above all others he would say was contending for "Crosses and Vestments;" and, secondly, that it may be said to be the answer to the prayers of the Rector of the Parish in which it is situated, who is just one of those persons whom superficial observers would denounce as cold and unbending. Let such persons read his Sermon; and they cannot fail to recognise a spirit truly chastened, and a heart penetrated with the love of CHRIST. Now the "personal revelations" of this Sermon declare the history of many a High Churchman, who because the world was against him, and his co-religionists had succeeded in raising unworthy suspicions against him, for a long time saw but little fruit of his labours. Under these adverse circumstances the spirit of many a man has sunk. Some have gone down to a premature grave: others in impatience have quitted their posts. To others a stronger constitution and a better courage have been vouchsafed and in all such cases we believe the result to be most satisfactory, and the work which they have done to hold out promise of real permanence. The history of such must remain of course yet to be written but they are the proper reply to such ungenerous insinuations and spurious philosophy as are contained in Mr. Cotton's Sermon.

:

OUR DIFFICULTIES, AND THE WAY TO DEAL WITH

THEM.

THE position of the Church at the present time is one which demands all the energy and judgment of her faithful sons. We seem to be approaching one of those critical periods in which an active progress on the part of the Church begins to make itself so distinctly felt that her opponents on all sides begin to take alarm, and endeavour to hinder her continued advance by a general attack, and (as far as union is possible among such heterogeneous materials) a combination of all their separate forces. And just at this moment she is laid open in a very convenient manner for the blows of those numerous agitators whose courage rises in proportion with the unpopularity of their victim. The leaders of the dominant political party are well known to be at the least indifferent to the claims of the Church; and dependent as that party is on an adventitious popularity for its hold of place and power, it is likely that it will wish rather to discourage and thwart such claims than to allow and support them. It is to be feared also, that while there is an absence of all active interest in her welfare on the part of the Crown itself, the domestic influences which are brought to bear upon the Crown are of a character little likely to

be beneficial to a community claiming for itself a higher authority than any that can originate with men. The Church is, therefore, at the present time, deprived of any advantage of position that might ensue from a friendly alliance with those who exercise political power, and bask in the sunshine of popular favour. On the other hand, that anomalous body which calls itself the Evangelical party, is making the most of an accidental influence which it has been able to obtain through the connection of one of its leaders. with the ruling minister; and having become seriously aroused by that evident elimination of its best men, which has now been going on for several years, is also becoming more pugnacious as it decreases in respectability. And although we look upon this influence as likely to be of the most temporary duration, there are circumstances which make it to be feared that even a very short period of power may be sufficient to enable it seriously to discompose the unity of our Church, by fixing men in important positions whose sympathies run clean contrary to her system.

In addition to these causes for anxiety there must also be reckoned the growth of a party, not now confined to the Universities, whose philosophical studies have outrun their theological; and who, finding it much easier to reconcile the world to their new philosophy than to the old theology, have been tempted to rest in the more facile path, and substitute a so-called Broad Church for the Strait Gate and the Narrow Way. As this party is possessed of the learning, taste, and judgment, the lack of which made the Evangelical school so unacceptable to men of refinement, who yet sympathized with the easiest religion that could be presented to them, we must expect that it will obtain influence with many whom the severer theory and practice of the Church (as maintained by those with whom we ourselves sympathize) inevitably repel. In these days, when society looks unfavourably upon those who make no show at all of religion, the originators and advocates of this novel attempt will find a large body of supporters among those who wish to have enough piety to make them fashionable, but not so much as will interfere with their self-indulgence. We do not anticipate any large accession to its numbers from among the more ardent class of minds,-seeking, as they must, after something real and active in religion,—but fear there are many just entering on life to whom this easy system will prove especially attractive. We have said nothing about Dissenters, because as far as they have any influence upon the Church's movements they must be identified with the Evangelical party within the Church, the principles and objects of the two being in general the same; their forces also, at the present crisis, are more than usually united.

Here, then, we have the Church, as represented by those who draw their principles from ancient and Catholic sources; by those, again, who have been most active in her practical labours during

the last twenty years,—deserted by the civil power without, opposed by the fiery remnant of a waning party, and by the increasing body of a rising one within: and subjected at the same time to all those energetic influences, more or less temporary, which take their rise in the popular whim or the 'leaders' of the 'Times' newspaper. The calmest estimate of such a position must convince any thinking churchman that there is some ground for the words uttered by the Bishop of Lincoln, at a recent meeting in that diocese, to the effect that the next two years would probably prove a period of greater trial to the Church than any through which she has passed in modern times.

It becomes, then, the duty of all who desire the progress of CHRIST'S Kingdom to take a survey of our position at this juncture, (not with reference to parties with which we have now done, but) with reference to the work which churchmen are, or ought to be, doing; and no time can be more fitting than the beginning of a new year, for them thus to take account of their stewardship.

First, then, it must be acknowledged on all sides that the mightiest power of the Church lies in unity of plan and action. This is true to a certain extent of all corporate bodies, but of none with so full a meaning as of that Body which is, as an aggregate of "lively stones," the Temple of the all-strengthening SPIRIT. As it is in labours of mere earthly toil, that association strengthens the hands of the individuals who associate, so in a far higher degree is it of the labours of love, which make up the pastoral work of the Church. But as in the one case the result is owing to the encouragement and spirit given by companionship in labour, not to any mechanical increase of individual power by aggregation, and is, therefore, dependent upon the consciousness of acting in a body; so also in the other, the increased power for good can only be realized through a conscious intention of working in the one communion and fellowship from whose spiritual unity it arises.

Now, if this be the case, where is that collective action of the Church which can be to any extent identified with this principle? Is there any such practical use of it among our bishops? Is there any among our lower clergy? Any among the laity? Any among all together? Let us see.

We would wish to avoid anything like rashness in stating what are or are not the habits of the episcopal body. It is not necessary, nor would it be wise, for its members to tell the world all that they do either individually or in a collective capacity; and there may consequently have been occasions which neither we nor others dreamt of, when what seemed the result of individual judgment was really the fruit of more or less collective deliberation and wisdom. But without pretending to penetrate into such secrets, we think we may venture so far as to say that a collective assembly of the whole English Episcopate, or a major part of it,

in any form, is very rare indeed; that it may have occurred two or three times possibly during the episcopate of the late Bishop of London,. but not more, and that on these two or three occasions a friendly meeting was aimed at rather than a solemn episcopal council. If we are mistaken, we make our respectful apology for the mistake by anticipation. If not,-and we think the unauthoritative character of documents proceeding from such an assembly of bishops shows that we are not mistaken in the latter part of our statement at least, then we have no hesitation in saying, that the principle referred to above is not carried out by our bishops in their spiritual capacity; and though it should prove on more correct information that a sort of clerical meeting of the Fathers of the Church is by no means so uncommon as we have supposed, and should be said that even such meetings are of a very practical character towards the promotion of unity, we must still be allowed to express our opinion that frequent solemn councils of the heads of the Church, meeting together expressly in the unity of the Spirit, and invoking His aid upon their deliberations as TVEUμаTIXO of the highest order, would be infinitely more practical, and infinitely more beneficial to the Church.

And what has been said of the first order of clergy applies also in their degree, to the second, or the second and third. We know of no way in which any considerable body of the working clergy are ever consciously joined together for counsel or action. There are Episcopal Visitations, and Archidiaconal Visitations, and Rural Synods here and there: and of the former two, it can only be said, with pain, that in eight cases out of ten they are a mere formality, irksome to the clergy from their very unpracticalness; of the latter that it is a reality very rarely realized as yet, but of which good things may be expected in time. Beside these, what rallying point-to call it by no higher name, is there for the clergy? Certainly it is not to be found in monthly clerical dinners and clerical book-club meetings. In fact, there is no occasion on which even a collective expression of opinion can be obtained from the clergy, unless the happily rare event of a Gorham case, or a University election. Is this as it should be? Is it right that the clergy should each of them work isolated or in twos and threes, losing sight altogether as a practical thing of that brotherhood which they have, even over and above the Communion of Saints: a brotherhood for counsel and action in which each might work with threefold power if it were only consciously realized?

As regards the laity, we hope a better state of things is arising in some portions, at least, of the Church. In the Diocese of Bangor, for instance, there are associations composed exclusively of the laity, which have special days for meeting together in Church, when the Holy Eucharist is received by them all; and subsequently a meeting is held for consultation on Church matters. Our readers

will, many of them, be acquainted also with the Guild of S. Alban, which is chiefly, we believe, an association of laymen, and which has good practical Church works for its object.

And perhaps some may think we have committed an oversight in not numbering several large Church societies as a great means of united Christian action. No one will be less inclined than ourselves to deny that they are a beneficial organization within the Church, and that notwithstanding all drawbacks, and these are many, they have accomplished a large amount of good. The two older Church societies, that for Promoting Christian Knowledge (of which the National Society may, in some respects, be regarded as an off-shoot,) and that for the Propagation of the Gospel, were founded respectively in the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries upon the principle of Christian union, and united Christian action to which we have referred; and were very different in respect to their original terms of membership from the promiscuously composed associations which are supposed in modern times to be doing the work of the Church. But we fear these also have come to partake of that promiscuous character which is rendered almost necessary by the craving after a large apparent success; and that in the accumulation of guinea subscriptions less Christian principle has been observed than in their disbursement. But after all, as centres of Christian unity and action, what do such societies amount to at the best? Containing within themselves no elements of ecclesiastical organization; acting on no authority but that of a London committee, of which Bishops may, or may not be active members, and in which the voice of a Bishop is only pro hac vice the voice of a committee-man at the best; subject to dissolution by mere accident, and only sustained by a kind of artificial stimulus; where, in such bodies, we ask again, are to be found the essential elements of Christian communion and fellowship on which alone Church action can hope to be really efficient? If then we thus find the Church so wanting in any right-principled organization and practical system of union in counsel and action; if we find each Bishop ruling his diocese as an autocephalous individual rather than a member of a body; if we find each parish priest driven almost to solitary action, and deprived against his will, of all authoritative and ecclesiastical modes of uniting himself with his brethren; if we find the laity obliged to associate in an irregular manner, because no other is open to them, ought not the very naming of such an anomalous state of things to be a warning to Churchmen to seek some practical remedy for so great an evil, and to supply, if possible, so great a need? And if, aroused to our wants we should desire to provide for them, the question arises, what course ought to be pursued? are we to exercise our ingenuity in inventing new institutions on an ecclesiastical basis, or are there not some already existing in a comparatively dormant