moment? Who are gaining ground in the strife of sects within the Establishment? Is it the Low Church party which abides by the Articles, and makes them the key to the_Prayer Book? You know it is not. Besides, who were they that were most eager in the strife to endow Popery in Ireland? Surely the law-lords! Not at all. But those "right reverend fathers in God" who had said a dozen times under the solemnity of an oath that they would "banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word," and especially the Popish doctrines of purgatory, etc. Who led the way in petitioning Parliament for the support of Roman Catholicism in Ireland out of State funds? Cardinal Cullen? No. Then some poor erring Dissenter? Not even so. But the enlightened Dean of Westminster, who had also subscribed the nineteenth and twenty-second articles of the Church of England. Leave the Established Church in the hands of her officials, and it is not difficult to tell what will become of her. The bulwark of Protestantism forsooth! The defender of the faith against Romish error! Indeed! The light of present facts shows clearly that if Britain is to be rescued from the perils of Romanism, it must be by Free-Churchism. The Evangelicals will not come forth, nor will they work for the Church's severance from the State; and meanwhile the Ritualists are taking many over to Rome, and the Broad Churchmen are carrying others beyond the pale of historical Christianity into that wide paradise where "essential religion" alone will be required. The sooner the Church is freed from the golden fetters of the State, the more will truth rejoice and triumph.

Another plea for union is based on the theory of periodical acts of the legislature to settle the religious creed of the nation with a view to the inclusion of the whole of its religious thought and life. This is clearly a last resource, and would not have been called in if every other defence had not broken down. What an edifying picture such a comprehensive State-Church presents, and how noble the heroism, perfect the fidelity to conscience, and burning the zeal for truth, that would mark its progress! The flexible creed oscillates between reli

gion and no religion, Hindooism and Christianity, Popery and Protestantism, according to the returns made at each election; or, more likely, a generous government profusely endows all. Mahomet and Buddha rejoice together. Calvin and Arminius embrace. Penitent Paul and the infal

lible Pope are one. The High Church leopard, with his many spots, lies down with young and nimble Secularism. Wolfish infidelity dwells with the unaggressive and unresisting "Friends;" and the State, meek and simple as a child, leads them to pastures ever fresh and new. When Sir John Coleridge propounds a measure like this, it seems the only thing we have to do is to ask, "What next?" and answer, "Surely anything save and except the free and spiritual religion of the New Testament,'

But would such a system lack the radical vice of the Broad Churchism of the day? No. It could not, from what we know of men and nations, be worked without seriously undermining sincerity, and leading men to play with words in a double sense, and that is not far from playing with things. Inward impulses to honesty would be crushed. Veracity of mind would be endangered. Sincere adherence to conviction would be stifled in such an atmosphere. Men would slight it first, and then lose faith in its existence. The perilous doctrine of accommodation would be generally welcomed, and the sublime and truly Christian virtue of faithfulness to conscience would be in a fair way of banishment from the so-called Christian church. Such an indiscriminate endowment would be less wise than feeding the army and navy with bread and opium in equal proportions.

The last circumstance to be mentioned is recorded in the recent despatch of Sir James Grant on the state of religion in Jamaica. "To provide," he says, "instruction for those who otherwise would be provided with none, is the object which makes a State Church legitimate" words which appear to mean that the alliance of Church and State should be kept up, so that we may have sufficient funds for missionary purposes. This reasoning is identical with that which tells us that Dissent leaves the villages in dense darkness, and must in the nature

of things confine itself to the towns. The statement is plausible, and is not without apparent foundation. But Jamaica itself shows how utterly unreliable is this defence. Who has cared for the villages of that island the last fifty or sixty years? Who has done the chief evangelistic work there? The governor says: "The Church of England in Jamaica hardly hopes to do anything without all but complete support from the public funds." Is it unfair to argue that such a powerless and needy society cannot have done much for the poorer districts of Jamaica ?

Work

brings strength and enlarges capability. Patronage induces weakness and diminishes force. The Episcopal church will do more missionary work amongst those who are not provided with religion when she herself better understands the first principles of the gospel of Christ. And as to our own country we venture to think the Free churches have done more for the villages and hamlets during the last hundred years than the State Church, though all worldly advantages have been on the side of the government agent, and all the difficulties resulting from squiredom and its attendant evils in the way of the unpretending Dissenters. Candour requires that this circumstance should no longer be read as an argument in favour of the union, for it will not bear a single moment's honest examination.

Is it not, then, high time for all who hold that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual in its nature to have done with the silent and observant system? Have we not had enough of Nonconformist reticence? Why are we to be told to leave English Churchmen alone, and allow them to devour each other? I do not believe a word of this doctrine of silence. It is as weak as it is ungenerous. The commotion within will be endured because it is endowed, and the plea for reform will satisfy men who feel uneasy as to the justice of their position. There is a wondrous fascination, even to honest men, in place, position, authority, and property. The power of education is strong. He is a brave man who, for the sake of truth, will "sacrifice the future of his family as well as his own." Nothing but a grand enthusiasm would constrain to such an act of self-surrender as a voluntary disendowment;

and notably State-Churchism lacks enthusiasm. All its instincts and training are against it. Enthusiasm is not respectable and dignified, and prefers truth to "sweetness," and conscience to appearances. A clergyman said, ten years ago, "If there is not reform soon, I will come out." He is

there yet, and we know what reform there has been; and he will be there ten years hence, and ten years afterwards should it be possible. Broad Churchmen plainly tell you they do not intend to separate themselves from the State, and I have not a fragment of hope in either the Evangelical or Ritualistic divisions. They murmur, they protest, they threaten, they coalesce, they divide, they denounce, they do everything except free themselves from the bondage of government. Mr. Ryle thinks it his chief duty to preserve the alliance intact; and Mr. McConochie, with all his zeal, has proved that he is not quite incapable of something that looks a little like truckling and deception. Englishmen, if you care for your country, for its social peace and progress, for its political advancement, work for the Church's complete independence of the State. Christians, if you value the religion of the New Covenant, be not partakers of a system which obscures the glory of the Redeemer, militates against His triumphs, restrains holy enterprise, and blights and destroys the harvests of loving labour. He is no friend to the English Church who counsels perpetual dumbness and inactivity. He is its foe. If a false friend is in my house corrupting my children, the man who helps me eject him deserves my lifelong thanks. The State is such a false friend in the home of the Church, and it is the duty of all who love the truth of Christ to aid in expelling the intruding government. Not for ourselves. Indeed, we as Dissenters shall probably lose by the act; but we shall gain as men and as members of the kingdom of Christ. Our interest in the welfare of the Anglican Church, our desire for the prosperity of our fatherland, our faith in the spiritual character of Christ's rule, and chiefly our love to Christ Himself, urge upon us the duty of earnest and immediate labour for the separation of Church and State. J. CLIFFORD.

THE story of this friend's life is bound up with the history of the General Baptist church at Todmorden, and has on that account more than usual interest. Born in 1812, at Stoneshey Gate, near Heptonstall Slack, of poor but industrious parents, from the cradle to the grave toiling, rejoicing, sorrowing, onward through life," he went, first as a hand-loom weaver, and afterwards principally as a stone cutter or quarryman. From his youth the Holy Spirit strove with him, but as he grew up he joined ungodly companions, often neglected his maternal teaching, and quenched the strivings of the Spirit. In 1834 he married Mary, the daughter of Mr. John Sutcliffe, of Popples-side. The change

from hand-loom work to the use of steam and water power in weaving induced Mr. Mitchell in 1838 to remove to Beanholehead, near Todmorden. The nearest G. B. church was at Lineholme; but Cross Stone Church being only a few yards away, his two children began to attend the school there, and the then incumbent often tried to draw Mr. Mitchell to church, but always without success. Having been brought up Baptists, the family could not feel at home in the Established Church. Mrs. Mitchell had frequented the experience meeting previously to leaving Slack, but she ceased after their change of residence.

About this time the country was disturbed with the Chartist agitation, and there were very many adherents to this political faith in and about Todmorden. Owing to the support given to this movement by Rev. Mr. Baker, the pastor of the adjacent Millwood Baptist church, a majority of the members excluded him in 1844. He and his supporters took a room in the Mechanics Institute, and conducted services in it for some time. But the interest in the work gradually declining, Mr. Baker left. The friends thus remaining were joined by some General Baptists from Shore, etc., and thus lingered on for some years without making much progress. On Nov. 9, 1845, the sixteen persons then united together were formed into a G. B. church by Rev. H. Hollinrake. About 1847, brother Mitchell was invited to the Sabbath school, and from that time to his death took great interest in its efficiency and success.

He was baptized on Christmas-day, 1850, by Mr. A. Wrigley, under circumstances which are worthy of record. There was no baptistery in the Hall, and therefore the rite was usually administered in a small rivulet called Shoebroad Clough, which runs down the hill on the southerly side of Todmorden. As this rivulet is very narrow, and only a few inches deep in

I

its greatest depth, it was necessary to make an artificial pond in it whenever a baptism took place. On this occasion Mr. Mitchell and another candidate went to make the pond at about three or four o'clock in the morning; but when they returned for baptism it was frozen over. This did not deter them; they broke through the ice at once, and "put on Christ by baptism."

Mr. Mitchell now gave himself with great enthusiasm to the work of the church, and soon proved that he was well qualified for Christian service. The young community prospered greatly, and they decided to hire Sobriety Hall for worship. Improvement continued in the school, congregation, and church, and in 1854 the resolution was taken to build a new chapel. Chiefly by the self-sacrificing efforts of our friend £250 were obtained from the Yorkshire Conference, and then the foundation stone of Wellington Road chapel was laid by Mr. Mitchell, and the building itself opened in 1859. The numbers increased so greatly that in 1861 they resolved to obtain a regular pastor. This was done, but difficulties arose in 1865 which issued in severing brother Mitchell's connection with the church. This was a very painful event to him. For fifteen years he had devoted a great part of his leisure hours -and many of those required for "breadwinning"-to the service of his Master.

A considerable number of members commenced another cause in Sobriety Hall, which subsequently became a branch of the church at Heptonstall Slack. Mr. Mitchell worked with his usual eagerness and zeal for Christ in this new home, but was soon overtaken by affliction, and in 1868 was quite laid aside. During his last illness his thoughts often reverted to the condition of the church, and he said to a friend, "I hope to live to see you all back at Wellington Road. I shall never be of any use there now, but you may be, and I should be satisfied if I could only live to see you there. I should then feel content to go." Sustained through his affliction by the faith in Christ which had inspired his work, he said the day before his death, "I feel as if I was in Beulah land. just waiting to cross the river;" and then, on Feb. 12, 1869, calmly entered into rest.

I am

As a deacon, leader of experience meetings, superintendent of and teacher in the school, visitor of the sick, and a friend, he will long be remembered by many with real affection; and his manifold services to the General Baptist church at Todmorden must have secured for him the "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

A.

Or the several measures before Parliament deserving the consideration of all citizens, there are two or three of such an important and special character as to demand the prompt examination and decided action of our churches.

I. National Education. The Bill of the Government is an honest and able attempt to deal with the necessities of the nation in the matter of education; but it has some serious defects. The chief fault is that it gives to Local Boards unrestricted power to determine the religious character of the schools which are aided and supported by local rates. No Baptist will need to look at this provision twice to know what to do. We hold that the function of Government is exclusively secular, and that religious education must be entirely left to the voluntary zeal of religious people. The Bible is more to us than a "Hebrew Classic," and though we would not object to its being read in "National" schools, yet we hold it no honour to the word of God to reduce it to the level of "Todhunter's Arithmetic" or "Cornwell's English Grammar." Strict justice requires that in a Bill for national education the religious convictions of every man in the nation shall be respected. Why should a citizen be forced to pay for teaching children on a Monday those religious dogmas he has freely condemned in their hearing on the previous Sunday?

Let this part of the bill become law, and the fires of sectarian strife will be fed with inexhaustible fuel. Religious controversy will be more bitter than in the worst days of the church rate struggle. Every municipal election will be a keen party fight, and the rural districts, already sufficiently burdened with the unpleasant predominance of the State Church, will have a wing of the Church Establishment in every village school. Each Baptist church that has not already done so should at once petition the Commons against this fresh phase of Government endowment of religion.

II. Contagious Diseases Acts. It is not yet generally known that our legislature has already introduced the corrupt continental system for the governmental regulation of the "social evil" into our garrison towns. English homes owe a large debt of gratitude to those brave ladies who have made us aware of the nature of these pernicious laws. Not one in a thousand suspected their character, or dreamt that they so vitally concerned our liberties and morals as a people; but we are sure that as the churches of the land become acquainted with their nature, they will

feel it their duty to secure a speedy repeal of acts that are false and unsound, constitutionally, economically, and morally. Mrs. Butler, the Secretary of the Liverpool Association for the repeal of these laws has kindly supplied for our readers the following information:

"Far from being a legal proceeding, the acts are an outrage upon the first principles of English jurisprudence, and strike at the very heart of constitutional ideas. The Acts of 1866, 1869, are a fair example of the unfortunate manner in which we have proceeded within the last half century in regard to social evils. Through the perversion of moral sentiment, or through indolence or heedlessness, we allow them to grow up and gain strength among us, until they threaten the very foundations of society, or eat into the heart of our daily life and comfort. Then we are seized with a panic, we evoke the spirit of the law,' and call for immediate redress of the evil by an Act of Parliament: a party of doctrinaires is allowed to take the lead, and the public health, morality-whatever it be-is to be dealt with by a sweeping piece of legislation, which, we idly trust, will cut the Gordian knot for us, without the necessity of our taxing our individual souls to discover each one his own responsibility and right line of action in the matter. But laws passed in this sudden and wholesale manner make matters worse and not better when, as in this case, their promoters fail to take account of the temper of a people whose character has been to some extent moulded by centuries of constitutional rights, legal and personal safeguards; and when, forgetting that vital Christianity still exists in the land, they outrage the national conscience by failing to establish their new law upon the moral law, whose origin is divine, and which is the only sure basis of human jurisprudence.

But not content with the application of the Act to garrison towns and naval depôts, the advocates of the system have memorialized the Government with the object of extending it over the entire kingdom; and meanwhile they have stealthily obtained an extension of its provisions to country districts in which the population is civilian and not military, and in one case to a populous city where there are neither troops nor men of war. Two-thirds of the county of Kent are now under the Act, and the wives and daughters of the farmers in the rural districts are no more safe from police espionage and the risk of nameless outrage than are the lowest female hangers on of the Shorncliffe barracks or the Plymouth Docks.

The inequality and glaring injustice of this law-as applied to one sex only, and that the weaker-fills every just and generous man with anger. There is no proposal in it to interfere with the civil rights, or in any way to check the career, of the male profligate It reminds us of the self-satisfied blindness with which king David pronounced the unhesitating sentence against the rich villain who had stolen the poor man's one treasure. Is there among our great men none faithful enough to turn, like the prophet, with the words, Thou art the man,' and to require (if we must have such laws) that they shall at least be equal, and shall not exclude one half of the guilty and the contaminating?

We trust that all who are of mature age and character, whose consciences have been exercised in the discernment of good and evil, will take up this subject with earnest thought, and with the courage which such a crisis of national life or death demands of every man and woman, patriot and Christian. Each may aid, according to his or her ability, in making known throughout our land that England has not yet fallen to that level of morality which will secure the acquiescence of the majority in such iniquitous laws as thislaws whose utmost promise of good is a doubtful and almost inappreciable diminution of bodily suffering, and whose postponement of moral to material considerations is an augury for the future of English society so dark and terrible, that one might well question whether any moral or spiritual revival in the future would

avail to arrest the national decline which we anticipate as the result of open State protection of hideous vice. Papers and information on the subject may be had by application to the secretaries of the various associations or committees of associations for the repeal of the acts. AddressesMr. Frederick Banks, 31, Mansfield Road, Nottingham; Mrs. J. Butler, 280, Southhill Park Road, Liverpool; Mrs. F. Malleson, Camp Cottage, Wimbledon, London."

Ministers and church officers should lose no time in obtaining information on this matter, and acting with the energy and promptitude it demands.

III. The Burial Bill. This measure, which provides for the burial of Dissenters in parochial churchyards according to the religious rites of the sect to which they belong, passed the second reading on the 23rd ult., by a majority of 111; but was referred to a Select Committee. Although the principle of the Bill is accepted by the Government, yet, in the interest of our churches in the rural districts, it will be requisite to watch the action of this Committee with a vigilant eye.

IV. Religious Disabilities at Cambridge and Oxford Universities. A bill for the removal of these disabilities is promised by the Government; but unless it speedily appears it will be necessary to petition both Houses of Parliament; for every years delay is "fruitful of injustice to an increasing number of students," as well as detrimental to the interests of education throughout the country. J. CLIFFORD.

MODERN CHRISTIAN HEROES. By G. Gilfillan. London: E. Stock. THIS book gives, in a small compass, a not uninteresting account of the lives and characters of the chief supporters of protestantism in England and Scotland. Such a book, though not putting forth any new views or facts, may be useful to those who have not leisure to study in detail the history of the progress of religious reform. But, unfortunately, Mr. G.'s work is disfigured by faults, which, though they might be excusable in popular lectures, ought to have been corrected before the work was sent to press. The style is florid and bombastic. Ill chosen epithets, such

The author delights in word-painting, and word-painting becomes a snare to him. Thus, in the account of Milton's travels in Italy he cannot help describing not only the scenery which Milton did see, but that which he might have seen but did not. His comparisons also are sometimes very unfortunate, as, for instance, when he applies to Cromwell's rapid march to the north a quotation from "Marmion" describing the descent of the Scots from their hilly fortress to the fatal field of Flodden. As Cromwell came, not with a wild rush, but with stedfast determination, not from any quixotic desire to meet his enemy on equal terms, but with the resolution to destroy him, and finally not to be conquered but to conquer, the quotation is singularly inapplicable. At page twenty Mr. G. expresses an opinion which we