to knowledge nor charity, he lived and died in deserved respect, and his monument stands in St. Paul's cathedral to this day.

GEORGE ABBOT.

This distinguished ecclesiastic was a native of Guilford, in Surrey. He was the son of pious parents who had been sufferers for the truth in the times of popish cruelty. He was born, October 29th, 1562. At the age of fourteen, he was entered as student of Baliol College, Oxford; and in 1583, he was chosen to a fellowship. He was created Doctor of Divinity, in 1597; and a few months after, he was elected Master of University College. At this time began his conflicts with William Laud, which lasted with great severity as long as Abbot lived. Dr. Abbot was a Calvinist and a moderate churchman; while Dr. Laud was an Arminian who might have been a cardinal at Rome, if he had not preferred to be a pope at Canterbury.

In 1598, Dr. Abbot published a Latin work, which was reprinted in Germany. The next year, he was installed Dean of Winchester. In 1600 he was elected Vice-Chancellor of the University; and was reëlected to the same honorable post in 1603 and 1605. It was about this time, that he was put into the royal commission for translating the Bible.

Dr. Abbot went to Scotland, in 1608, with the earl of Dunbar; and while there, by his prudent and moderate measures, succeeded in establishing a moderate or qualified episcopacy in that kingdom. This was a matter which king James had so much at heart, that he ever after held Dr. Abbot in great favor, and raised him to the highest ecclesiastical dignities and preferments. He was first made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry on the 3d of December, 1609; and then, in less than two months, was translated to the see of London. In less than fifteen months more, he was made archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England. Thus he was "translated " thrice himself, before he saw the Bible translated once.

When raised to the primacy, he was forty-nine years of age, and was held in the utmost esteem both by the prince and the people. In all great transactions, whether in church or state, he bore a principal part. And yet, at times, he shewed, in matters which touch the conscience, a degree of independence of the

royal will, such as must have been very distasteful to James's domineering temper, and very unusual in that age of passive obedience and servile cringing to the dictates of royalty. Thus it was, when the king, under the pretence, that the strict observance of the Sabbath, as practised by the Protestants, was likely to prejudice the Romanists, and hinder their conversion, issued his infamous "Book of Sports." This was a Declaration intended to encourage, at the close of Divine worship, various recreations, such as "promiscuous dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, May-games, Whitsun-ales, or morrice-dances, setting up of May-poles, or other sports there with used." This abominable edict was to have been read, in the parish-churches, by the ministers. Its promulgation excited great trouble among the more conscientious of the clergy, who expected to be brought into trouble by their refusal to read the shameful document. Archbishop Abbot warmly opposed its enforcement; and the king at last gave up the impious business.

It was in 1619, that the Archbishop founded his celebrated hospital at Guilford, the place of his nativity, and nobly endowed it from his private property. In that same year, a sad mischance befell him. His health being much impaired, he had recourse to hunting as a means of restoring it. This recreation or exercise has never been in very good repute among ecclesiastics. Jerome recognizes some worthy fishermen in the sacred calling; but says: "We no where read of a holy hunter." While his Grace of Canterbury was pursuing the chase in Bramshill Park, a seat of the Earl of Ashby de la Zouch, an arrow from his cross-bow, aimed at a deer, glanced from a tree, and killed a game-keeper. The unfortunate man was imprudent, and had been cautioned to keep out of the way. This casual homicide was the cause of great affliction to the prelate. During the rest of his life, he observed a monthly fast, on a Tuesday, the day of the mishap. He also settled a large annuity upon the keeper's widow; which was attended with the additional consolation, that it soon procured her a better husband than the man she had lost. For the primate, however, who was ever a celibate, there was no such remedy of grief, and his whole life was overcast with gloom.

His enemies made a strong handle of this accidental homicide. It was insisted that, by the canon-law, which allows no "man of blood" to be a builder of the spiritual temple, the primate, who

had retreated to his hospital at Guilford, was disenabled from his clerical functions. The king appointed a commission to try the question, Whether the archbishop was disqualified for his episcopal duties by this involuntary homicide? After long debate, in which the divines on the continent took part, it was the general decision that the fact did disqualify. Nevertheless, King James, in his usurped character as supreme head of the English Church, an office which belongs only to the King of kings, issued, in 1621, a full pardon and dispensation to the humbled primate. Still, several newly appointed bishops, who had been awaiting consecration, refused to receive it at his hands, and obtained the mysterious virtues of "episcopal grace" from other administration.

All this did not discourage archbishop Abbot from vigorous opposition, in the following year, to the proposed match between Charles, Prince of Wales, and the Infanta, or princess royal of Spain. Though this was a favorite piece of policy with the king, who was quite unused to be thwarted by his courtiers, Dr. Abbot continued to enjoy his confidence till the king's death in 1625.

When Charles I. succeeded to the throne, the archbishop of Canterbury found himself in deep eclipse. His inveterate foe, Dr. Laud, then bishop of London, came between, and intercepted the sunshine of royal favor. The matter of the fortuitous homicide seems to have been revived, as the ostensible ground of Dr. Abbot's sequestration. The king required him to live in retirement; and appointed a commission of several prelates, with Laud at the head, to exercise the archiepiscopal authority. A few months, however, saw Dr. Abbot restored to all his functions. This restoration was probably owing to his great influence in the parliament, with which the king was already in trouble. The archbishop countenanced the liberal party, and stiffly resisted the servile doctrine of Dr. Mainwaring, which raised such excitement. This divine had publicly maintained, "that the king's royal will and command, in imposing laws, taxes and other aids, upon his people, without common consent in parliament, did so far bind the consciences of the subjects of this kingdom, that they could not refuse the same without peril of eternal damnation." Here was the "divine right of kings" with a vengeance!

Dr. Abbot continued in office, during those troublous times, till he died, at his palace of Croydon, August 4th, 1633, at the age of seventy-one, worn out with cares and infirmities.

He was a very firm Calvinist, and protestant Church-of-Englandman. He somewhat favored the more moderate Puritans; but the more zealous of them accuse him sharply of being a persecutor, while the violent churchmen charged him with disloyalty to their cause. It is also said, that, as he never had exercised the pastoral charge, but was "made a shepherd of shepherds, before he was a shepherd of sheep," he had little sympathy with the troubles and infirmities of poor ministers. He was severe in his proceedings against delinquents; but he protested that this was done to rescue them from the severity of others, and to prevent their punishment by the lay judges, to the greater shame of themselves and of their cloth. He was, in truth, stern and melancholy. As compared with his brother, Robert Abbot, bishop of Salisbury, it was said, that "gravity did frown in George, and smile in Robert." The other brother of this prospered family was lordmayor of London.

The archbishop was regarded as an excellent preacher, and a divine of profound learning. He wrote numerous treatises, mostly relating to the political and religious occurrences of the times. But to have borne an active part in the preparation of the most useful and important of all the translations of the Bible, is an honor far beyond the highest literary fame.

CHRISTIAN NURTURE.

IT is no part of our present object to undervalue our modern systems of manufactures. Yet it is impossible not to see a striking difference, in many respects, between the fabrics of fifty or a hundred years ago, and those of the present day. While modern manufactures furnish the advantage of a constant supply, for real service and durability they are certainly inferior. One article of dress or of household furniture, fifty years ago, if it cost twice as much as a similar article now, would do at least twice the service. And why this difference? It is because manufactures were then made "to order.” Now they are "ready made." Then they were made for the purchaser and to answer his purposes. Now they are made for the seller and his purposes. Two very different objects. They were, indeed, then

made "to order," or according to directions. Now they are found" ready made," which often means little more than not made at all. Then they were made for the personal use of individuals. Now they are made at wholesale, for the public in general, and for no one in particular. So that with all the acknowledged advantages of wholesale manufactures, the evils resulting therefrom are too apparent to be denied. The closest inspection, and the most thorough acquaintance, are necessary to avoid imposition in many, if not most, cases of purchase.

But it would be comparatively well if those evils were confined to the manufactures of wood, iron, leather, and such like materials. But sad to relate, there is too much evidence that they obtain to a great extent, and from similar causes, in the most important matter of the mental and moral culture of children and youth. It will hardly be questioned that God primarily established the institution of the family for this particular purpose. He paired off the human race by two and two. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." То this divinely constituted pair God committed the control of comparatively a few immortal minds. The parent was required to fashion them "to the order" of Him who furnished them the precious material, and for his future and eternal purposes. But the "progress of the age" has created a new if not exorbitant demand. The spirit of the times has established certain institutions to which the raw material of infant and youthful mind has been turned over in great abundance, by its natural guardians. One thing, however, is certain, that parents will be held responsible that the work which they have been required to do, "to order," is not handed over to workmen who have never served an apprenticeship; but who have taken up the business of the mental and moral culture of children and youth, for the purpose of getting just what their wares will bring in the market.

It

In this point of view, it is interesting to see the attention of the religious public turned more particularly to the subject of Christian nurture. Dr. Bushnell has done some service to the church by reviving the subject of parental responsibility. must never be forgotten that parents have a duty to discharge. which no other persons can perform. With the blessing of God upon their efforts, the covenant of grace furnishes them with a