without the greatest peril, it may, if vigorously acted upon, convince the world, before many years have elapsed, that they that are with us are more than they which be against us, and that it is now, as in the days of the Apostles, a miserable portion for any "to be found fighting against GOD."

THE STRENGTH AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH. 1. The True Strength and Mission of the Church. A Sermon preached at the Consecration of the Rt. Rev. Archibald Campbell Tait, D.C.L., Bishop of London, and the Rt. Rev. Henry Cotterill, D.D., Bishop of Grahamstown. By G. E. L. COTTON, M.A. London: Rivingtons.

2. The Recovery of the Lost Sheep of the Church of England by Home Missions in her large and destitute Parishes. A Sermon preached at the Opening of the Mission Chapel, Calvert Street, S. George's, East, on Thursday, November 27, 1856. By the Rev. BRYAN KING, M.A. London: Masters.

THE Occasion upon which Mr. Cotton's Sermon was preached invests it with a peculiar interest. The circumstances of an English Metropolis and of an African Colony are full of so many elements of difficulty that we at once look for some utterance of that deep and true philosophy in which Christian earnestness naturally pours itself forth. We must confess our disappointment. The Sermon is much more like a pamphlet than suitable for delivery in the pulpit. We are not of those who would measure the Scriptural character of a sermon by the amount of Scripture quoted in it, but we think no one can help being struck with the entire absence of Scripture colouring from the whole of the discourse in question. The few texts which are quoted are both misunderstood and misquoted.

The fundamental error of the sermon is indicated by the last clause of it. Our LORD is there represented as a pattern and model very much after the Socinian fashion, and not as the Mediator and source of grace. In accordance with this, the unity of the Godhead is spoken of as the "pattern" of the oneness of spirit in which Christians ought to dwell, not as the real source of Church Unity in CHRIST: and "into this unity," the preacher adds, “we are to enter by the Communion of our spirits with GOD." Now this is pure Deism. It is by the mediation of CHRIST that we have access unto the FATHER, and "the living way" into the Holiest is "the Flesh of CHRIST." This is of course the foundation of the

sacramental religion of revelation as contrasted with the idea which Mr. Cotton puts forward, which is the idea of natural effort. As we have unity with GOD in CHRIST, so we have unity with each other in Him, a unity hidden and independent of outward manifestation. Thus it was not "displayed" in the community of goods in the Church at Jerusalem, though it may be said that that brotherly love was an evidence of it. If this unity were lost, we could not believe in the continued existence of "One Catholic and Apostolic Church ;" and therefore it is both careless and irreverent to "lament that the Holy Catholic Church throughout all the world is broken up into a thousand fragments."

Where the idea of Christian grace and Church unity is so very defective, we cannot wonder that Church discipline should be quite misconstrued. We are told that

in theology, Christians have been ranged from the first mainly under two divisions: those who incline to a system of authority, discipline, and subordination, and therefore to a worship more or less formal and ceremonial; and those who in a freer spirit prefer a simpler outward service, a religion more personally independent and unfettered."

Now this is quite untrue: and we challenge Mr. Cotton to produce so much as one "free" saint out of the whole records of Church History. We trust, indeed, that there always will be those who cherish the freedom wherewith CHRIST hath made us free, but that is a freedom from our own sinful will, and it does just consist in bringing every thought to the obedience of CHRIST. It has therefore nothing to do with simplicity or gorgeousness of outward worship, but consists in the perfect submission to that system of authority, &c., against which Mr. Cotton divides it. There are not two classes in Christian theology such as he represents, but there are infinite gradations in humility and faith, between the selfish or "personal, independent, and unfettered" spirit of the world exclaiming, "Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us,"-between this and the perfect "obedience of faith" to which we are called from all nations. It is a most defective system of ethics which represents the former system as "more personal," meaning, as was intended by Mr. Cotton, 66 more heartfelt.". That love is most from the heart which is most complete and attended with least effort upon separate occasions, and so there is most of the "person" in that religion which is most submissive, and where the individual will has not to interfere upon each occasion, but is carried on by the sense of authority, unity, Divine grace. But undoubtedly the more "independent we become, the more we lose the controlling influence of the grace which exists in Christian unity. Separatists are therefore expressly called in Scripture, "sensual, having not the spirit." Those who act in the spirit of the ancient Church know that

"

"by showing forth the faith of CHRIST crucified in their teaching and practice, they are using the means divinely ordained to regenerate the world;"

and this is the reason why they are anxious to make ritual a matter of edification in the faith. By a well appointed ritual, mankind are not only taught, but trained in the faith. They are made to feel the faith by acting in accordance with it. They are forced thus to confess by their own practice that Christianity is not a mere summary of opinions to be received with the intellect, but a system of revealed organization which is to influence all our intercourse with GOD in Heaven, and therefore also with mankind, His creatures upon earth.

Again, Mr. Cotton speaks of isolated cases in which

men have striven to imitate that universal spirit of loving self-devotion of which CHRIST set the eternal example on the very morning when He prayed."

We would ask, which class of Christians have chiefly attained to this? Why, surely those who have realized that CHRIST's Death upon the Cross was something infinitely more than an “eternal example:" that it was an act altogether singular and incapable of repetition, but which was to live on and perpetuate itself both in the ritual and ministrations of the Church, and in the moral selfsacrifice of the regenerate life-something not to be looked at from without, but to be lived in by an unceasing faith. These persons must be known of the world, and hated by the world. "Their speech bewrayeth" them. In every age, though with accidental differences according to the extent of the knowledge vouchsafed them, they must be different in their exercise of worship from those whose creed lives, all but only, in their head. The manifestations of this inward life may through accident be almost directly opposite, at one time showing itself in the spontaneous effort of extempore prayers and freshly composed hymns, at another seeking its nourishment in the stores and ceremonial of ancient Catholic usage; but this we say without hesitation, that the fervent love of the Christian life must show itself in the service of the sanctuary, as a necessary consequent of its existence, and a necessary antecedent of its permanence. It is not to these persons that Mr. Cotton's lament applies

"that less interest and excitement is shown in the struggle against positive wickedness, than in some dispute about a Cross, a vestment, or a candlestick."

Who are the parties who dispute about crosses and vestments now? Not those who use them, but the worldly, selfish, antiChristian mob who hate them. We do not see the High Church party refusing to acknowledge "many points of opinion and prac

tice and ritual observance on which a divergence may well be tolerated." They do not stir up strife against their brother clergy who differ from them. They do not interfere with what seems to them the defective ritual of neighbouring districts. But they do claim toleration for themselves. We see them more than any other section of the Church endeavouring to carry on a "warfare against wickedness and unbelief."

They are generally glad enough to go and work where the ground is unoccupied, and where they are least likely either to interrupt or to be interrupted by "unseemly disputes on forms and decorations." Was not the express object for which S. Barnabas was founded, to meet the necessities of the outcast poor? Is not church building generally the work of the High Church party? Is it not the High Church party which almost exclusively originates and maintains Sisterhoods and penitentiaries, for the purpose of definitely struggling with evil? Is it not the High Church party which are most remarkable in stirring courses of Sermons during Advent and Lent? Is it not the High Church clergy which chiefly maintain the parochial schools of poor agricultural districts, and count it their glory to preach the Gospel of CHRIST freely? Is it not the High Church clergy which are the most energetic in the promotion of theological colleges, and training schools for masters and mistresses? Is it not they who chiefly occupy themselves with plans for the education of the middle classes both of boys and girls, and with institutions for training servants? Is it not chiefly their efforts which enable Mr. Cotton still to speak of London itself as "a home of heroic Christian goodness?" Who are the most successful Colonial Bishops? In short, is not all the wrangling on one side, and almost all the hard work of the present day upon the other? We do not wish to deny the merits of many of the Evangelical clergy, but as a whole their avowed line of work is the easier and pleasanter line, public meetings, popular sermons of such a kind as not to give offence to the world,-very different from those of their predecessors in the Evangelical school,-occupying themselves in railing at their brethren, either openly or by insinuation, rather than in fighting with the demoralised masses; paying City Missionaries rather than giving up themselves as such; seeking comfortable homes and preferments, rather than single-hearted austerity; crying along with the world against popery, rather than crying out against the unbelief and self-seeking of the world; striving to stop others who differ from them, rather than to work in ground "where CHRIST is not yet preached." Even the quiet, earnest, active men amongst them find themselves often absorbed into the current of party interest, rather than of conflict against sin. All this indeed has been acknowledged in Mr. Conybeare's not very friendly essay.

We must therefore complain that Mr. Cotton's Sermon,—and it is only a specimen of language continually used,-under the appearance

of advocating mutual concession, is really most onesided, and what is more, it is onesided in a place where all will be read the other way, and where the preacher knew well that his audience would understand the suffering party, and not the assailants to be the wranglers, and the self-styled liberal party to be the practical men. The cry for mutual concession is very plausible in its sound, but everybody knows full well that the "reciprocity is to be all on one side." The world bids us look to comprehensive union; but the cry of a confederacy" is not the cry of the Church of GOD. Her mission is from CHRIST her Head, and her strength is in looking away from the world to Him, living with Him, realizing His Presence in the services of the sanctuary, and preparing men for His coming.

This was realized by the Evangelical party once in their measure. Would that they could be brought to see that ritual and sacramental ordinances are acts of faith by which grace and strength are gained. It is this character which makes them to be cherished. It is this fact which sustains so many in their practical work "to stay the plague of guilt and wretchedness." If we have contrasted the working of the two parties in the Church, it has not been in any spirit of pride. We are fully aware that High Churchmen as individuals have their faults as much as others. But these noble works are nevertheless "the tokens of their Apostleship." They are wrought in spite of themselves in the strength of the Divine faith which they realize. The other party are generally amiable as individuals, and often full of zeal, but their work too soon dwindles into worldliness, because they shrink from the fulness of faith. The world is with them just now, and those of them who love CHRIST will do well to let the patronage of the world be a warning to them that their Christian position must be a doubtful one.

It is not union upon principles of compromise which will enable the Church to work earnestly. It is not worldly power which has ever forwarded her lasting triumphs. It is not the position of a Bishop of London as being "fraught with opportunities for good to our own and future generations" which makes his position as a chief minister of CHRIST "sublime." But it is unity with CHRIST and in CHRIST which is "the Strength of the Church," and it is the continuance of His Apostolic Presence which constitutes the sublimity of Her Ministry and the warrant of " Her Mission."

Hitherto we have put our view against Mr. Cotton's: but now we will illustrate what we have said by a fact. We invite our readers very earnestly to procure Mr. Bryan King's Sermon. Here we have the account of a real mission, after a pattern such as we may venture to say the English Church has not seen for many a year. And we will ask Mr. Cotton's attention to two facts connected with it. First, that it originated at S. Barnabas'-the Church which