shed; for in the image of God made he man." The reason assigned differs mightily from Dr. Whately's philosophical reason. We are authorized to take away, for our just and necessary wants, the life of animals, which have not inherent in them the image of God: but man, glorious man, though fallen, still possesses that indelible image; and he who effaces it, whether it be in himself or in another, is guilty against Heaven of the crime of wounded majesty; and of him "blood shall surely be required." T. B. Since writing the above, I am glad to find that even Dr. Arnold will not escape from Dr. Whately's imputation of using "a weak and absurd argument on this topic; for he does not scruple to characterize the suicide as "guilty of murder." Sermons, p. 235. DEFINITION OF TYPES. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. A CORRESPONDENT, in your Number for last December, quotes the Bishop of Peterborough's definition of types; and is followed by another correspondent, in your January Number, who confirms and follows up the Bishop's views. The Bishop's definition of a type, I admit, is clear and correct, and precludes all fanciful discoveries of types where none were intended; but it also excludes some which divines consider to be unquestionable types, though they are not declared expressly to be such by Christ or his Apostles. The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham; his willingness to be a victim; his carrying the wood of his sacrifice; and his restoration, as it were, to life and to his father; are surely undoubted types and prophecies of God, who spared not his own Son; and of the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world; who loved us, and gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. According to the Bishop, no reliance is to be placed on this as a type, because it is not expressly declared to be such in the Gospel. "But why even of your own selves judge ye not what is right? Do ye not hear the law?' was St. Paul's reproof to the Galatians for not discerning the allegory of Ishmael and Isaac. Much more, if we did not discern the sacrifice of Christ in the history of Isaac, might he say, "Do ye not hear the law?" But your correspondent VECTIS asserts that St. Paul does not say that Sarah and Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael, were express types of the covenants, but only that their history might be allegorized to illustrate his subject. St. Paul uses no such language; but says, they were the two covenants allegorically. According to the Bishop's rule, they bear the closest relation to one another. Abraham was decreed and promised a son by God; but, the time being not come, and Abraham not yet prepared for it, a temporary expedient was resorted to: Hagar, the bondswoman, was taken in the place of Sarah, and Ishmael was their offspring. Abraham for a while looked for no other. But Isaac being born at the set time, according to the promise, and growing up, his claims were opposed by Ishmael, and asserted by Sarah. Abraham was greatly attached to Ishmael, and it was very grievous in his sight to establish Isaac at his expense. God, however, commanded him to do so; for," said he, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." So Christ, and his Gospel-namely, eternal life by faith in him were promised to Abraham, to be revealed in God's appointed time; but the Law was added as preparatory, because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. When Christ came, and offered his Gospel to the world, the Jews, attached to the old Law, opposed his claim and his gift, and preferred the covenant which gen dered to bondage, to that which is the mother of free children: but God vindicated the freedom and heritage of believers in Christ, saying, "Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman." This beautiful allegory, or type, was doubtless designed by God, who ordained the circumstances of Abraham and his family. Between the strictness, therefore, of the Bishop, and the laxity of VECTIS, we should be robbed of much wholesome instruction; and I think your readers will not consent to such a sacrifice, unless better reasons are given to shew its necessity. N. MR. WESLEY'S LAST THOUGHTS ON A SEPARATION FROM THE ESTA BLISHED CHURCH. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. THE fourth volume of your work contains a reprint of some reasons, which the Rev. John Wesley published in 1758, against a separation from the Established Church; but it has often been inquired, whether he maintained the same sentiments to his death, which did not take place till upwards of thirty years after. The inclosed paper affords a satisfactory answer to this inquiry, and shews that he lived and died zealously attached to the Church of England. He printed it only a few months before his death, in the "Arminian Magazine" for April 1790, from which the following copy is taken. "Farther Thoughts on a Separation from the Church. "1. From a child I was taught to love and reverence the Scriptures, the oracles of God; and next to these to esteem the primitive Fathers, the writings of the first three centuries. Next after the primitive church I esteemed our own, the Church of England, as the most scriptural national church in the world. I therefore not only assented to all the doctrines, but observed all the rubrick in the Liturgy; and that with all possible exactness, even at the peril of my life. "2. In this judgment, and with this spirit, I went to America, strongly attached to the Bible, the primitive church, and the Church of England, from which I would not vary in one jot or tittle on any account whatever. In this spirit I returned, as regular a clergyman as any in the three kingdoms; till, after not being permitted to preach in the churches, I was constrained to preach in the open air. 3. Here was my first irregularity; and it was not voluntary, but constrained. The second was extemporary prayer. This likewise I believed to be my bounden duty, for the sake of those who desired me to watch over their souls. I could not in conscience refrain from it; neither from accepting those who desired to serve me as sons in the Gospel. 4. When the people joined together, simply to help each other to heaven, increased by hundreds and thousands, still they had no more thought of leaving the Church than of leaving the kingdom. Nay, I continually and earnestly cautioned them against it; reminding them that we were a part of the Church of England whom God had raised up, not only to save our own souls, but to enliven our neighbours, those of the Church in particular. And at the first meeting of all the preachers in conference, in June 1744, I exhorted them to keep to the Church; observing, that this was our peculiar glory, not to form any new sect, but, abiding in our own church, to do to all men all the good we possibly could. 5. But as more Dissenters joined with us, many of whom were much prejudiced against the Church, these, with or without design, were continually infusing their own prejudices into their brethren. I saw this, and gave warning of it from time to time, both in private and in public; and in the year 1758 I resolved to bring the matter to a fair issue; so I desired it might be considered at large, whether it was expedient for the Methodists to leave the Church. The arguments on both sides were discussed for several days; and at length we agreed, without a dissenting voice, 'It is by no means expedient that the Methodists should leave the Church of England.' "6. Nevertheless, the the same leaven continued to work in various parts of the kingdom. The grand argument (which in some particular cases must be acknowledged to have weight) was this: The minister of the parish wherein we dwell neither lives nor preaches the Gospel: he walks in the way to hell himself, and teaches his flock to do the same. Can you advise them to attend his preaching?' 'I cannot advise them to it.' What then can they do on the Lord's-day, suppose no other church be near? Do you advise them to go to a Dissenting meeting, or to meet in their own preaching-house?' Where this is really the case, I cannot blame them if they do. Although, therefore, I earnestly oppose the general separation of the Methodists from the Church, yet I cannot condemn such a partial separation in this particular case. I believe, to separate thus from those miserable wretches who are the scandal of our church and nation, would be for the honour of our Church as well as for the glory of God. "7. And this is no way contrary to the profession I have made above these fifty years. I never had any design of separating from the Church; I have no such design now. I do not believe the Methodists in general design it, when I am no more seen. I do, and will do, all that is in my power to prevent such an event. Nevertheless, in spite of all that I can do many of them will separate from it (although I am apt to think not one half, perhaps not a third of them). These will be so bold and injudicious as to form a separate party, which consequently will dwindle away into a dry, dull, separate party. In flat opposition to these, I declare once more, that I live and die a member of the Church of England; and that none who regard my judgment or advice will ever separate from it. "John Wesley." The sentiments contained in this document may teach some useful lessons. In our own times it is very common for the most uninformed persons to affect to despise the Established Church, and to dwell upon what they are pleased to term her errors. The dying judgment of a man like Mr. Wesley should teach such persons to stop, and consider. He was under no particular temptation to espouse the cause of the Church; he was in every way well qualified to form a judgment upon the subject; yet he declares with his dying voice, that he lived and died in her communion, and that none who regarded his judgment and advice would ever separate from it. If it be asked, How are many things in Mr. Wesley's own conduct to be reconciled with this declaration? I acknowledge that I am not sufficiently acquainted with his feelings and history to answer this question; but the above document may throw some light upon it. Mr. Wesley viewed the Church of England as the most scriptural national church in the world; he professes to live and die a member of this church; and that none who regarded his judgment or advice would ever separate from it; yet he violated its order whenever he thought that by so doing he could effect greater good.-But was not this yielding too much to a doubtful expediency? Would it not have been a higher act of obedience to God, if he had submitted to the laws and regulations of the church for which he' professed this attachment, and have done his utmost in subserviency to those laws and regulations? He says, he was not permitted to preach in the churches, and that he was constrained to preach in the open air: but by this he can only mean that he was not permitted to itinerate wherever he pleased in the churches, since he does not appear to have been refused induction into a living, or a licence to a curacy. Mr. Wesley's friends often advance his success as a defence of his conduct; but in so doing they omit to take into the account the success which might have followed the labours of a man of his energy and capacity for action within the pale of his own church. Who can estimate the blessed effects of the labours of men like the Rev. Mr. Milner of Hull, or Mr. Robinson of Leicester? Besides, in estimating effects and consequences, we must take the most remote into our calculation. We must not only consider what may be best for ten years, but what will be best for a thousand; not only what we might suppose best for one person to do, but what is the best general rule to regulate the conduct of all. Is it not to be feared, that in our own times many good men seem to think they may dispense with the plain rules of right, when by so doing they imagine they can do more good? Such persons must be taught, that the highest act of faithconsists in an entire submission of the mind and the heart to the will of God; and the highest zeal, to do all the good we can, under the direction of his law and the regulations of his church. A DISCIPLE OF THE OLD SCHOOL. MISCELLANEOUS. LAST DAYS OF A NEGRO EXECUTED FOR MURrder. For the Christian Observer, In perusing our respected correspondent's interesting account of Philip Jolin, our recollections recurred to a somewhat analogous instance, in the case of a poor ignorant Negro in St. Croix, who was executed in 1815 for an atrocious murder, committed, like Jolin's, during a fit of intoxication. The narrative will, interest our readers, as exhibiting the similarity of the work of the Holy Spirit on the human heart in every age, every clime, and under every variety of circumstance and complexion. We present the facts, subject to those salutary cautions which our correspondent has so well unfolded in his account of Jolin; yet with the equally firm conviction, that, as the power of God and the efficacy of the Redeemer's sacrifice are infinite, we are not to reject as delusive every instance in which a condemned criminal is apparently brought to true repentance, faith, and conversion of heart. We give the circumstances in the words of an ear and eye witness. "The missionaries had often been excited to adore the riches of Divine grace, exemplified in the salvation of the most ignorant slaves of sin. In 1815 they were permitted to witness a very striking instance of this kind, in the case of a Negro criminal, who was executed in St. Croix for the murder of a girl, about twelve years old, whom he had cut and mangled in the most shocking manner. His execution was fixed for the 14th of June. Two days previous to this, the town-clerk requested the missionaries to visit and prepare the criminal for death. "Brother Lehman immediately repaired to the prison, and had an interview with the criminal, whose name was Lancaster. He found him one of the most ignorant and stupid Negroes he had ever seen. He had not even an idea of God, much less of salvation by Jesus Christ. He shewed no remorse of conscience, seemed perfectly indifferent about his soul, and evaded every charge of criminality, by alleging that he was intoxicated when he committed the murder. "This state of insensibility on the part of the culprit deeply distressed brother Lehman; the more so, as the shortness of the time previous to his execution appeared to render it a hopeless, and almost impossible, case to be of any real service to him. On representing to the Byvoight these unfavourable circumstances, he procured an order from the Governor-general, by which the execution was deferred, in order to afford more frequent opportunities for instructing the criminal. The missionaries now resolved that one of them should visit him every forenoon, and two of the assistants every afternoon. "During the second visit Lancaster appeared pensive, and rather uneasy; still he could not be convinced that his inebriety, when per. petrating the horrid deed, did not render him excusable; much less could he be made sensible that he was by nature a corrupt creature, and must be eternally lost, unless Jesus Christ had mercy upon him, and delivered him from the power and curse of sin. This visit, however, seemed to pave the way for that grateful and astonishing change which was afterwards wrought upon him by Divine power. "At the next visit brother Lehman spoke to him in a very close and serious manner; telling him, that he was a slave of sin and of the devil; that by his works he had not only well deserved the punish ment which the offended laws of God and man would shortly execute upon him, by depriving him of his natural life, but that his sins SO against Almighty God were heinous and atrocious, that after this life he must be doomed to eternal misery, if he died in his present state but that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had come into the world, and become man, that by his innocent sufferings and death he might take upon himself the punishment which the sins of the most guilty had deserved, thereby to reconcile us to God. During prayer, all present were deeply affected, and shed many tears; and even poor Lancaster began to weep bitterly. "On the 16th, being asked how he had slept, he replied, he had got but little sleep, and added, I am a miserable sinner; I have acted wickedly; I have done a great deal of evil; and now I must soon die! Oh, what is to become of me!' The comforts of the Gospel were then set before him, and he was directed to Jesus, who came to save sinners, even the chief, and who will receive all that accept of his mercy as a free and undeserved gift. "At a subsequent interview the missionary observed such a change in the criminal, as encouraged him to hope that he would be plucked as a brand from everlasting fire. Being asked, whether he were now willing cheerfully to leave this world and appear before the throne of God? He replied,- Yes! I am indeed frequently terrified at the thought of death, when I reflect how much evil I have done; but I immediately turn in prayer to our Saviour, and then all my desponding thoughts vanish. Therefore I will pray continually to Him who died for me. He will not suffer me to be lost.' "A portion of the New Testament was daily read to him, especially the history of our Saviour's sufferings. This proved very consolatory to him, and greatly enlarged his ideas on Divine subjects. "The missionaries, having consulted together on the propriety of granting his repeated application for baptism, came to the resolution, |