"Jesus all the day long
Was my joy and my song."

Hymn 808 is in Charles Wesley's most sprightly and popular vein, both as to sentiment and metre:

"He came from above

Our curse to remove;
He hath loved, He hath loved us, because
He would love.

"Love moved Him to die,
And on this we rely,

He hath loved, He hath loved us, we cannot tell why.

"But this we can tell,

He hath loved us so well, As to lay down His life to redeem us from hell."

Hs. 810, 812, 813, 816, are brief poetical petitions founded on texts of Scripture, to which they serve as a happy and effective Gnomon, such as, in prose, Bengel himself could not surpass. They are in C. Wesley's most characteristic and happiest manner. The first three present the true and most comfortable doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints; the last, on "Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed, etc.," is another brief argumentative appeal to the faithfulness of God, for Entire Sanctification, as is also H. 820:

"Vouchsafe to keep me, Lord, this day

Without committing, etc."

Hs. 818, 819, on "Lead us not into temptation, etc.," are unique as amplifications of that petition, and all are closely-reasoned pleadings for perfect holiness, e.g. : "Fain would we cease from sinning In thought and word and deed,— From sin, in its beginning,

We languish to be freed."

H. 811 is Watts' "I'm not

ashamed to own my Lord; a quiet child's hymn. H. 817, Blessed are the pure in heart, etc." is one of W. M. Bunting's sweet expository strains; a compressed sermon set to placid, elevating music. Hs. 821, 826 are Josiah Conder's wonderfully well-turned and cleanlywrought versifications of two beautiful collects, those for the eleventh and the fifth Sundays after Trinity; remarkable instances of frank and fond appreciation of the Liturgy in one of the foremost champions of Dissent. They breathe all the sedate and equable fervour characteristic of the collects. H. 822 is a psalm of Christian fellowship, "A Prayer for Charity," being a metrical expansion of the collect for Quinquagesima Sunday, by Richard Massie. It has in it the true ring of sound catholicity, and is a genuine gathering song for all Divisions of the host of God, whatever be their uniform. Next to this is another Christian lyric which has won universal acceptation: Montgomery's "Prayer is the soul's sincere desire; " appropriately followed by John Newton's "Come, my soul, thy suit prepare; " buoyant and breezy, the very hymn for opening a prayerNext we hail Hugh meeting. Stowell's hymn on the Mercy Seat; healthy, hearty, kindly, beaming; like its large-hearted author.

H. 827 is an exposition of the parable of the Unjust Judge, in C. Wesley's most vigorous style. The points of encouragement to prayer are put in a form of most forceful condensation, as if by some intellectual process of hydraulic pressure. As a suggestive outline of a sermon on the text, and a hymnic application at the close of such a sermon, it is invaluable. H. 828, also by C. Wesley, is in another vein, that of reflective amplification. H. 829, Miss Elliott's "Watch and Pray,"

"I cannot draw the envenomed dart, Or quench this hell of wrath and pride: Jesus, till I thy Spirit receive,

66

Thou know'st I never can forgive.

Root out the wrath thou dost restrain, etc."

Hs. 833-835, exquisitely expository of Matthew vi. 27, 33, 34, are calculated to be of the highest service to the weak believer overborne with the burden of life, hunted down by and holding at bay the hungry cares of this world. H. 836 is another serviceable selection from the Wesley Poetry, headed "In Uncertainty," and evidently written in, as well as for, a season of solicitous suspense. The faltering believer will find it a stout staff wherewith he may steady his steps in fording some hurrying, eddying Jabbok that cuts his line of pilgrimage.

H. 837 is a simple, soothing little strain by Dr. Bonar.

H. 838 is a genuine song in the night, such as God alone can give; a hymn for a confirmed invalid, which only a Christian invalid could possibly have written. It contains some of

William M. Bunting's happiest

verses:

"For, weeping, wakeful eyes Instinctive look above,

And catch, through openings in the skies,

Thy beams, unslumbering Love! "Hours spent with pain-and Thee Lost hours have never seemed; No! those are lost, which but might be From earth for heaven redeemed."

H. 839, Williams' "Guide me, O Thou great Jehovah," though not distinguished by poetic elevation, has done good service amongst other Denominations, and will doubtless be welcomed and sung with zest and advantage by many earnest Methodists. Of H. 841 it is sufficient to mention the first line: "My God, and Father! while I stray." No recently-edited Hymnbook could afford to leave out this lovely companion hymn to "Just as I am." The two place their writer, as to the essentials of a hymn, in the first rank of hymnists. H. 842, again, needs neither comment nor introduction. Who has not wished for a new edition of the Hymn-Book that might contain. such compositions as Miss Waring's "Father, I know that all my life"? And then Miss Steele's " Father, whate'er of earthly bliss" could scarcely be left out; though it cannot challenge comparison with the compositions of Miss Elliott and Miss Waring.

exerts the mightiest influence in social life; but these ladies are avowedly determined not to rest satisfied until there be added to this influence direct political power. Their demand may be expressed in few words: "We feel it degrading to work by influence rather than by power; indirectly instead of directly; as subordinates not as principals!" That is the question at issue. Is it not legitimate to ask, "Would mankind be benefited by the addition of power to influence or exchange of influence for power in the case of woman? Would greater good be procured by bringing her out of her present sphere into the arena of political life, by introducing to our very hearths the tumultuous and often bitter feelings incident to political strife ?"

"It is really difficult," says an eloquent and highly-cultivated woman, "to approach the subject in the form to which it has by some writers been reduced, with any degree of gravity; and it is somewhat to the credit of the other sex, that it has not more frequently been treated with the keen and indelicate satire which it deserves, and might provoke. Yet we are not one iota behind these fiery champions of womanhood, in exalted notions of its dignity and mission.

We are as anxious as they can be that women should be roused to a sense of their own importance; but we affirm, that it is not so much social institutions that are wanting to women, but women who are wanting to themselves. We claim for them no less an office than that of instruments (under God) for the regeneration of the world,-restorers of God's image in the human soul. Can any of the warmest advocates of the political rights of woman claim or assert for her a more exalted mis

sion, a nobler destiny?

That she will best accomplish this mission by moving in the sphere which God and nature have appointed, and not by quitting that sphere for another, it is my object to prove."

In influence, woman is unquestionably superior to man, and she need not complain of want of power, even political power, if she will only use her influence well. She need not lament that her sphere is narrow and obscure when in that sphere she touches the springs of public life and sets in motion the forces that govern the world. The special advocates of "Woman's Rights " maintain that their present theatre of action is too contracted, and that they ought to share in the public functions of the other sex. Equality, mental and bodily, is sometimes publicly proclaimed. "This," says the writer already referred to, "is matter too ludicrous to be treated anywhere but in a professed satire. In sober earnest, it may be asked, upon what grounds so extraordinary a doctrine is built. Were women allowed to act out these principles it would soon appear that one great range of duty had been left unprovided for in the schemes of Providence. Such an omission would be without parallel. Two principal points might here be brought forward which oppose this plan at the very outset They are, First, placing the two sexes in the position of rivals instead of coadjutors; entailing the diminution of female influence. Second, leaving the important duties of women only in the hands of that part of the sex least able to perform them efficiently.

"The principle of divided labour seems to be a maxim of the Divine government, as regards the creature. It is only by a concentration of powers to one point that so feeble a being as man can achieve great

results. Why should we wish to set aside this salutary law, and disturb the beautiful simplicity of arrangement which has given to man the power, and to woman the influence, to second the plans of Almighty Goodness? They are formed to be co-operators, not rivals, in this great work; and rivals they would undoubtedly become if the same career of public ambition, and the same reward of success, were open to both. Woman, at present, is the regulating power of the great social machine, retaining, through the very exclusion complained of, the power to judge of questions by the abstract rules of right and wrong,-a power seldom possessed by those whose spirits are chafed by opposition and heated by personal contest.

"The second resulting evil is a grave one, though in treating of it, also, it is difficult to steer clear of ludicrous associations. The political career being open to women, it is natural to suppose that all the most gifted of the sex would press forward to confer upon their country the benefit of their services, and to reap for themselves the distinction which such services would obtain. The duties hitherto considered peculiar to the sex would sink to a far lower position in public estimation than they now hold, and would be abandoned to those least able conscientiously to fill them. The combination of legislative with domestic duties would indeed be a difficult task, and of course, the least ostentatious would be sacrificed."

This second point tells most powerfully against the Woman's Rights agitation. The distinctive faculties with which woman is endowed seem to point to the position which she ought to fill and the work for which she is designed. Unless the world, instead of being

presided over by an all-wise Intelligence, is a tangled maze without a plan, a domain of chance and misrule, the structure and capabilities of its inhabitants must be held to determine the place which they are to occupy and the ends which they are meant to serve. The student of nature can show that every sentient form of existence possesses such faculties as minister to its comfort and subserve the purposes of its existence. He can trace a beautiful fitness between its capacities and its mode of life. The same fitness, we believe, only in a higher and more manifest degree, exists between woman's nature and capacity on the one hand, and the sphere she is designed to occupy on the other. She obviously differs from man in many qualities. Although essentially of the same nature, she cannot be designed to fill exactly man's place; and to give them precisely the same work and expect them to occupy precisely the same sphere, would be a violation of the laws of nature productive of the most disastrous results.

Woman's natural capacity will indicate plainly where she should be and what she should do, and proper training will fit her for, and social arrangements and legislation should. secure for her, her proper place and work. Woman's form is to a great extent the index to her mind, and both must be so far in harmony that the sphere for which one is adapted will not be unsuited to the other. For the supposition is inadmissible that her Creator has made the different elements of her nature so to clash that one or the other unfits her for any sphere which she might otherwise occupy; the mental being out of proportion with the physical; thus preventing any free and harmonious exercise of her powers. Such a supposition impugns her

"Men

Maker's wisdom and goodness, and wherever it is entertained there is a sad misconception of what woman really is, and of the faculties with which God has endowed her. and women are not only physically, but also mentally distinct. Certainly there is no region of truth, no sphere of intellectual development from which woman is by incapacity excluded. But the divergence is to be found in her different constitution. . . Man is more particularly fitted for that life of the mind which manifests itself in independent mental productiveness, whilst woman reigns in the region of feeling, and dictates her laws with regard to good taste and decorum, but submits herself easily to authority and guidance."

Do they show any sense of fitness, then, who, disregarding this most palpable difference, would assign to woman the place and work for which man is fitted, and leave man as the consequence to devote himself to hers? Are they not guilty of a mal-arrangement, by which power instead of being utilised, would be worse than wasted, and of a flagrant violation of the laws of nature which must needs prove most disastrous to man and woman alike? Are her mental peculiarities at variance with her physical capabilities, so that the two clash in their operations? Has God created a being with two parts of her nature tending in different directions and requiring opposite spheres for their proper development? Must she always, in whatever place she occupies, do violence to one division of her nature or the other? Is she such an anomaly in the universe, such a contradiction to all that surrounds her? Such a supposition is in the highest degree improbable and unphilosophical. We cannot blind ourselves to the tendency to forget

this on the part of some who advocate" Woman's Rights."

The Equal-rights Movement has supporters who in reality seek for identity rather than equality, not perceiving that the concession of their claim would surely tend to the diminution of woman's influence. Are the women who plead for identity of rights prepared for that social revolution which would sweep away, with the besom of political equality, that deference which man instinctively pays to her position and character, the honour "as unto the weaker vessel"? Is the difference of sex in this respect to be obliterated? Do they imagine that they may force themselves into man's position and duties and be allowed by courtesy to take a woman's precedence there? Sensible women will be slow to make demands until they have considered well at what cost they are to be granted, and few will be disposed to claim similar rights to those of men, if so high a price must be paid for them. The entire sex would suffer were it to lose its social precedence, in exchange for the unfeminine (if that word itself did not become obsolete) assumptions and exactions of a few. That women have had legal grievances (and may have still) we most freely admit, but the legislature is gradually reducing these grievances to a minimum. To recognise the wrongs of women is not necessarily to approve of the remedy which is proposed, namely, Female Suffrage.

This is the syllogism which the fair agitators set before their minds : Woman has wrongs; These wrongs can only be rectified by a female franchise. Therefore women must have the franchise. But between the admission that woman has wrongs, and the conclusion that she ought to exercise the franchise, there is a wide logical gap which can only be bridged by a very unsubstantial arch. Before