possibility of any one obtaining an audience who should now advocate the doctrine of the divine right of monarchs. They are living in an age when penal laws and schism acts have been utterly done away. But the altered condition of the times has little influence on their minds. The prejudice is unremoved and seems almost hopeless of removal. The Church of England of to-day is to them all she was under the Stuarts.

Beside all this we ought never to forget in considering the alienation of these men that there was a time when their forefathers and ours stood sword-point to sword-point on the field of battle. The armies which fought at Edgehill, at Newbury, and at Naseby, not only represented the "King's party" against the "Country party," but they put prominently forward, one side as much as the other, that it was likewise a contest of the Church against Nonconformity. The latter triumphed for a while. Such triumph however tended only to make those who had won it foemen to one another as much as to the Church. And when the Royalists were once again restored to power steps were taken in retaliation which resulted in more bitterness than even the blood poured

out on the battle-field. The estrangement thus engendered retains to this day much of its acerbity. This was the time when Tests of Conformity were multiplied. Conventicle Acts, Schism Acts, Five-Mile Acts are all still remembered and brought up against us, almost as if they could exist in the England of to-day. Other memorials of these dissensions took a more substantial form, and remain in some places as memorials still. I allude to those buildings for public worship which were erected as soon as the Toleration Act permitted it for the use of ministers deprived for Nonconformity. I would here notice by the way, as an evidence of the evil spirit to which these contentions gave birth, that both Churchmen and Dissenters. know now that the numbers as well as the sufferings of these deprived ministers have been greatly exaggerated by historians whom angry feelings had prejudiced. But it is only of late years that such an admission has been made. We are glad indeed to know that things were not so bad as they were represented. Many however did suffer most bitterly. The flocks who supported these ejected ministers were generally too poor to afford them anything like a sufficient maintenance, and when places

of worship were suffered to be built, it is no exaggeration to say that each stone which was laid represented some personal sacrifice to the cause which the Nonconformists had at heart. We all know that nothing so much attaches men to an object as having made sacrifices for it. These modest buildings raised entirely by devotion of this nature remain not only as monuments of the self-denial which reared them, but also as strong links to bind those who have been trained to worship there closer to the cause for which such self-denial was manifested.

It is patent to all that offences of this nature, come how they may, must take a long time to be wiped out of remembrance. And neither party has cared so much as they ought, the one to demonstrate, the other to believe that a different spirit animates the Church of England of the present time. The wrongs are doubtless not dwelt upon now so much as they were close to the age when they occurred, but they are still recalled with bitterness when Nonconformists are drawn into opposition to the Church. It is unwise in Churchmen to ignore these facts in dealing with the older branches of Dissenters. If they rather be

borne steadily in remembrance, and advantage taken of every opportunity to shew that the like faults can no longer be imputed to us: if we prove that though our fathers erred we are conscious of their errors and wishful to avoid the like, more advance will be made towards bringing them to a correct idea of us, than by any endeavours we might make to persuade them to reduce their religious system into harmony with our own, or to change ours in such wise as to have more accord with them.

Next, with what feelings have his traditions led the modern dissenter to regard us? Here there is no feeling of hostility originating in ages of intolerance to be encountered. From their actions we can see that the gravest charge which the followers of Wesley, were they to translate those actions into words, would bring against the Church is a want of that zeal which they have shewn in such abundance, yea, sometimes in unwise excess. They would perhaps tell us that we grew too easy in our estimate of our duty and neglected too much the spiritual wants of the nation whereof we are the National Church. But even they must admit that we cannot now be said to be behind any in earnestness, and taught by what we

have seen in their experience we are striving to exhibit a zeal tempered with wisdom.

Another objection might be that the laity were excluded from all participation in our church-work. This was until lately too well founded. The signs of the times are however growing brighter. In this diocese notably we have a prelate who wisely began his episcopate with a movement for creating a greater feeling of unity between the lay and clerical elements in our communion. The good effects of his endeavours are being felt already. It would be wise policy however to use even more extensively that elasticity which really exists within our church machinery. How this might be done we hope to indicate at another time, feeling sure that if such extension were rightly carried out, it would wipe away one item of reproach and forge a strong link of union. between ourselves and those whom our former exclusiveness allowed to fall away from us.

Another complaint akin to the former has been that we have shewn so little sympathy with the lower orders. This was prominently

true in Wesley's days.

The Church was then

superlatively respectable, and had it not pleased God to raise up some opposition, she and the