sing in the streets" (for my wife was a most beautiful singer, and knew a'most every tune you can name, unless it is that one about "Boney going over the Alps;" she never could rightly manage that one; but ask her for anything else and she'd sing it to you directly).

"Oh, Bill," she says, "I don't like; I'm 'shamed, Bill," says she.

But by a deal of 'suading I got her to go out along of me, and in about an hour she'd made four and ninepence. The ninepence she got all at once for one tune, that a man wanted very particular; and he was so pleased with the way she sung it, that he gave her the ninepence down.

"There! let's leave off now, Bill," she says, "at the hour's end. "Taint worth while to keep on when we've got enough." "Well, we'll go home, then. We can do till Monday morning, anyhow;" and so we went home; and, thank God, we've never had to come back to her singing in the street again, and I hope we never shall.

When we left Warwick on the Tuesday morning, we went to Birmingham and stopped till harvest time came round again. We went to Coventry on purpose to show my missis "Peeping Tom" (it is an old image stuck up in the corner of the street), and then we came back to Birmingham. From thence we travelled to Wolverhampton, Stourbridge, Worcester, and Malvern, walking from thirty to thirty-three miles a day. We have done thirty-six sometimes.

At Ross we bid a twelvemonth; and from there my wife and I set off on a tramp of more than four hundred miles, stopping every night, and walking all day.

It took us a month and three days. We never did a bit of work all the time. It was a bad harvesting, and we had saved money enough to keep us till we came home to my mother's in Essex, where we stayed with the old lady three days. After that we went to Stratford for one twelvemonth, and saved money to carry us into Kent and keep us through a good bit of the harvest, by which we made ten pound, and came to

Chatham. There my wife was taken ill with the fever, and I had to wait upon her day and night. She was ill very nigh a twelvemonth altogether; and I had to nurse her as best as I could, and clean the house, and cook, and make her gruel and everything, for we could not afford to pay a woman to help us. We did not get to work again till next harvest, when we had to sleep in a barn, and we both of us got the agur together; and I could not do much work then. When we got a little better, a man took pity upon me, and put me watchman over two housen. I was there about three weeks, and then he got me another little job, and we got a few shillings together and took our things out of pawn. From that I went to work up at Rochester Bridge; and, when winter came on, I got work in a tunnel at Ford Ret, for about three months. It is rather chokey kind of work, all done by candle-light, and the smoke makes the air thick and misty. Once, when I was in Dorsetshire, I was in a tunnel that fell in at both ends. There was only one man and me and some horses buried in it, and he drove a hole through the ground (he was about eight hours doing it), and then he and me got out, and left the horses in for three days and nights. We had to lower corn and water to them through the hole, till we could dig them out again; but we were none of us hurt. When I went away I left my wife at Chatham, and used to send her five shillings a week; and she saved money out of that! I was away nine weeks, working at different places, and went down to see mother. From Essex I walked to see my sister, who was in service in London, forty miles in one day, and she paid my fare to return home to Chatham; and a man came after me to go to work in Chatham Dockyard, for Mr. R- - I staid there two years and a half, and then Mr. R― sent me up to London, where I have lived ever since, working at different places under different masters.

Ever since then things have seemed to go the right road with me.

SIR, The newspapers have commented freely and largely upon the judgment of Dr. Lushington in the case of the Rev. Dunbar Heath. They have been nearly unanimous in expressing contempt for the defendant. Many of them, the High Church newspapers especially, have manifested nearly equal contempt for the judge. The Spectator appears to

think that neither the defendant nor the judge is so much to blame as the Thirty-Nine Articles. This trial adds one more proof, it intimates, to the mass of proofs, that clergymen of this day who subscribe a document which was compiled in the sixteenth century, involve themselves in an ignominious slavery, and in probable, almost certain, falsehood.

As this valuable newspaper has mentioned me amongst those who may be affected by Dr. Lushington's judgment, and who must be affected by the tyranny of those Articles, I ask your permission to say a few words upon the subject. I need scarcely say that no one but myself is responsible for my opinions.

1. I cannot join the press, secular and religious, in its opinion of Mr. Heath. That opinion is a very safe one. Mr. Heath has used expressions which will be at least as disagreeable to any school of rationalists, English or German, that I ever heard of, as to the most orthodox. What he calls his "system," is rather more disagreeable to those who, like me, belong to no school, rationalist or orthodox, than it can be to any of them. His language is that of an ingenious, erudite, solitary, eccentric thinker. He has been annoyed by certain statements and phrases of his brethren which seem to him, not irrational, but unscriptural. He has tried to correct them by philological crotchets which half a dozen persons in England may understand, or may perceive to contain the hint of truths;

It is

which few or none will adopt. easy, therefore, to say that he is a wanton disturber of the peace, a man whose sole object is to perplex the faith of his fellow-Christians for his own amusement. Any one who has read the Sermons from which the extracts in the charges against him have been culled -any one who knows anything of his life-will have seen that this suspicion, however plausible, is false. He is a gentleman and a scholar; he is a faithful parish priest. He attaches an importance to his own notions and phrases, which no one else can attach to them; but evidently he loves the common faith of Christians above them. He is one of those persons whose eccentricities in themselves can do the least possible harm, whose faith, even in his eccentricities, does good. They may become mischievous, they do become mischievous, when they are separated from their context, made the subject of discussion in a Court, hawked about in newspapers. Thus the religious public of England are led to think that such eccentricities are contrary to the Articles, and that a thousand outrageous exaggerations to which they listen Sunday after Sunday-exaggerations which startle the cultivated and confuse the ignorant― are not contrary to them. I heard a clergyman in a fashionable Evangelical church, at a fashionable watering-place, preach a sermon during Passion Week in which he said, in the broadest language, that our Lord dared not speak before Pontius Pilate, because He knew that He was not innocent, but guilty. This preacher would never have been brought into the Arches Court. He meant to proclaim the doctrine that Christ was bearing the sins of men. He was proclaiming it in such a way as to insult the consciences of the most devout, and to perplex all simple people. He was showing that he thought the

grandest and most awful event in the history of the universe was a subject for wild statements and tricks of oratory. I thank God that outrages of this kind are not punishable, that no one is mad enough to think of punishing them. Yet they are committed continually. And they have the quality of mischievousness which Mr. Heath's novelties want; they degrade a popular belief, and make it odious.

If the clergy of the Isle of Wight had a little considered that the phrases which most galled them in Mr. Heath's speech and writings were of a kind. which would command no sympathy, and would work their own cure,-if they had been led to ask themselves whether there might not be confusion in their own speech and thoughts which needed correction and rectification-I think they would have paused before they urged their Bishop to prosecute a brother, and so would have saved the Church and Theology from a great injury. The common plea for such prosecutions is this, "We cannot afford to lose great theological distinctions; we cannot let philosophical notions be mingled with Revelation."-Very well! But what if through this prosecution you have effaced great theological distinctions? what if you have mixed philosophical notions with Revelation? Mr. Heath had said truly that the phrase "immortality of the soul" is not a scriptural phrase. He had gone on in his rash way to speak of the idea as also unscriptural. This must be stopped. How do you stop it? In one of the charges against Mr. Heath the “immortality of the soul" is confounded with the eternal life which Christ is declared in Scripture to have manifested to men. Now I possibly do not despise the author of the Phadon quite as much as some of my brethren despise him. I think a man whom Augustin recognised as one of the instruments of his conversion need not be deemed altogether profane. But however Augustin might have loved Plato, he would have resisted to the death the identification of his idea of the immortality of the soul

with the Divine and eternal life set forth in the Gospel. That identification has, I believe, never received a formal episcopal sanction till now. The Bishop of Winchester, in his charges against Mr. Heath, has set his seal to it. So that the advantage of bringing a man into Court whose words have no authority and will carry no weight is this, that you obtain a solemn ecclesiastical authority for blotting out a great theological principle, forerecting a tenet of philosophy into the place of it! Blessed effect of persecution! persecution! If experience ever could teach Churchmen, the splendid irony of this fact might do us some good.

2. Be it remembered that these charges proceed from a bishop or his assessors, who were hampered by none of the difficulties which surround the judge who had to pronounce upon their validity. What then are we to say of the complaints which some of our High Church journals make of that judge, or of the general tone of contempt which they are wont to indulge in on other occasions respecting laymen who pretend to meddle in Church questions? I cannot read Dr. Lushington's decision on this question without seeing in it traces of a tenderness, humility, desire to do justice, which I believe I should look for in vain in most learned divines. My feeling when I had read it was, "Oh, that "this excellent man had given full scope "to his lay instincts! oh, that he had

simply followed his common-law tradi"tions! Then Theology would have "been safe in his hands. He has en"dangered it by listening to our pro

fessions by trying to accommodate "itself to our notions. His lay piety "would have taught him that belief "must be in a living person, an actual "redeemer. He has confused himself "with doctors till he supposes that,

according to the Articles, faith is "in a tenet or in itself. His proper "lore would have led him, in examining "one article of a code, to compare it "with the rest, to consider it in "reference to the purpose of the whole "document. Playing the ecclesiastic, he supposes that it is possible to fix the

sense of one Article, without asking "himself whether that sense does not "absolutely contradict the rest, and the "other formularies to which a clergyman "pledges himself." And so through a most natural feeling, derived from the opinion and practice of divines, that the Articles are contrived as meshes to their consciences-as hindrances to the free expression of thought and belief he has arrived at an interpretation of the 11th Article, which appears to condemn (1) All who acknowledge our Baptismal Service, and believe that infants without conscious faith are accepted by God. (2) All strong Calvinists who think that Christ died for the elect, and not for mankind.

Since this judgment affects so many in both sections of the English Church, I am almost ashamed to speak of an utterly unimportant person who belongs to neither of them. But as the Spectator alluded to me, I frankly and at once own that I am one of that large company which this sentence, according to its obvious construction, would separate from the ministry of the Church. I have always taught, and by God's help always mean to teach, that we are accepted by God in Christ the Head of all men; that our faith is grounded upon what He is, and what He has done, and is in no sense the cause of our acceptance; and that this faith is in a redeemer, not in any tenet about particular redemption or general redemption. This doctrine may be condemned by Dr. Lushington's reading of the 11th Article. I fear it is. I cannot help that. I must preach this Gospel or

none.

His reading of the 2d Article also seems to establish that meaning of the word "propitiation," which is its is its undoubted meaning in Greek and Hindoo mythology. Any one who should deny that a propitiation meant to most heathens the effect of a human sacrifice

in averting the wrath or purchasing the favour of a Divine being, would deny plain facts, an abundance of which have been collected by Dr. Magee. But I have always maintained, and always mean to maintain, that this idea, which

is deduced from the practice of those nations whose sacrifices the Scriptures declare that God hates, is not the idea of it in the Old or New Testament; that when our Lord declared that God so loved the world as to give His Son for it, He condemned the idea for ever, and made the opposite idea to it the explanation of His sacrifice; that in this sense, and not in the heathen sense, St. Paul affirms that Christ is set forth as a propitiation for the sins of the world; that in this sense, and not in the heathen sense, we thank our Heavenly Father, in our Eucharistical service, that of His tender mercy He has given his only Son to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, and that He has made, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. I have maintained, and mean to maintain, that in this sense, and not in the heathen sense, the Reformers preached Christ's death as a Gospel to man, and that whatever portions of the other sense cleaved to these words, were the relics of that Romish notion of satisfaction against which they were protesting. I have maintained, and mean to maintain, that the 2d Article, by making the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ the ground of the doctrine that He made a sacrifice for the original guilt, as well as the actual sins of men, negatives the one principle, ratifies the other. So long as I believe the union of the Son with the Father to be the key-stone of Christian Theology, so long will 1, to the utmost of my power, combat a notion which I conceive practically destroys their unity, and introduces a horrible sense of conflict between them. If Dr. Lushington's decree has left even a doubt upon the question, whether we are bound to accept the Magee notion of propitiation, all who feel as I do ought to assist Mr. Heath in prosecuting his appeal. I think I have shown that many who entirely disagree with me have as much interest as I have in that appeal. Mr.