that "this movement began upon the conviction that the Church of England was the Church of Christ to this country, and that it was so completely and absolutely the Church of Christ to us, that, so long as it existed, it was impossible for any other religious body whatever to be the Church of Christ to this nation."

Another representative of the Church of England-to wit, the Dean of Manchester-has also expressed himself in similar language towards his dissenting fellow-Christians. His sermon, which naturally gave great offence to nonChurchmen, is thus epitomised by one of the local papers in June, 1876:

"The main object of the Dean's sermon appears to be to insist that Dissenters are among 'them which are evil,' as described in the second chapter of the Revelations; that Dissenting ministers are the modern counterpart of those whom the Ephesian Church had tried and 'found them liars,' and that fellowship with Dissenters is to be regarded and dealt with as a heinous sin.

"The Dean's text was taken from the message addressed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, and the discourse consisted in a practical adaptation of the various items of the message to the circumstances of English Christians at the present day. One of the good deeds for which credit was given to the Ephesian Church is described in these words: 'Thou canst not bear them that are evil.' The application followed straight. Are you, my brethren, bearing them that are evil? Whom do we bear? Whose conduct are we tolerating and condoning? The sinners are all priests, and here is a list of them. 1. Drunken priests; 2. Blaspheming priests; 3. Priests who deny the grace of holy orders; and 4. Priests who fraternise with Dissenters. These classes of offenders are all comprehended under the general head of 'criminous clerks.' The Dean deplores the fact that at present there is no short and easy method of dealing with them."

The Dean also advises his hearers "to resist courteously, and calmly and temperately to deny the authority of all Nonconformist teachers to be apostles sent from God."

How different are such modern Christians as the Dean, to Jesus, who said of the man that was found casting out devils in Christ's name, and forbidden to do so by the

disciples, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is on our part."

It is idle to deny that the bulk of the clergy and their followers do not regard their fellow-Christians amongst Dissenters in any sense as equals, or treat them with that charity and love which should distinguish a sincere Christian. Those who know anything of English life, both in the country and in all the smaller towns, know full well that to be a Dissenter means social ostracism amongst almost all Churchgoing people. Socially, the Dissenters and Churchmen form two distinct classes; they stand aloof from each other, and regard one another with jealousy and ill-will on the one hand, and pride, suspicion, and contempt on the other. Excepting in the large towns, where such narrow-minded ideas do not readily take root, society is divided into Church-going circles and Dissenting circles; and in Ireland, where Roman Catholics form a larger proportion of the population, there are the Protestant circles and the Catholic circles. These social barriers, it is easy to see, are evils of no small magnitude. The amount of illwill which they engender, and the loss of happiness which must ensue from the want of sympathy and friendship, which might, but for these miserable doctrinal differences, exist amongst brother Christians, is a feature in the Christianity of every-day life which cannot be ignored.

In order that the reader may have some facts before him in proof of these statements, I will quote the following extract from a letter, by Mr. Isaac Hoyle of Manchester, which appeared in the Manchester Examiner and Times in February, 1876. Mr. Hoyle writes to controvert certain statements made by a leading Conservative Dissenter:

"According to the report in the papers, Mr. Richard Haworth, in speaking at the Conservative meeting in the Free Trade Hall last night, devoted some time to prove that Wesleyan Methodists 'were on an equality with all persons in the kingdom.' As a Wesleyan Methodist, I feel it my duty to place before my co

religionists evidence of an entirely opposite character, leaving them to determine its value.

"At the Hull Conference, the special meeting of the Committee of Education recorded 'repeated complaints of the intolerant spirit manifested by clergymen of the Established Church towards the children of our people' (see Minutes of Conference, 1869, Appendix viii., p. 278). Afterwards, in full Conference, the following resolution was passed:-'The Conference, having learned with much regret that in many parts of the country clergymen and others continue to refuse instruction in national schools to the children of Wesleyan Methodists, unless such children can also attend the Sunday-schools of the Established Church, affirms its conviction that the enforcement of an adequate conscience clause in all schools receiving Parliamentary grants for building or maintenance is essential to the due protection of the liberties of the people' (see pp. 173, 174).

"This was upwards of six years ago. Has she become more tolerant since? The Rev. Gervax Smith, President of the Conference, speaking at Bolton, on the 19th January last, said:— 'An attempt was being made on a large scale to plant the heel of intolerant bigotry on them as Methodist missionaries. To-day there are 2000 villages where there was not perfect religious freedom. . . . He knew godly men in farming districts who had been driven from their farms because they were Methodists. In fact, he could fill all the 16 pages of the Times in small print with accounts of cruelty and oppression which had been shown towards Methodist people in this country.'

"The Watchman newspaper of the 26th January, 1876, in a leading article on this subject, says: Having known the English villages for many years, we are quite prepared to sustain all that the President is reported to have said, and no Nonconformist, well informed upon the question, will think the statement exaggerated. . . . Wesleyan poor are excluded from those charities which have been left, not to the Episcopalians in particular, but to the whole of the parishioners in general. It has too

often happened that a Methodist has had to leave his farm, because he would not leave his religion. The Church of Rome cannot be the same enemy to religious liberty in the villages as the Establishment was and often is. Why not publish all the facts upon which these general statements are based? If such a record had been kept for the last forty years, the nation would be startled by the publication of the 'Black-Book.' It may be asked why do not the country people in general, and the Methodists in particular, appeal publicly to the national sense of fair-play. The answer is very ready. Villages are timid, and shrink from publicity. Wesleyans are too often on sufferance, and would be

either deprived of their bread, or compelled to seek it elsewhere, if they told the public, through the press, all they suffer and all they know. But their patience under suffering is coming to an end, and the President has rendered great service at Bolton to the cause of national justice and religious liberty. In respect

of religious liberty, life in an English large town, and life in an English village, is often and actually like two different nations with opposite principles of Government, the one giving religious liberty, and the other only affording to the Nonconformists a hindering social ostracism and a persecuting religious toleration.""

Another specimen of the narrow, uncharitable attitude which some of our clergy assume towards Dissenters in practically treating them as lost sinners is afforded by a letter published in the Manchester Examiner and Times for May 30, 1876, wherein the Rev. C. A. W. Reade, dating from Lower Norwood, S.E., writes to a wealthy Manchester merchant, asking him to contribute towards a sum of £1000, which, says Mr. Reade, "we are very anxious to secure before Michaelmas to enable us to begin a mission to a large and poor population, who are sunk in infidelity and dissent." Unfortunately for the rev. gentleman his correspondent turned out to be himself a Dissenter, and not appreciating the compliment of being classed with infidels, he sent the letter to the papers for publication.

The following lines from a local paper also sufficiently illustrate the working of modern Christianity in daily life to be worthy of a place in this chapter. As they speak for themselves, it is unnecessary to comment upon them. They are addressed "To a Bigoted Cleric":—

"The curate of Stand, near Manchester, refused to bury a child which had been christened by a Dissenting minister of the Gospel.

"From whom, oh, saintly cleric! did you learn
Your narrow, soulless creed?

For if the pages of the Book we turn,

In them we do not read

The slightest warrant for the faith you hold.

But as we scan the page,

We find the would-be bigot sternly told
That childhood's heritage-

Without a word of dogma or dissent-
Is to afford for heaven an ornament.

"He did not ask the children whence they came,
Or whether priestly lips

Had mumbled o'er them in the Church's name,
Or if the holy tips

Of priestly fingers had bedewed their brow

With drops adored by some;

He never asked the little children how

They could have dared to come.

There were around him bigots such as thou;
The race of bigots flourished then as now.
"Suffer the little ones to come to Me,

Forbid them not, He said;

Of such as these My Kingdom formed shall be.
Each bigot hung his head.

Hang thine too, deacon, priest, whate'er thou art;
But wretched bigot still.

Thy Master's creed with thine can have no part;

Thou workest not His will,

Who taught of love and charity divine;

Alas! such teaching differs far from thine.-City Jackdaw.”

The following facts, testified to in the Manchester Examiner and Times, in a letter signed "R. Foulkes Griffiths, Tarporley, Cheshire," are also worth quoting:

"With regard to the parish charities, the conduct of the clergy is in many cases simply abominable. Look at the way in which the families of men who receive good wages are assisted with ten shillings from the Christmas charity fund, when poorer people are left penniless, pinched by poverty and want, just because they believe the Prayer-Book is wrong in some of its teachings, and have the courage of their convictions in going to chapel. The parasites of the rector, who fawn before him, and in mock accents deliver themselves of the cant of hypocrisy before the 'squire's lady,' or the 'countess,' or 'my lady' of the hall, are rewarded,— while the more honest are, because they are conscientious, left without help. It should be remembered, too, that to labourers who gain fifteen shillings a-week, and have a family of six children, the bonus of ten shillings is no trifle.

"In the parish adjoining the one last referred to, a curate boasted, at the delivery of articles of clothing to the poor on St. Thomas'-day, that 'he had fought to have the disbursements in the power of the clergy, and he had won.' Previously the overseers chosen by the parishioners had the control. It was a fact that most of the money left to the parish was bequeathed within the memory of some of the inhabitants by a Nonconformist. Now it is disbursed by the clergy; and one year at least the vicar showed his bias, by saying he would issue tickets instead of clothing, so that the poor should choose what they wanted in the shops