Ephesians, iv. 2, 3.

WITH ALL LOWLINESS AND MEEKNESS, WITH LONG-SUFFERING, FORBEARING ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE; ENDEAVOURING TO KEEP THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT IN THE BOND OF PEACE.

Although in performance of the duties of our sacred calling, we, the ministers of the Gospel, are habituated to the practice of delivering our discourses in public; and although those of us especially, who have been for some time in the ministry, may be justly supposed to have conquered that inherent diffidence, which more or less embarrasses a tyro in elocution; yet nevertheless, upon an occasion like the present, when one of a public body, whatever be his standing, is called upon to address, for the first time, an assembly of those of his own order—those of whose piety, learning, research, and ability, he must be fully sensible; he will necessarily enter upon the task with feelings of more than ordinary anxiety, distrustful of his power for an undertaking of so much, and so critical importance.It would, my Reverend Brethren, be an unworthy and presumptuous affectation of confidence on my part, if I did not confess how sensibly I am at this moment impressed with this feeling; if I did not assure you how gladly I would have forgone the honor to which I have been called by our respected Archdeacon—of this day addressing myself to you. At any period it would have been to me a service of deep anxiety; how ten-fold more so do I feel it at this eventful epoch, when it is impossible for any candid observer to deny that there is much in the actual condition of the Church of England, to inspire the most intense solicitude for the future. Deeply must we all participate in the agitation which now affects her, and which has so attracted the notice of several of the most eminent Bishops of our Church, as to cause them to make it the almost exclusive subject-matter of their recent Charges to their Clergy. Intently must he, who has the welfare of our Zion at heart, view the present aspect of a controversy which threatens to shake the English Church to the centre; but which I feel the most perfect confidence will, under the sanctifying influence of Divine grace, issue in her greater and more glorious prosperity—that it will tend to refine her from many of those defects in practice, which now make up the measure of her fallibility; and cause her to emerge from the ordeal more becoming the radiant type of the Church triumphant, against which, we have the assurance of our blessed Lord, “the gates of hell shall not prevail.” [9a]

Fain, however, as I would have avoided the position I now occupy, I felt that it was impossible—I felt that I had a double duty to perform, from which it would have been unbecoming in me to shrink. The respect I owe, in common with you all, to our justly-esteemed Archdeacon, would alone have deterred me from declining his request to officiate at this Visitation; but beyond this—that paramount duty I owe to our blessed Lord and Master as His ordained Minister, now, and at all times, inspires me to attempt to discharge, to the utmost of my ability, the performance of any duty in His cause, which may lie within the humble sphere of my usefulness. Conscious however, as I am, how many of you, my Reverend Brethren, far more competent than myself to this task, might have been selected for addressing you to-day; yet strong in the conviction of integrity of purpose, and yielding to no one in zeal for the unity and prosperity of the Church of Christ, I rely mainly on that Divine support which can supply strength to the weak, sanctifying them to be “meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work;” [9b]—and next, I look with confidence to the candid and generous indulgence of you, my Reverend Brethren, whom I am now addressing, whose holy Christian calling so pre-eminently qualifies you to carry out that divinely-taught precept of doing unto others as you yourselves would be done by,—to grant me the meed of lenient criticism, and believe me when I assert that, in any thing which I may this day address to you, I am earnestly desirous of avoiding all personality, or seeking to give offence to any—that in my humble endeavour to promote the good of the Church and the glory of God, I am solicitous of bearing in mind that I am addressing Ministers of Christ, acting, with myself, under the same Apostolical commission—pledged all to walk by the same rule, and to speak the same thing—bound all by the same vows, with interests, and pursuits, and duties identical; and that we should all be guided by those words of the great gentle Apostle, which I have selected for my text:—“With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, and endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” [10]

At no period could such an exhortation be more requisite. I have said—and I believe it will be conceded by all of you—that this is an eventful epoch of the English Church. The religious spirit of the age seems to be singularly marked by extremely opposite characters—Enthusiasm and Rationalism; the former betraying its votaries into wild excesses of fanatical extravagance; and the latter so unduly exalting human wisdom, as to undervalue the doctrine of Holy Scripture. There is abroad also a spirit of Latitudinarianism—a species of counterfeit liberality, which, in the vain desire of conciliation, increases division, and multiplies heresy, by palliating the guilt of schism, or by diminishing the number and undervaluing the importance of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Of the alarming magnitude of the peril arising from this source, we ought to be made duly sensible, when we remark some of those, whose sincere faith in the Holy Gospel would seem to be above suspicion, who are, nevertheless, betrayed into lending their aid and countenance in furtherance of this unfortunate scheme. Captivated by the amiable desire, but fallacious hope, of uniting in bonds of brotherhood, faith and scepticism, truth and heresy, they are insensibly beguiled by this deluding phantom into the net of infidelity, and are themselves entangled in its meshes ere they are alive to the consequences of so dangerous and unholy an alliance. The leading prejudice, the very key-stone of this falsely called liberality, is the notion that sincerity is all in all; that, provided we are secure of our “integrity before God,” and conscientiously embrace religion under the form that best accords with our own views, it matters not whether we be of this or that communion; or whether we be of any communion at all. But however charitable this may be in theory, it has proved itself most erroneous in practice. Conceding truth to error, on the ground of expediency—or when, for the sake of obtaining the semblance of peace, and the reputation of liberality, we would veil that marked boundary which separates between those who are and who are not, of what we know and believe to be the true Church of Christ,—never yet has been, and yet never will be, the means of securing unity in the Christian Church: in plain words, it will fail, as it has failed, in making Churchmen of Dissenters.

We should bear in mind, my Reverend Brethren, that unity of spirit is not the only thing to be thought of and promoted; we are to have regard also to the unity of the body. Now, if the Church be a body, a visible incorporated society, she must, like other incorporations, be under the government of certain rulers, and under the guidance of certain regulations. And so, in fact, we find the Church to be: she has all the marks of a visible incorporated society.—She has a regular form of admission: the Sacrament of Baptism.—She has a constant badge of membership: the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.—She has peculiar duties: repentance, faith, and obedience.—She has peculiar privileges: forgiveness of sins, present grace, and future glory.—And she was placed, by our Lord, her founder, under officers of His own appointment, the Apostles and their Episcopal Successors, by whom the affairs of the Community are to be regulated from time to time. Now, if the Church be thus a body, we must preserve her unity by deference to her laws, her articles, and canons, in their plain, literal, and grammatical acceptation, and by obedience to her constituted authorities.

The Church, under God, is our nursing mother; and the only image of the Church Catholic which we know of, is that which she embodies to us. She is the representative of Christ; she consigns us with provident care to the protection of our Lord, even before we are conscious of the blessing; she teaches us to lisp in holy words; she dedicates our youth to God; and, in her pure and comprehensive discipline, trains us up into our spiritual manhood. Even then she inspires our devotion, while she regulates our faith, and accompanies us from the cradle to the grave in that grand circle of offices to which I have just alluded, and which embraces every vicissitude and condition of life, instructing us how to improve them, how to sanctify even earthly occupations, by impregnating them with a divine spirit, and conferring a consecration from Heaven upon them all. These, my Reverend Brethren, are powerful claims upon the heart and judgment of all reasonable and sound-thinking men, to do their utmost to promote the unity of the Church; and should make every Churchman, and especially every Minister of the Church, pause long and ponder well ere they disparage her claim to Catholicity, or to humour the subtle scruples of Separatists, they presume to dishonour her formularies, and risk, we know not what ultimate results, or what calamitous consequences to the Church and to the Nation, by overthrowing the ancient landmarks of opinion, and sapping the traditional faith and the undoubted loyalty of men to her communion.

The movement in the Anglican Church, which, at the present time, has occasioned that violent oscillation between two extremes, has, as we all know, been set in action by the energy of a body of pious and eminently learned Divines of the University of Oxford; and whatever difference of sentiment may exist, as to their opinions and judgment, I believe I may safely assert, that the meed of commendation which has been awarded them by those Dignitaries of our Church who have alluded to their writings, is universally and most justly conceded to them by all candid and unprejudiced persons, viz. that they are men of acknowledged piety and sincerity, of unsullied morality, and profound learning and research.

I have said that the duty allotted to me this day is one from which I would fain have been absolved; but there is a circumstance connected with it, which affords me much personal satisfaction—and it is this:—that while I thus most freely and cheerfully bear this testimony to the character and ability of the authors of the “Tracts far the Times;”—while I do not shrink from declaring, but am rejoiced to acknowledge, the good service they have, in my humble estimation, in many ways rendered to the Church;—I, at the same time, am far from subscribing to all their opinions: nay, I deplore most sincerely much that they have written, much they have done—only too painfully proving how fallible even the best-informed and best-intentioned amongst men may be. While they viewed with just alarm and grief the spirit of Latitudinarianism which was rapidly leavening the Church of England, they fearlessly and honestly stood forth to arrest a torrent which was undermining the foundation of that venerable fabric, and awakened us to the danger of that schismatic poison which was insidiously stealing through the whole frame of her system. They have recalled us to the sacred obligations we are under to regard and uphold the fundamental doctrines of the Church of Christ, in the beauty of their pristine purity, as restored to us at the Reformation—they have vindicated the two Sacraments, and especially that of Baptism, from the deadening and false interpretation with which it has been attempted to obscure them—they have revived a spirit of zeal into the ministrations of the Church, and rescued from oblivion the many portions of her beautiful services which had too generally fallen into desuetude—they have, as it were, purified the temples of our native land, dedicated and consecrated to the service of God, from a laxity which had lamentably paralysed the spirituality of the services of the sanctuary. These things, amongst many others I could name, they have done;—for these we have reason to feel gratitude to them for their labours of love;—but, in the plenitude of zeal, they have, alas! outstepped the bounds of moderation—in some of the later Tracts, and particularly in the Ninetieth, they have justly alarmed all sober-minded members of the Established Church of England. In defending the Catholic truth, inherited from our immediate forefathers in the faith—the Reformers of our Church, and through them from the Apostles themselves—they have, I lament to say, ventured to adopt some odious corruptions of Romanism, glossing over their most prominent deformities, and investing them with the name of Catholicity; and then endeavoured to maintain their position in the Church, by arguing the approximation of our Articles to the Decrees of the Council of Trent. Nothing can be more lamentable, nothing more reprehensible than this;—as well as the adoption of some external ceremonials of no intrinsic value, but which savour of an unworthy fondness for the outward pomps and ceremonies of the Romish Church. Grieved as I am to be compelled conscientiously to make these acknowledgments, I am yet happy to have this public opportunity of expressing my sentiments on the subject; because, I regret to say, I have, individually, been most unchristianly and uncharitably maligned as a bigoted disciple of the so-called Oxford School; and I trust, therefore, this free and unreserved declaration of my decided dissent from their errors, will exonerate me in future from the unkind and unjust aspersions, which have been so unwarrantably and lavishly heaped upon me.

My Reverend Brethren, I must calmly, yet earnestly protest against the injustice and inconsistency of men, either of the Clergy or Laity, who are ready to hurl anathemas against those who, mindful of the solemn vows made at their ordination, as Ministers of the Reformed Religion, are conscientiously resolved to observe, as fully and exactly as they are able, the Rubrical injunctions of the Church. Because they do so, are they, with any shadow of justice or charity, to be roundly taxed with embracing all the erroneous opinions of the Oxford Divines? Are they to be stigmatized as “papistical” and “superstitious” in their ministrations and doctrines? The reverse is the truth. They thereby prove themselves the most safe and zealous advocates of the reformed faith; they present the most undaunted front against the hateful errors of Rome on the one hand, and the no less dangerous and insidious underminings of Geneva on the other. In defence and justification of their practice, I may be permitted to make the following short extract of a Charge delivered by one of the present eminently pious and learned Dignitaries of our Church. He says,—“A strict and punctual conformity with the Liturgy and Articles of our Church is a duty to which we have bound ourselves by a solemn promise; and which, while we continue in the ministry, we must scrupulously fulfil. Conformity to the Liturgy implies, of course, an exact observance of the Rubric. We are no more at liberty to vary the mode of performing any part of public worship, than we are to preach doctrines at variance with the Articles of Religion. If there be any direction for the public service of the Church, with which a Clergyman cannot conscientiously comply, he is at liberty to withdraw from her ministry; but not to violate the solemn compact he has made with her.” [18] Now I apprehend every conscientious English Clergyman will act upon this principle:—that while Scripture, and Scripture only is his rule of faith, he is, in the interpretation of Scripture, to defer to the Ritual, Liturgy, Articles, and Formularies of the Church of England; he is to promote the glory of God in the highest—peace upon earth, and good-will amongst men; but to do so, not in the way which he may imagine to be the wisest, but according to the Regulations, Canons, Rubrics, and Customs of his Church;—to these he is bound by vows the most solemn to conform. These, my Reverend Brethren, I have conscientiously endeavoured to make my rule;—and where are we to look for Unity, if we find it not here? And what terms of reprobation can be sufficiently strong to designate the conduct of those, who, by causing discord among brethren who in principle are united, would thereby make harmony for our enemies? Alas! in every community such persons are found to exist, whose element is strife; who live by faction; who, mistaking party spirit for Christian zeal, in their contest for what they allege to be truth, forget that Christianity is also a religion of Peace and Love. At the present time such persons are busy among ourselves; some openly avow their wish to prevent a union among the Clergy; in the bitterness of their hatred towards the Established Religion, they conceive that the cause of Truth can only be supported by the formation of hostile confederacies within the Church: others covertly, and with the semblance even of friendship towards us—the better to disguise their real malignity—yet exert their utmost unholy endeavours to arm brother against brother, in the hope of waging a worse than civil war, with the deadly weapons of theological hatred. Few in number, they would scarcely be deserving of notice, if, by anonymous misrepresentations—which ought never to be credited until they have been fully examined—and by wilful and gross exaggerations, which from their very absurdity ought to excite the scepticism of charity; they had not partially succeeded in inflaming the passions, and exciting the prejudices, of many good and zealous, but ill-judging and mistaken men, who, instead of regarding measures, respect persons; who confound opinions with principles; and who, in an exclusive fondness for latitude of interpretation and practice, refuse even the meed of integrity and sincerity to those with whom they differ, even though they are acting in obedient accordance with their plighted vows.

It is not my intention upon this occasion to enter upon a minute investigation of those points of controversy which have recently been, and at present are, the subject of so much and general discussion. The limit to which I must confine my present Discourse precludes my doing so; nor do I consider the inability I am thus under of serious moment. I am not, however, intending to say, that in this variance of opinion, there is nothing of importance. If we were assembled in Convocation, empowered to make further reforms in our Church, or to discuss the need of them, our opinions with respect to the value of tradition, as a supplementary explication of Scripture, would be important in the extreme; so would be our opinions concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments, and the relative value of primitive ceremonies, if we were reconstructing our Baptismal and Liturgical offices: nor of less importance would be our opinions on the Apostolical Succession, if the decision were to rest with us whether the Church should recognise the ministerial functions of men not episcopally ordained. But, happily for us, these questions have been decided for us by the Church; and to the decision of the Church, by the very fact of our being her ordained ministers, we are bound unanimously to obey, and must receive her decisions as our common principle: this, I presume, none of you, my Reverend Brethren, will attempt to gainsay. I may be allowed, however, briefly to remark upon one or two of the most prominent topics of dispute; and first, then, as to the Apostolical Succession. Upon this subject, it is indisputable, there was no controversy up to the period of the Reformation. It was then, as it had been for fifteen hundred years, taken for granted that no man might presume to minister in sacred things, unless he were first appointed to the office by persons having authority to make the appointment, by their regular succession from the Apostles. Upon this point no one is more eloquent or more decided than our reforming Archbishop, Dr. Cranmer. [21] Accordingly, when in the reign of Elizabeth, the thirty-nine Articles were agreed upon in a Convocation of our Clergy, this doctrine was assumed:—“It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or administering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work, by men who have public authority given unto them IN”—not BY, but “IN”—“the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” [22a] And accordingly, in legislating on this subject, the Church of England ordains that, “no one shall be accounted and taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon among us; or be suffered to execute any of the ministerial functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to our form of Episcopal Ordination; or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration or Ordination.” [22b] Now I conceive, a more complete answer to the question—“Who are they that have authority in the congregation?” could not be given by a Church which, as we believe and declare, reverences Scripture and the ancient authors. And hence it is that, while a Minister of the Roman Church officiates among us, upon a recantation and renunciation of his errors, without further ordination; a converted Dissenting Minister is unable to do so; the one having had—and the other not having had—Episcopal Ordination. The time will not allow me to enter into that part of the discussion, whether an exact personal succession of Episcopally ordained Ministers, can, or cannot be proved. Suffice it however for us, that we are incontestibly assured, that the Institution itself has descended by an evident succession, even from the Apostles to ourselves. While men uncalled and uncommissioned venture to approach and minister at the altar—while our Apostolical descent is gainsayed, and the necessity of rightful ordination set at nought—it is bounden on us, my Reverend Brethren, who are Episcopally ordained, to show that we bear no visionary dignity—no barren privilege—but a most sacred office, full of divinely-appointed power to strengthen and to sanctify those that in faith discharge it. Let us show, by God’s help, in our lives and labours that, in the Apostolical Ministry, there resides a living influence, stamping it as the ordinance of Christ, and conforming His servants to Himself. If others must account for assuming a commission never given to them, we must account if we abuse and neglect that we have received; and ours will be the heavier reckoning. Let us then consider one another, within and without, to provoke unto love and to good works. Here is rivalry without collision—contention without strife. And God grant that a more abundant measure of a holier spirit, and a closer conformity to our Master’s pattern, impressed as a countersign upon our testimony, may henceforth and ever bear witness unto us, that if any are Christ’s, so are we Christ’s.

And now with regard to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. I am really at a loss to conceive how any Member of the Established Religion, who candidly and without mental reservation subscribes to the Articles of our Church, can entertain any doubt upon it; and more particularly when the Offices for Baptism and Confirmation are so clearly, so absolutely, and so decidedly worded. That Regeneration at Baptism is the positive doctrine of the English Church, I cannot suppose will be denied. All those of our present bishops, who have alluded to it in their Charges, have distinctly declared and admitted this to be the case, as laid down in the twenty-seventh Article. Now the Regius-Professor of Divinity at Oxford (himself an opposer of the Authors of the Tracts for the Times), thus speaks:—“No subscription to the Articles can be honest and true, which falls short of an assent to the Doctrines contained in them, or which is made with any reservation. They are expressly set forth for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and establishing true consent in religion.” At your ordination “The Articles are proposed to you, as giving the right sense of Scripture; and you are supposed, when you subscribe to them, to have accepted them as such. No qualification, therefore, no restriction is to be admitted, in the act of subscription to the Articles, however drawn from pious considerations of what is due to Scripture. They must then be interpreted by themselves, by the phraseology of the Church, and a knowledge of its intention in drawing them up, and proposing them to its members.” [24] It is clear then, my Reverend Brethren, as long as we continue in the ministry of the Established Church, we have no liberty of interpreting the Doctrines of that Church, in any other way than those Articles decide, to which we have solemnly subscribed. If we do so, we can with no honesty or consistency continue ourselves recipients of her honours and emoluments.

As to the efficacy of the rite of Baptism in infants, what need we, again, stronger or more satisfactory proof of the doctrine of our Church than these words of our Office which we are directed to use? “Seeing now, that this child IS REGENERATE and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church;” and again, “we yield thanks to God, that it HATH pleased Him to REGENERATE the infant with His Holy Spirit.”—It is a futile evasion to say, these words are used upon the faith of the Sponsors, and in the charitable spirit of anticipation by the Congregation, that the Infant may be hereafter regenerated;—for the very same prayer is enjoined to be offered up after Private Baptism, where there are no Sponsors and no Congregation.

But why are not the opposers of this positive doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration consistent?—In other cases, when arguing against those who are anxious to preserve the discipline of the Church, they insist upon “a literal and grammatical explanation;”—but here, the doctrine of the Article and Office not according with their sentiments, they are solicitous to evade this rule. In Dr. Cardwell’s History of Conferences connected with the revision of the Book of Common Prayer, it is stated that, at that of the Savoy in 1661, when it was suggested by the opposers of Regeneration at Infant Baptism, that the wording of the Office should be altered to signify that Regeneration might hereafter ensue;—it was decided by the Commission, composed of the Bishops and other learned Divines, that such alteration could not be sanctioned; that “the denial” of Regeneration at Infant Baptism “tends to anabaptism and contempt of the Holy Sacrament;” and therefore, that the Office, as it now stands, was strictly in accordance with the Holy Institution, and consequently the true doctrine of the Reformed Church. [26a]

I must here, however, limit my observations on controversial points of doctrine. Suffice it to say, as I have before remarked, that in all matters of doubt, we cannot do better than fulfil the vows we have made, and be guided by the plain and literal directions of the Articles and Rubrics of our Church, rather than trust to our own fanciful and fallible interpretations. No safer guide, my Reverend Brethren, can we follow;—for if she is at once the descendant of the purest, truest representative of the Church Apostolical—if the Articles of her faith be all of them proveable to demonstration, from the word of God, as the primitive times interpreted it—and if she has only done her duty to God and man, by refusing either to add to this sacred deposit, or to diminish aught from it—if she has rejected nothing of the forms of preceding ages, but their superstition, or, of their creed, but its novelties; and emancipating herself from a fictitious antiquity, has taken her stand at once on the times of our Saviour and His Apostles—if, in refusing to lord it over Christ’s heritage, she only leaves us “the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free,” [26b] after teaching us how to use it—if, in discarding earthly mediators and the protection of angels, she brings us directly to our King and Saviour, to the over-shadowing wings of Him who loved us, and the strength of the living God—if, in the majestic austerity off her formularies, she chastises the imagination and the attractiveness of will-worship, only to offer up the sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, in words which are the perfection of a reason elevated by faith, and modelled upon inspiration—if she refuses to limit the Saviour’s offices, or modify the Gospel message, because she dares not rationalize upon the ways of God, or tamper with her commission—if she discards the pomp and trappings of an external ceremonial, that she may not obscure the simplicity of the truth, and that she may be clothed in the Church’s true glory, the righteousness of Christ;—if such be the Church of England, as our fathers and fathers’ fathers have held her to be; and such, as while Scripture remains in its integrity, and sole authority over faith, nay, as long as the primitive fathers remain to interpret it, she can prove herself to be against all gainsayers; great will be the sin upon our heads if we refuse obedience to her as our guide, and great the crime towards those who come after us, of whose inheritance we are the guardians, if we permit so much as one stone of our holy house to be moved—if we suffer the efficacy of her Sacraments to be neutralized by modern scepticism—her offices to be mutilated by doubting priests and self-elected interpreters—and the beauty of her Unity to be marred by the Latitudinarian spirit of concession and expediency.There is one practice which has so unhappily, in my humble opinion, obtained extensive usage as to render a notice of it, I conceive, very important; but that I might not be deemed presumptuous or illiberal in doing so, I will lay it before you in the very words of the present Bishop of St. David’s, as they occur in his last Charge, merely prefacing them by saying, I am confident the practice they condemn is a fruitful source of promoting disunion in the Church; and though it emanates, I am willing to acknowledge, from zeal in the cause of religion, it is a zeal without discretion, palatable, indeed, to Separatists, and consequently productive of schism. These are Dr. Thirlwall’s words:—“There are, I fear, not a few cases in which a lecture in a school-room, or some other common building, is substituted for the Church service, while the Church remains closed. Such a practice appears to me equivalent to an admission that our form of prayer is really a bar, not a help, to devotion, and may be advantageously superseded by the minister’s occasional effusions. I cannot distinguish such meetings from conventicles; the presence and presidency of the Clergyman only renders the implied admission more glaring and pernicious. It is a breach of faith to the Church, as well as a violation of an express engagement. The same remark applies to every departure from the Rubric, grounded on no other motive than deference to the taste and prejudices of a part of the congregation.” [28] Now I will not weaken the force of these powerful and sensible remarks of Dr. Thirlwall, by any further comment of my own on this point.

So much has been said lately of the necessity of our carrying out all the Rubric and Services of our Book of Common Prayer, that I must be allowed to make a brief allusion to it. No doubt, it is very desirable that we should do so; but I conceive, the lengthened omission of many of the injunctions of our Church, which has been suffered tacitly to take place, now renders their restoration exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. I am sure it would indeed be futile, and nearly impracticable, in most of our rural parishes, many with a widely-scattered population, consisting of the humblest rank of agricultural labourers. For instance, it is enjoined in our Rubric, that we should have daily service; and this, in towns and populous places, is highly proper, and ought, without doubt, to be carried into practice; but with many of us, whose flocks depend on the fullest measure of daily labour they are able to perform for their daily bread, it is not possible or reasonable to expect them to sacrifice their existence, and that of their families, to attend daily service in a Church, and that Church often remote from their place of employment. To such a case as this, the maxim of “Necessitas non habet legem” is manifestly applicable. But, my Reverend Brethren, do not let us shelter our laxity of ministration under one tangible and reasonable excuse: if we are unable to do all we are enjoined, let us at least show our zeal and sincerity in our holy calling, by doing what is in our power. I do maintain, then, that we ought to celebrate divine service in our Churches, upon each of the days on which we commemorate the leading events of the history of our Blessed Lord; not only His Nativity, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, but His Circumcision, His Manifestation to the Gentiles, and His glorious Ascension. I think, too, it is especially incumbent on us to pay a stricter regard to the solemn season of Lent than is generally done; that we should open our Churches for divine service on Ash Wednesday, and every Wednesday and Friday during that penitential Fast, which our Church most piously and reverently sets apart for self-examination and humiliation. I am quite confident it is not only practicable to obtain congregations on those days, but that the opportunity offered to our people of publicly worshipping God upon them, will be hailed with gratification and thankfulness; not, perhaps, generally at first, but yet progressively and encouragingly. I can instance one parish, not very remote from our own neighbourhood, where this has been essayed during the season of Lent now just concluded; a small and purely rural parish, and one offering, perhaps, as few features of encouragement to re-establish such a practice as any of us could name: the average congregations on the week days (exclusive of children) has been thirty-five, which, for the first renewal of the practice, I think will be allowed is a very satisfactory result; besides which, during and since the Lent weeks, the Sabbath-day congregations have manifestly and remarkably increased. Whatever may be said of the apathetic religious spirit of the people, I hold them to be, at heart, inclined to sacred things, and sincerely attached to the established reformed religion of this country. Let not us, my Reverend Brethren, be wanting in the zealous, earnest, and uniform practice of our duty, by carelessly and heartlessly offering to our flocks that divine spiritual food we have it in our power, under God, to supply, and we shall not find them backward or lukewarm in accepting its nourishment, and appreciating its value. We shall, in this way, more effectually subdue that monstrous hydra, Schism, which has reared its hundred-fold head amongst the heritage of Christ, than by wielding acrimonious weapons of controversy, or descending to heterodoxical concession and subserviency. As ministers of religion, it is our paramount duty to lose no practicable opportunity of impressing the vitality of its exercise upon those committed to our spiritual charge—of banishing all discord one with another—of evincing (not in theory only) that we are ministers of divine love and peace, so that it may be evident to all the world, in our conduct and bearing, that we live together in christian harmony and good-will.

Finally, my Reverend Brethren, in calling upon you to preserve inviolate the bond of Union which should firmly knit us together, who are the consecrated lawful Ministers and Stewards of the mysteries of Jesus Christ—let us bear in mind what awful responsibility rests upon us.—What is that exalted station we here occupy. And whom amongst us shall not these reflections constrain? To be the Lord’s especial portion—a remnant quickened from the dead—raised to a middle space between the throne of our exalted Master, and the spirits of a world redeemed; to be the visible representatives of an invisible Saviour, associated with Him in the administration of His earthly kingdom; concluding eternal peace, or denouncing eternal war, a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death;—doomed ourselves to an eternity of woe that cannot be deepened, or of glory that cannot be exalted;—Who shall minister before Him and not tremble? Who shall draw nigh to Him and not rejoice? Who can forecast our condemnation without despair, or contemplate our blessedness without an ecstacy?

Which of us that be worldly, heedless, unprofitable, shall endure His withering scrutiny, when He shall be revealed from heaven with fire?—or in the sunshine of His final acceptance, remember our toil and labour? Who shall bear in mind the contradiction and the cross, when the dead shall ascend up out of the depths of the sea, spread over the plains, and stand upon the mountains; when we and our people shall meet in the day of that mighty gathering; when the judgment shall be set—condemnation utter its thunders—and its voice die away in the tranquil peace of Heaven; and the New Jerusalem—the foundation and corner-stones whereof, with Him we are—shall be for ever with the inconceivable glories of Almighty God.

THE END.

Sloman, Printer, King-street, Yarmouth