All insulting expressions, all acts of violence, a blow, however slight, (and a blow may differ in degree of insult according to the part struck,) and the infliction of a

wound, from which even a single drop of blood flows, all have their respective fines ascertained." The Kadi's sentence is sometimes to this effect:

་

"Bokhyt called Djolan a dog.' Djolan returned the insult by a blow upon Bokhyt's arm; then Bokhyt cut Djolan's with a knife. Bokhyt therefore owes to Djolan,

1 sheep.

3 camels.

1 camel.

Remain due to Djolan, 2 camels and 1 sheep."

Other affairs are arranged on the same principle. It is observable that in case of theft in the home-camp, or that of a friendly tribe, (for robbery and theft are not, in other cases, considered crimes,) the criminal is condemned by an ancient law to the loss of his right hand; but custom allows him to redeem his hand on payment of five she-camels to the person he purposed to rob.-Knight's Illustrated Commentary.

WESLEYAN CHRONOLOGICAL NOTICES.
No. XXV.

1757. THE first preaching-house at Deptford erected, chiefly through the instrumentality of Mr. Sampson Staniforth, who, for many years, is usefully and acceptably employed as a Local Preacher.

August 17th. Mr. Wesley, in refutation of the heretical, yet specious, tenets of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, publishes his celebrated treatise, entitled, "The Doctrine of original Sin, according to Scripture, Reason, and Experience:" the most masterly, perhaps, of all his controversial writings.

October 24th. The school-house at Kingswood narrowly escapes destruction by fire.

1758. Friday, March 10th. Mr. Wesley preaches at the assizes, held at Bedford, before the Hon. Sir Edward Clive, Knt., one of the Judges of His Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, from Rom. xiv. 10: "We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." The sermon, under the

title of "The great Assize," is, at the request of the High Sheriff of the county, subsequently published.

1758. Monday, March 13th. Mr. Wesley preaches in the shell of the "new-house," Epworth; a subscription for which he had himself commenced twelve months previous. The site of the building was in what is called Peaseholm-Green, near the Wool-Market. The York Circuit, in which Epworth was situated, at this period, "extended to Hull, and along the coast to Whitby, embracing, across the country, all the intermediate places."

Mr. Wesley publishes, "Twelve Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England;" to which are appended, "Seven Hymns for the Lay-Preachers," by Mr. Charles Wesley, "strongly descriptive of the fallen state of the Established Church with regard to doctrine, discipline, and morals, and of the spirit of zeal, devotion, and self-denial by which the early Methodist Preachers were distinguished."

"We

Wednesday, June 21st. Mr. Wesley, having spent some weeks in the sister-kingdom, holds a second Conference at Limerick; fourteen Preachers being present. settled," he observes, "all things here, which we judged would be of use to the Preachers or the societies, and consulted how to remove whatever might be an hinderance to the work of God."

Saturday, August 12th. The fifteenth Wesleyan Conference commences its sittings in Bristol: "begun and ended,' Mr. Wesley records, "in perfect harmony." The united judgment of the brethren, as to how far the doctrine of Christian perfection is consistent with the mistakes and errors inseparably connected with our present lot, is thus expressed: "1. Every one may mistake as long as he lives. 2. A mistake in opinion may occasion a mistake in practice. 3. Every such mistake is a transgression of the perfect law. Therefore, 4. Every such mistake, were it not for the blood of atonement, would expose to eternal damnation. 5. It follows, that the most perfect have continual need of the merits of Christ, even for their actual transgressions, and may say for themselves, as well as for their brethren, 'Forgive us our trespasses.""