sects too were bidding fair to die out from respectability. We can now however point to works which give indisputable proof that the Church is labouring to justify her title to be called the Church of England. We can point to Home Missionaries in all our large towns, to the growth of School and Church accommodation from one end of the land to the other, to our Deaconesses, Lay-helpers, Scripturereaders, to our Clergy more in number and better educated than in any former age. We can shew many of the ablest men among them cheerfully devoting their days to the small reward and unambitious career of a country parson's life. The rivalry then between the Church and Modern Dissent is, we hope, fated rapidly to become only a rivalry in good works. It seems therefore high time for that body to consider whether in still keeping apart from the Church which their founder so loved they are doing the best they can for the cause of Christianity whether division where there is such slight difference does not injure both sides: whether the period is not near when in furtherance of National Religion they ought to labour to be at one with the National Church. They have lost, we see, in great part the reason for

But

their existence as an Evangelical aggression. Let us hope they will soon lose it altogether. The cause of religion cannot afford to spare their earnest ministrations. There is room, yea, need for all their work and ours. surely the work would be done with more effect and with less waste by united rather than by severed bodies. This, I am sure, would have been the judgement of their founder had he lived to see our day. None would have rejoiced more than he to find that those whom by his proceedings he tacitly condemned of inefficiency need now only zealous coöperation and support. If therefore my words could reach the ears of his followers, I would address them in language to which I am sure they will attach more weight than to any other. I would address them in words which I have already quoted; words which spoken in the last months of his life may be regarded as a dying legacy of their venerated founder: "I never had any design of separating from the Church. I have no such design now. I declare once more that I live and die a member of the

Church of England, and that none who regard my judgement or advice will ever separate from it."

SERMON III.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

ACTS VII. 26.

Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?

HAVING dwelt for the last two Sundays on

the growth of the older forms of Dissent, as well as on that phase of religious revival which dates from the middle of last century, but which can scarcely be said to have developed into Dissent until some years after the commencement of the present, I come now to consider, in accordance with my proposed outline, what should be the course of action of our Church towards these estranged bodies. They have been alienated from us, and we are in some sort to blame for their position. They

F

are soon about to be brought into more close connection with us both here and elsewhere whether we wish it or not. It is therefore our duty and will no doubt prove our wisdom to prepare ourselves to accept and acknowledge all that is good in them, and to shew to them all that is best in ourselves to the end that they may appreciate our endeavours more highly than they have hitherto been wont to do.

But at once arises the question: Is any direct action possible in this matter? Can we offer to Nonconformists of any shade of opinion proposals for union which they are likely to accept? To this I should reply: We can make no such offer. We can make no overtures at this moment either to the older or the modern dissenters to which there is any probability that they would accede. Shall we then give up all hope of united action? Is such the view men ordinarily take of a project which they have at heart? Because they do not see an immediate prospect of success, do men in worldly affairs never direct their hopes and labours to the future? Do they abandon the pursuit of that on which their minds are set be the hope of achieving it ever so distant? Does not the physician when

summoned to minister to the afflicted body often discover that there is no direct curative agency which he may venture at once to apply? Is it not rather true that many a time an inflamed organ must be soothed, an irritated part relieved before any attempt can be essayed at direct treatment of the disease to be overcome? Such we cannot but think is the case of these unhappy divisions which are now under our consideration. The experiment of a direct appeal to Dissenters has indeed been lately tried and has proved a signal failure. Various have been the reasons assigned for this failure. But no matter to what cause it be ascribed, a failure it undoubtedly was. It has been urged by some that certain alterations in our Liturgy would do much if they could be effected towards bridging over the chasm between us and those who differ from us. No doubt those who use that argument have this fact to justify their belief: that at the Hampton Court Conference and likewise at the Savoy Conference certain alterations in the Church Services formed the greatest part of the demands of those bodies who have since that time set themselves in more prominent hostility against us. But as I said before, it must never be forgotten