Christ had much, if anything, to nothing more than that his speech do.'-Banner, April 24.

was one of superlative excellence, indicative alike of genius, culture, Christian principle, and political philosophy. . . . Another circumstance, which we hail with special satisfaction, was the appearance of Mr. Kershaw. . . . Public demonstrations are not altogether in unison with the calm temperament, and the modesty, which marks Mr. Kershaw's character, but there are times when duty demands a sacrifice of personal preferences. It will be found, he frankly stated, that he considered the time to have come for a public and bold avowal of his views on this great subject-views which he had long cherished in his mere private capacity. We hope that multitudes of those Nonconformists, in the same condition of life as the member for Stockport, will come to a similar conclusion; and stand forth to add the weight of their character, station, and influence, in support of this great cause.’— Banner, June 14, 1848.

But it is not on the alleged failure of the Association simply, that its abandonment is urged; the signs of the times are against it, and the old plea for inaction is put forth with characteristic recklessness. Let the Doctor speak for himself, and the reply shall be in his own words. Hansard is proverbially unpopular on the ministerial benches. What must our assailant think of the Christian Witness' and Banner' of former days?

the

'It appears to us that the time is come for suspending, if not altogether surrendering, all organizations seeking the separation of Church and State by direct attacks.

.. Have patience! Let tyranny and rapacity have time to swell to their full dimensions. . . . From that strife you may safely stand aloof. . . . If anything for a little can stay the progress of those events, and add for a season strength and stability to the Establishment, it will be such a moment (query, movement?) as that proposed by the formation of the Anti-state-church Association. . . You have but to wait the appointed time, and you shall see with joy the triumph of Him who is head over all things to his Church.' -Banner, April 17.

'Nothing should be left untried to unite all that fear God among the Dissenters in one holy league and covenant against this colossal system of error, evil, distraction, division, and persecution. As a matter of civil policy, this is the first duty of every British patriot; as a matter of Christian piety, it is the first duty of every enlightened subject of the kingdom of Christ.' -Christian Witness, April, 1844.

In such matters it is childish to talk of "providential appointments". -or worse; it is trifling with sacred things. "Manifest call!" . . . You may find it in providence: this is clearly the great question of the times. . . They who now can find "no call" in these directions, but wait for another, are likely to wait for ever.'-Banner, Sept. 27, 1848.

The inconsistency of the following is too glaring to escape notice, and bespeaks, of itself, the virulence of the attack which

has been made. Even Dr. Campbell must blush when comparing his present with his former self. Though the first paragraph is nominally that of the remonstrants,' it is clearly intended to express the views of the editor :

We, said the remonstrants, hope as confidently as you, that the severance will be effected, but it will be by other and very different means from those you propose to employ. . . The Church herself will, perhaps, have a large share in the work.'— Banner, April 17.

'If reform is to come at all, it must come from without; it will never come from within the Church-that is, from the bishops and dignified clergy.'-Christian Witness, Sept. 1847.

One more quotation, and we shall gladly turn from this repulsive exhibition. Nothing but a strong sense of what was due to one of the best and noblest organizations of the day, would have induced us to dwell on it so long. Had personal inclination been consulted, we should have been silent, but the cause of truth, vilified and fiercely assailed, demanded the service we render. Few things are more repulsive than the language of religion from intemperate lips, a profession of special regard for the spirituality of the Church in connexion with bitterness of spirit and calumnious averments respecting others. Such things are the staple in which some men deal, and we hesitate not to charge them on the recent doings of the editor of the Banner.' We cannot conceive of anything more adapted to foster the prejudice which unhappily prevails against evangelical truth, than the loud and boastful professions of religious zeal which he has intermingled with asperity, mortified pride, and slanderous statements. He is eminently skilful in insinuations-leaving an impression beyond the strict import of his words; and thus securing a retreat whenever it may be deemed expedient to deny the guilt charged upon him. It is some consolation, however, that even here he has, by anticipation, furnished an antidote in the language with which, on other occasions, he has defended himself. Let our readers compare the following:

Your power is your piety-not your gregarious, piebald organizations; in proportion as your members increase, your zeal burns, and your graces shine, you will tell upon the understanding and the consciences of the adherents of Establishments; your policy, therefore, apart from higher con

Will this answer (a passage of the address of the Wesleyan Conference) satisfy intelligent, reflecting men? Does it not beg the question? Does it not assume what is not proved-that they who engage in this enterprise (the Antistate-church movement) are indifferent to their spiritual charge?

siderations, as the shortest and surest method of severing the Church from the State, is, to promote the triumph and reign of true religion in the land. . . . We think the great work of the day ought to be the revival of religion in the midst of the churches, and its extension throughout the whole land.'-Banner, April 17.

We have done, and now leave it to the Nonconformists of Great Britain to judge between the Anti-state-church Association and its assailant. If his temper and discretion, the soundness of his judgment, his rectitude, purity of motive, and unselfishness, command their confidence, they will, of course, pronounce against the former; but if they fail to recognise these qualities, they will cling to the society the more firmly from its having become the object of his bitter enmity. Of their decision we entertain no doubt. The course which is applauded by such journals as the "Watchman,' Record,' and 'Morning Herald,' cannot have the approval of the Dissenters of England, and we look, therefore, with unfaltering confidence to the future. It is well to know our enemies. A false friend is a source of weakness, and from this danger the society is now exempt. We hasten to dismiss the assailant and the assault, pitying the one and smiling at the other, In the discharge of our duty, as journalists, we have called things by their right names, and know no reason why we should not do so. It would have been far more pleasing to write in a different strain, but conscience would in such case have accused us of unfaithfulness to truth and to God.

Since the above was in type, we have seen the Banner' of June 19th. A more miserable affair we never read than the so-called Editorial Address to the Baptist Churches of Great Britain,' &c. It has all the untruthfulness and malevo lence conspicuous in other productions of the writer, without a particle of the force he sometimes displays. We never met with a duller or more pointless thing, and hope it will be widely read by the parties addressed. To those parties we say, in Dr. Campbell's own words, and with infinitely more truth, The article seems to have been specially prepared for the weak, less worthy, and less intelligent portion of your community. It could not be meant for the men of sense; its authors could only hope that, by them, it would be overlooked, or, if seen, endured.' Our note on page 112 explains the special bitterness of the writer's allusions to the editor of the Baptist Magazine'

a man as superior to his accuser in modesty and sterling rectitude, as he is inferior in trickery, vaunting pretension, and arrogance.

How even Dr. Campbell could venture to print what he has written, respecting the reference of that gentleman to the article in the Church, is marvellous. Common decency ought to have counselled silence on such a point, after what he had done in the matter of Mr. Miall's volume and the Evangelical Magazine.' But we cease to wonder at any thing from

this quarter.

6

Of the extracts given, we say nothing. The writers of most of them are evidently uninformed on many points of the case; and one, at least, ought, for very shame, to be silent in any matter pertaining to the Eclectic." On a perusal of the whole address, we cannot better express our judgment than in the words of Dr. Campbell himself in this very article. Of two evils, both bad, it is not easy to say which the more aboundsunblushing falsehood, or cunning malignity.' The editor of the Church will not much distress himself at such a charge from such a quarter. It would be well for his accuser if all who know him would as readily give a verdict in his favour. Before concluding we should like to ask the editor of the Banner' whether he received a letter from the Rev. Charles Stovel, repudiating the construction put on his speech at the last annual meeting of the Baptist Home mission, as 'making a distinct and unmistakeable allusion to the recent transactions of the "Eclectic Review?" Such was Dr. Campbell's language in the Banner' of April 24, when he wanted to damage the character of Dr. Price, and to destroy the Eclectic. Did he then, we ask, receive a communication from Mr. Stovel, denying his having intended any such allusion, and, if he did, why was not the letter printed? If the fact be so-and we challenge Dr. Campbell to answer our inquiry-what can be thought of the effrontery of the following passage, printed in the Banner of the 19th: Above all things, integrity is essential to the conduct of the press. A fig for intelligence, for eloquence, for everything, in the absence of integrity. We want words to express our estimate of what is involved in combining such deeds with such words. Let the one or the other be abandoned. They cannot hold together.

122

Brief Notices.

The Men of Glasgow, and the Women of Scotland; Reasons for Differing from the Rev. Dr. Symington's View of the Levitical Marriage Law. By T. Binney. 8vo. Pp. 68. London: Ward and Co.

THIS pamphlet was written by request, for the information of a gentleman, appointed by a public meeting, at Glasgow, to proceed to London as part of a deputation, to oppose Mr. Wortley's Marriage Bill. It so happened, that Mr. Binney visited Glasgow in April last, immediately after a large meeting had been held there in opposition to this measure; and as his views were known to be favourable to it, the topic became matter of conversation, and was subsequently adverted to in the correspondence of his Scotch friends. Dr. Symington's speech at the meeting in question was greatly applauded; and so high was the estimate formed of its ability and conclusiveness, that it was published as a separate tract, and copies of it were forwarded to Mr. Binney. Such, in brief, are the circumstances out of which this pamphlet has grown; and as we have read it with very considerable interest, so we should have been glad to devote considerable space to it, if time had permitted. It has reached us, however, so late in the month, that we must either be content to notice it briefly, or must defer it till the time will have passed for its doing the service which it is so admirably adapted to accomplish. The question itself is imminent; and we have, therefore, resolved to introduce the pamphlet at once, with our hearty, though brief commendation.

6

We have rarely met with a piece of controversial writing more to our mind. It is at once calm, clear, forcible, and decided; free from asperity and assumption, yet earnest in its tone and emphatic in its enunciation of the views embraced. I believe my own views to be right,' says Mr. Binney, and I shall try to prove this by constructing as sound and strong an argument as I can. If it be unsound, why then it will not hold together. It will be answerable. Let it be answered. Only let it be done by argument.' The subject discussed is obvious from the title-page; and its great importance will be readily admitted by all who have attended to the discussion recently carried on. Mr. Binney examines, with much pains-taking, the Levitical law pertaining to the matter, and by a variety of tests, brings out, as it appears to us, triumphantly, the conclusion, that, in Leviticus xviii. 18, Marriage with a deceased wife's sister is recognised and permitted in express terms. To forbid the possession, at the same time, of two sisters, as wives, and to sanction it successionally, are the two sides of the one thing, which that particular clause of the Levitical marriage-law which we have been considering, was intended to embody.' The scriptural argument is thoroughly sifted, and the various pleas founded on general principles, which are urged in opposition to his views, are examined with acuteness and unsparing logic. To those who know Mr. Binney's writings