neglect all provision for the future, cannot rightly discharge the obligation to their neighbours, whose interests are implicated in a proper regard for our own.

way

The sixth and seventh reasons are more than mere assertions: they are paradoxes. The Writer maintains, that the readiest to be independent on man, is to surrender all we possess, and that to extirpate sloth,' we must exclude all provision for the future. We have no time to unriddle these absurd enigmas.

The Writer, in the course of his pamphlet, makes use of additional arguments which he omits in his recapitulation. Among these, he adverts to the institution of the sabbatical year, and the command thrice in the year to go up to Jerusalem, as very apt illustrations' of his principle. In reference to the latter, he asks:

• Would obedience to this precept be tempting God? Doubtless not. Yet surely, there is a much greater natural difficulty in the way of protecting the defenceless wives and families of a whole people during the absence of all the males at Jerusalem, than there is in providing subsistence sufficient for those who daily labour; for by these means the great mass of mankind are, and ever have been, provided for.'

It is well that the Writer admits, there is such a thing as tempting God, by presumptuously casting ourselves upon his Providence without a warrant. The conduct of the Israelites would have been both rash and irrational, had they not, in leaving their land, obeyed a positive command; and a similar command now, would both require and authorize the expectation of a similar miracle. The expectation of a miraculous interposition in the absence of a Divine warrant, is not faith, but folly; it is to tempt the Lord our God. The Writer notices the third temptation by which our Blessed Lord was tried: he passes over the second.

But it may occur to some of our readers to inquire, What harm can there be in holding such notions as are avowed in this pamphlet? If they are a little ultra, do they not run into the best extreme? In these times of worldliness, self-indulgence, and money-getting, is it not well that some persons should be found disposed to set an opposite example, though their faith may partake of credulity, their zeal of fanaticism? Does there not prevail too much carnal anxiety in Parents, to provide large fortunes for their children? Is not this made a pretence for covetousness and injustice, a cloak for that love of money which is the root of all evil? Ought we not, as good Thomas Scott says, to serve God by the day, and to trust him bythe day?

To such an appeal, our reply would be this. The cause of

truth cannot be served by caricaturing and distorting the principles we wish to recommend. There are no good extremes; for the extreme opposite of error will always prove to be error, not truth. The less that true Christian devotedness abounds in the present day, the more worldly and calculating professed Christians are, the more pernicious in its tendency must be a fanaticism which renders such conduct rational in the comparison, and the greater the mischief which would result from the perilous wresting of Scripture which is exhibited in this pamphlet. 'As to laying up for children,' says this Writer,

⚫ believing it to be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Gospel, and opposed to the privileges of a Christian Parent, and to the best interests of the children themselves, I have no hesitation in saying, that, on these grounds, I am persuaded it ought to be relinquished.

Language similar to this has been employed by other writers; and when applied to the worldly anxiety which many parents exhibit to aggrandise their children, to leave them a fortune, while they discover little or no solicitude respecting their spiritual interests; or when the wish to lay by for chil dren does not rise to ambition, but partakes of undue solicitude and distrust; the admonition is most pertinent-" Lay not up for your children treasures on earth." But this Writer reprobates all laying up for either children or dependent relatives, on the ground that poverty is good for them,- poverty and dependence ;-although one of the alleged excellencies of his principle' is, that it in a great degree frees from all dependence upon man!'

་

All our misconceptions on this subject,' he says, seem to arise from one deeply rooted opinion, learned of Satan and the world over which he presides; that riches and comforts are better for our children than poverty and dependence. The whole tenor of the New Testament, however, pronounces the opinion to be false.' p. 29.

That poverty is a good, the New Testament no where teaches us to conclude. Like other trials and afflictions, it may be made to work together for the good of those who love God; but all experience, as well as Scripture, would lead a Christian parent to adopt the prayer of Agur on behalf of his children: "Give them neither poverty nor riches.' The man who should wilfully inflict poverty upon his children, whether by his imprudence and sloth, or by his fanaticism, is worse than an infidel. God will abhor the offering which is provided by such unnatural robbery. What may be best for our children, God only knows. It is our duty to seek first, as regards both them and ourselves, the kingdom of God and his righteousness.

But unless St. Paul asserted what he knew to be contrary to the faith he taught, parents ought, so far as they have opportunity, to lay up for the children." Christianity has superseded no natural, no political obligation.*

But it is not only with regard to children, that the Writer's reasoning is meant to apply. The most exceptionable passage, perhaps, in the pamphlet, is contained in a note at page 49, to which we have already adverted.

'How different the spirit and conduct of our Blessed Lord! Did he fear to leave, without temporal provision, his widowed Mother to the promises and providence of God? No, he left her unprovided to an unprovided disciple; and this he did, not at a time when probabilities were greatly in favour of a comfortable competence being easily procured, but when he knew that difficulties and dangers would beset them at every step. Surely, had laying up beforehand been the duty of a child, our Saviour would have exhibited this virtue among that constellation of virtues which shone forth from his character; for he knew that we were to follow his example. Why then did he act thus, while we hesitate to follow his steps? Because he knew the truth, nature, and extent of the promises of God, which we doubt or deny. Some will say-" But this was a provision!" Yes -the very provision which God will ever make for those that trust in him, a provision at the moment of necessity.'

Involuntarily, during our perusal of these pages, the thought has repeatedly suggested itself-this writer cannot be a parent. But when we came to this note, the feeling was-he cannot have a living mother. Who can read without indignation this heartless, this execrable misrepresentation of our Lord's example? Because He who had not where to lay his head, did not lay up money for his mother, therefore it is not the duty of a child to make any provision for a widowed parent, whatever be his circumstances! Such is the Writer's reasoning, in daring disregard of the express language of St. Paul: "If any widow "have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at "home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and ac"ceptable before God." (1 Tim. v. 4.) But how horrible is the perversion of this exquisitely affecting part of our Lord's conduct; to represent, not what he did, but what he did not do, not his piety, but his poverty, not his solicitude respecting his mother, but his leaving her unprovided, as that in which we are called upon to follow his steps! The fact itself is equally misrepresented. The Beloved Disciple to whose filial care our

* 2 Cor. xii. 14. The Writer is evidently hampered by this passage, which he in vain attempts to explain away.

Lord committed his mother, had ample means of providing for her wants from the contributions of the faithful; and the concurrent testimony of antiquity distinguishes him from the other apostles as singularly preserved from the dangers and persecutions which his brethren were called to suffer. His life was prolonged to an advanced age, and he certainly survived the object of his sacred charge; a charge which spoke at once the tenderness of the man Christ Jesus, and the prescience of the Son of God.

We can never advert to this interesting point in the evangelical history without having forcibly brought to our recollection, a striking anecdote, which we cannot resist communicating to our readers, although conscious that we run the risk of giving it imperfectly, as many years have elapsed since the circumstances occurred. A pious young man who was desirous of devoting himself to the work of the ministry among the Heathen, and had been recommended with that view to the Committee of one of our Missionary Societies, on undergoing the usual examination, stated that he had one difficulty: he had an aged mother entirely dependent upon an elder brother and himself for maintenance, and in case of that brother's death, he should wish to be at liberty to return to this country, if his mother were still living, to contribute to her support. Scarcely had he made this ingenuous statement, than a harsh voice from an iron frame exclaimed: If you love your mother more than you love the Lord Jesus Christ, you will not do ' for us.' Abashed and confounded, the young man silent; some murmurs escaped the Committee, and he was directed to retire while his proposal was taken into consideration. On his being again sent for, the venerable chairman, in tones of unaffected kindness and with a patriarchal benignity of mien, acquainted him that the Committee did not feel themselves authorized to accept of his services on a condition involving uncertainty as to the term, but immediately added• We think none the worse of you, for your dutiful regard for your aged parent. You are but acting in conformity to the example of Him whose Gospel you wished to proclaim among the Heathen; who, as he hung upon the Cross in dying agonies, beholding his mother and the beloved disciple standing by, said to the one, "Woman, behold thy son!" and to John, "Behold thy mother!" We think none the worse of you.'

was

Art. XI Narrative of the Burmese War, detailing the Operations of Major General Sir Archibald Campbell's Army, from its Landing at Rangoon in May, 1824, to the Conclusion of a Treaty of Peace at Yandaboo in February, 1826. By Major Snodgrass, Military Secretary to the Commander of the Expedition, and Assistant Political Agent in Ava. 8vo. pp. 320 (Map). Price 12s. London. 1827.

THAT HAT the Burmese war originated in unprovoked aggression on the part of those haughty barbarians whom it is to be hoped that we have now succeeded, though at an immense cost, in humbling, is a fact quite undeniable. Possibly, it was as inevitable as, in its origin, it may be considered as justifiable. But one thing is quite clear from the present Narrative, that it was undertaken in lamentable and disgraceful ignorance of the strength of the enemy and the nature of the country. The army landed at Rangoon unprovided with the necessary equipment for advancing either by land or by water.

Indeed, it was anticipated, that the capture of Rangoon alone, or at least with that of the enemy's other maritime possessions, would induce the King of Ava to make overtures for peace, and accede to the moderate demands of the Indian Government; or, at all events, that the country would afford sufficient water-transport to enable a considerable corps to proceed up the Irrawaddy towards the capital, when little doubt was entertained of a speedy submission to the terms required. Nor were the reasons upon which these expectations of aid and assistance from the natives were founded without some weight. It was urged, that they were not Burmese, but Peguers, and a conquered people, being under the tyrannical sway of a government with which they had for centuries, and often successfully, waged war; deprived of their court, and governed by despotic and mercenary chiefs whom they obeyed from fear alone; they were represented as discontented with their present situation, and ever longing for their former independence; and finally, that they would be easily induced to join the invading force, and to aid it, by every means in their power, in humbling the tyrant under whose arbitrary rule they had so long suffered every species of degradation. But, in these calculations, the well-consolidated power and judicious policy of the government towards its conquered provinces were overlooked, and the warlike and haughty character of the nation was so imperfectly known that no correct judgement could be formed of our probable reception. With an overgrown opinion of their own prowess and military genius, fostered by frequent victories over all their neighbours, and numerous unchecked conquests during half a century, was it to be wondered at that they should consider the disembarkation of six or seven thousand men upon their coast as a hopeless business, in a country, too, where every man was by profession a soldier, liable at all times to be called upon for military service at the pleasure of the sovereign?