main of this "honour" is love,

Tahearty affection and esteem. The love of

children toward their parents is apt to wax cold, especially when they grow up, and it is found necessary to contradict and restrain them. A child without love is guilty of injustice; he withholds what he is bound to give. The best part of his obedience is wanting. This "honour" also includes a uniform, cheerful, and unreserved deference, and submission, to their will. A child is not to speak to his parents in a bold and familiar manner, nor to behave with rudeness in their presence. When reproved he is not to make a pert and saucy reply, nor to contend with them, resolving to argue it out, and have the last word. Some children think they are justified in doing this because their parents are poor, or not so wise and knowing as themselves. But whatever parents may be beside, they are not the inferiors of their children, not even their equals, but their superiors; and any behaviour but what is submissive and respectful is in the highest degree wicked and displeasing to God.

To "honour our parents is also to obey their commands, provided those commands are not at variance with the Word of God. Those who protect and provide for us have a right to our services. We must, moreover, do what they wish at the time they appoint, and in the manner they direct. We must also "honour" them by being satisfied with the provision they make for us. Children often want better fare, and finer clothes, and more pocket-money, than their parents are disposed to allow them. It would check this disposition were they to consider that our real wants are much fewer than we generally imagine; that there is no end to the cravings of a selfish heart; that, however

much it gets, it will still be unsatisfied, and cry "give, give ;" and that it is by no means certain that we should on the whole be better had we all that our hearts desire. Absalom was a pampered child; and he became a torment to. his father, a firebrand to his country, and a curse to himself. The prodigal son was weary of the restraints of parental authority, and thought it intolerably hard to have but a small portion of property at his disposal. At last he was freed from this irksome bondage. He received, not a small portion, but his entire patrimony. This was a day he had long desired, but it was certainly the most unhappy of his life.

We "honour" our parents by receiving meekly those reproofs and corrections they may see proper to administer. Few children are so dutiful as never to need reproof; and, perhaps, few parents have so much wisdom and love as never to administer reproof but when it is really called for. There may be seasons when a child may remonstrate, provided this is done with due deference and modesty; but in general his duty is not to reply and resist, but to keep silence and submit. Young people must also thankfully accept their parents' advice, and treat it with attention. It may not be always proper to follow that advice, but it is always right to consult them, and to weigh their opinion against our own. To "honour" our parents is, further, to assist them in the decline of life, and to provide for them, if possible, when they are unable to provide for themselves.

These duties are according to the principles of goodness and truth, and if the heart is under the influence of grace these fruits will follow. If they do not, we are still unrenewed and in our sins. This is the first commandment with promise." God has attached His special blessing to the performance of these duties, and that blessing is certain to follow.

Dear young readers, weigh well these wise counsels left on record by

AN OLD METHODIST PREACHER.

FILIAL OBEDIENCE.-A tradesman once advertised for a boy to assist in his shop, and go on errands. A few hours after the morning papers were circulated, he had his shop thronged with all kinds of boys; and not knowing which to choose, he advertised again, as follows:-" Wanted, to assist in a shop, a boy who obeys his mother." In reply to this, there were only two boys who ventured to apply for the situation.

A

ROMISH AGGRESSIONS.-While the principal Roman Catholic countries of EuropeItaly, Spain, and Austria-have been curtailing the power of the Romish hierarchy and priesthood, Protestant England has been, during the last forty years, making concession after concession to Papal claims. Some sanguine politicians had promised that if certain demands were yielded by the country, complete satisfaction would follow, and no new claims would be put forth by the adherents of the Pope's religion in the United Kingdom. These expectations have not been realized. Year after year there has been some new aggression, rendered successful through the divided state of parties in the country. Instead of Parliamentary concessions having satisfied the Romish Church, they have actually emboldened it to make new and more audacious claims. Even the last great concession made to Rome has only proved to be a sop to Cerberus. The present Parliamentary session is not likely to pass over without adding to the growing encroachments of the Roman Catholic Church. few years ago an Act was passed, known as the "Prison Ministers Act," the object of which was to appoint Romish priests as jail chaplains, and pay them out of the public funds. The Act, however, was merely permissive, enabling the magistrates in Quarter Sessions to do this if they thought fit. In some places the appointments have been made, and in other parts, notably in Middlesex, they have been refused. Even a Permissive Act was, in the estimation of consistent Protestants, altogether undesirable, as it contemplated making Romish priests the stipendiaries of the State. Nonconformist and Methodist ministers did not want the Prison Ministers Act, as they were quite willing to visit any members of their flocks who might be in jail without receiving State pay for so doing. The Roman Catholic priests had the same liberty, and why should they ask for more? Dissatisfied with equality with Nonconformists, even the Permissive Act is not enough for them. They now demand that the Act shall be so amended as to make the permissive clauses compulsory. To meet their wishes, a bill has been introduced into Parliament to compel Protestant magistrates to employ a Roman Catholic chaplain wherever there are ten Roman Catholics in a jail, and also to make

79

due provision for the celebration of the mass, etc., within the precincts of prisons! It is true that clergymen of the Established Church are employed as jail chaplains; but that is because of the connection of the Church of

England with the State. But why should

there be two "Established" Churches within prisons? What are the people of Great Britain about that they do not lift up their voices to defeat this covert attempt at "levelling up?" If so small a number as ten prisoners can demand a chaplain, where is the jail that will be without a Romish priest? Whatever else Romanism can do, it fails to keep its votaries out of prison. The proportion of Roman Catholic criminals to the whole mass of prisoners found in English jails, is greatly and remarkably higher than the proportion of the Romanist to the Protestant population of the country. Thus a system which tends to fill our prisons, instead of being ashamed of this, makes it the ground of an appeal for exceptional indulgence, and with as little effrontery asks to be "paid according to results."

Another claim of the Romish Church is likely to be conceded this session by the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. It is said that this measure has remained a dead letter; but why has it remained a dead letter? Is it not because no government has had the courage to brave "the Roman Catholic vote" by putting it into force? Besides, if it has prevented aspiring Romish ecclesiastics from taking precedence in State ceremonials, etc., according to their pretended rank, and thus giving the "Archbishop of Westminster" a power and place at which the Moderators of the Scottish Churches, the President of the Wesleyan Conference, and the Chairman of the Congregational Union, do not aim, the Act has not been altogether in vain. What Romanism strives after in England, and everywhere else, is not equality but supremacy. Popery is not a mere religion; it is a system of politics, and a system which has shown itself to be opposed to civil and religious liberty. In England it makes its aggressions under the pretence of promoting religious equality; but has it ever in the days of its power extended equality or even tolerance to so-called heretics? Let ecclesiastical history, reddened with the blood of the saints, testify and answer.

PROSPECTS OF WESLEYAN DAY-SCHOOL EDUCATION.-The Secretary of the Wesleyan Education Committee has issued a special appeal for help, in consequence of the greatly improved prospects of Day-school Education. This appeal is grounded partly on the "new and extraordinary demands which are made upon the fund by the rapid increase of schools, consequent mainly on the passing of the Elementary Education Act of last year," and partly on the expected necessities of the future. It is calculated that "within twelve months from the present time the number of Wesleyan day-schools will have been increased by at least one-half from what it was two years ago. This of necessity involves a proportionate increase in the number of candidates for admission to the Training College. In two years' time the number of such candidates will have increased, in all probability, to not less than two hundred." Should this expectation be realized, it would be a sad thing indeed if, through lack of means, the Connexion were not prepared to dertake the responsibilities thus providentially devolving upon it. To train teachers for our own schools is surely imperative; and to train the surplus candidates for the School Boards, who, no doubt, will in many instances be willing to employ them, is obviously important.

un

THE GOVERNMENT LICENSING BILL.-The country has been long promised a legislative measure on the licensing of public-houses, and at last the Government has redeemed its promise by the introduction of the "Exciseable Liquors (Licenses) Bill" into Parliament. The following are its principal features. The power of granting licenses to be continued in the justices as heretofore, with certain important provisos. The licenses to be subject to a rent, and to be sold to the highest bidder. The number of public-houses -which at present are in the appalling proportion of one to every one hundred and eightytwo of the population-is to be reduced. The hours at which they are allowed to be open are to be restricted, especially on the Sunday. Further guarantees for the good conduct of their managers are to be exacted. The present public-house system is to be completely supplanted, after ten years' grace, by the new system. A veto is to be given to

the ratepayers on the licensing power of the magistrates, where such power might be used in granting licenses in excess of the propor. tion fixed in the Act.

These are the principal provisions of the new measure, which, no doubt, may be considerably altered in its passage through Parliament. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but the friends of sobriety will consider it as stopping far short of what the imperative requirements of the case demands. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill in the House of Commons, said, eloquently and well, "It was a measure which was demanded by the country with extraordinary earnestness and unanimity. Every one complained of the law that regulated the sale of intoxicating drinks. Social and sanitary reformers deplored the mischief, the moral degradation, and the physical deterioration that arose amongst the people from the trade which filled the prisons with criminals and the hospitals with patients. From the gin-shop the path was easy to the prison, the lunatic asylum, and the workhouse, the unhappy victim to the love of strong drinks being sure to terminate his existence in one or the other. The workingclasses, with one united voice, called for some reform. He would not stop to inquire whether or not there was exaggeration in the complaints, but this fact he feared was established, that of late years drunkenness was very much on the increase. He himself was satisfied that the evil was a great one, a blot on our social system, and a disgrace to our civilization." All this being admitted, the question recurs, Is the proposed remedy sufficient to meet the enormous and wide-spread evil? Our own opinion is, that while the measure is good, so far as it goes, it is not nearly sufficiently sweeping and repressive. For instance, the opening of public-houses on any part of the Sunday ought to be strictly forbidden. Other traffic on the Sabbath-day is illegal; why should there be an exception in favour of strong drinks? The case stands thus, that the traffic which, above all others, is the source of national demoralization, is too tenderly handled by our national legislation. It is high time to bring this anomaly and inconsistency to an end.