atheism. But on what shallow pretence is it supposed that he would not have infinitely preferred a simple and rational religion if he had ever met with it? Is it on the plea that he is not so well gifted with reason as the more learned? Surely this of all pretences is the most shallow. For granting for a moment that his reason is less capable of bearing the strain of mental exertion, the more simple the religion, the better suited would it be to his inferior mental powers, the more easily would it be understood. And none can deny that Theism is far more simple than Orthodoxy. But as a proof that his mental capacities are not inferior-at all events for such a purpose as the acceptance or rejection of a religious belief-we point to the fact that he has already understood and accepted a highly complex and partly metaphysical religion, exactly as it has been understood and accepted by some of the foremost intellects of Christendom. In religion we see little difference between the prince and the beggar, the philosopher and the teachable child. Given a book or any other authority claiming to be divine, what it says must be received and believed. And this requires no great mental effort. Mental effort only begins when the authority is doubted, or when the mind wishes to establish the harmony between Reason and Revelation-an issue carefully shunned.

As a matter of fact, experience certifies to the readiness and intelligence with which a simple and reasonable religion has been accepted by the utterly uneducated and even rustic mind. As a matter of fact, this class is as willing as any other class to give up its superstitions, if only they can be shaken off without losing at the same time the indispensable help and comfort of true Religion. A complete induction has not yet been possible; but whenever the experiment has been made, it has been found that the most simple-minded people -those least learned, or versed in theological subtleties-are the most ready to accept as the conclusions of common sense those beliefs of ours which are known by the name of Theism.

For this "people"-this despised, illiterate people-do value common sense. Seldom indeed can you appeal to this in vain. Nothing, I venture to say, but long and deep prepossessions in favour of any superstition would keep them from accepting that which appealed to and satisfied their Reason.

And on this point, I feel that I have some claim to be heard, having had now for nearly a quarter of a century a vast and varied experience of clerical life among the poor.

To go back to my first parish, I well remember how I found that the first to sympathize with a purer faith were some old and illiterate people who of their own accord talked with me on sceptical subjects. So far from the poor being the first to detect the odour of heresy in my preaching, they were the last to find any fault, and would wonder when I told them of the accusations laid against my doctrine by the upper classes. One poor man who died of consumption learned, with very little help from me but what my sympathy gave him, to abandon entirely the doctrine of the atonement, as a terrible slur on the justice and love of God. All his anxiety at the last moment was that they would leave him alone and let him die in peace. His methodist friends and an evangelical curate had been perpetually to pray with him and strive for his re-conversion, but they only tormented his spirit and confused his mind. He died while I was at Church one Sunday morning and his last words were "Tell Mr. Voysey that I die praising God."

As death-beds are so often quoted in support of the claims of orthodoxy, I will venture to mention one more instance. Within a few days of my entering on a fresh cure, I was sent for to the bedside of a dying man, a farmer, not possessed of any culture certainly; and, though I did not know of it at the time, he had been a respected member of the Wesleyan Methodists. It is always a painful and difficult duty to perform, and tenfold more so when one enters the house of mourning for the first time a total stranger. The dying man was perfectly conscious and had his mind clear. I began to speak to him as I should wish to be spoken to in my last moments. I did not dare to be dishonest or touch on doctrines which I did not myself believe. I drew his mind to take a retrospect of his past life and to see what mercies and blessings had been vouchsafed to him, to recognize even in all his afflictions the hand of a loving and wise Father; and when with tears of gratitude he owned how good God had been to him in every event of his life, he was asked whether he could not trust His heavenly Father in the dark valley before him, and trust Him also to be a kind Father to his orphaned family, he replied "I do, I do. Bless His holy name!" I then knelt down with his weeping children and offered up a prayer of simple faith and thanksgiving; there was not a word uttered about forgiveness of sins, not a cry for mercy, not the barest mention of the name of Christ. But so far as such ministrations can be of any comfort, my words did

comfort them all, and I left them with the sound of their grateful thanks like music in my heart. Imagine my astonishment when I afterwards learned that the man and his family were all Methodists!

In the same parish—a population of what a sneering paper called "gaping rustics "I found already plenty of freethinkers. One old man came to me asking if the passage could be true which said "Blessed shall he be who taketh thy little ones and dasheth them against the stones." Another family took courage to tell me that the doctrines I was preaching had been household words with them for years; their only surprise was that they should at last hear them from the pulpit.

Another young person, a domestic servant, after hearing a sermon against the atonement, which described God's dealings with men as those of a good father towards his children, said to me "Of course, it stands to reason that God would be as good as one's own father and mother."

I could multiply such illustrations without end, and draw them from experiences not only in the country but in large towns, in St. Mark's, Whitechapel, in Great Yarmouth, and even among the negroes in Jamacia, but I will not exceed our usual limits.

In conclusion I refer once more to my text: "The poor have the gospel preached unto them;" if this was said by Jesus in reference to the Gospel in the sermon on the mount, where he says "If ye being evil know how to be kind to your children, how much more will your Heavenly Father be kind to you," we can only declare that this most simple Religion is infinitely better suited to the simple and untutored mind than the complex and irrational scheme of salvation presented by supernatural religion. Theism has this for its basis. It only adds to it the corollary "If ye being tender-hearted inflict pain and disappointment upon your children for their good, how much more will your Heavenly Father do so to you."

If this religion commend itself to common sense, be sure that when it is preached unto the poor they will be as willing to hear it and will as gratefully accept it as the most intelligent and cultured of the human race.

CARTER & WILLIAMS, General Steam Printers, 14, Bishopsgate Avenue, Camomile-street E.C

The Bishops' Pastoral to the Clergy.

A SERMON,

PREACHED AT ST. GEORGE'S HALL, LANGHAM

PLACE, MARCH 14, 1875, BY THE

REV. CHARLES

VOYSEY.

NEW KORAN. Duties. XXVIII., 54, " O Bishop, govern with a gentle and strong hand; rebuke their indiscretions, judge their dissensions without partiality, and persuade them to labour in love."

THINK we ought to take some notice of the address put forth by the Bench of Archbishops and Bishops within the last week, and to give to it such welcome

as it deserves.

The Times of the 8th inst., says "the address deserves to command the confidence of the public. It is as clear and as grave a declaration as they could have uttered to the contending parties in the Church that while they are ready to make fair allowance for variations of sentiment and of opinion, they are determined to stand by the Reformation and the Law."

At the outset of our reflections it will be well to bear in mind the immediatê circumstances which have called forth this address.

No sooner had the Public Worship Act passed through Parliament than it was discovered that it was a two-edged sword which might be used with slaughterous effect by the very party against which it had been forged, and at all events would be put in motion for purposes almost directly contrary to the intention of the promoters of the Bill.

Rev. C. Voysey's sermons are to be obtained at St. George's Hall, every Sunday morning,orfrom the Author (by post), Camden House, Dulwich, S.E. Price one penny, postage a halfpenny.

The sound of war was heard in the distance, and the friends of peace and quietness were in alarm. Mr. Russell Gurney was to have introduced another bill this session extending the obnoxious interference with ritual to the punishment of all departures from orthodoxy in doctrine. This bill has been either postponed or abandoned, no doubt through the fear of still more rudely disturbing the peace of the Church.

The Episcopal Bench have therefore shewn some wisdom in selecting this juncture of circumstances for an unequivocal manifesto of Protestant principles and for a distinct resolution to abide by the existing laws and constitution of the National Church.

However little sympathy we may have with their theology, we cannot but admire their loyalty to the State and their honest determination to exercise their legal functions in upholding the law of the land; and it is worthy of notice that never have they been so nearly unanimous since they combined about twelve years ago to denounce the writings of the Bishop of Natal. This time, let us acknowledge, their unanimity is more creditable to them than on the last

occasion.

The most striking feature in the address is the extremely frank and explicit manner in which they, in the first place, admit a serious alienation between Clergy and Laity and then throw nearly the whole of the blame of this alienation upon the Clergy themselves. We only hope that what they mean by alienation is not confined to the popular antipathy to Ritualism alone; but that they are as fully alive to the wide-spread and deep-set repugnance to orthodox Christianity which is felt by intelligent persons of all ranks throughout the country. Of this larger sense of the term alienation I may speak presently. For the moment we must notice that such alienation as the Bishops recognize is laid by them at the door of the Clergy-more especially of those who are known as Ritualists, High-Churchmen or Sacerdotalists.

The specific charges brought against them are :—

1. Innovations in the ceremonies of public worship by which some of the laity are displeased and rendered suspicious as to what next may be done by an autocratic clergyman.

2. Insubordination, manifested not only in disobedience to Episcopal mandate, but in defiance of the decisions of the Highest Court of Appeal.

3. Romish heresy, taught openly in the pulpit and still