Church is concerned? And when we hear complaint made against her, whether in the persons of the ecclesiastics, who at any period of her history have been her defenders, or of the holy persons who have been her benefactors; shall not we the disciples be careful to learn what kind of persons these are that make the accusation? Shall we be willing to follow any teaching on this subject? Shall we expect to learn from the world and the press, instituted for the most part, for the purpose only of receiving and communicating an impress from the world, the right construction to put upon the course and conduct of that sacred body which is not-cannot be, of the world? Or shall the civil historian be our oracle on matters ecclesiastical? Had the providences of Almighty GoD handed down to us the history of His ancient church and people the Jews, by the civil historian, how little would he have been able to have rendered a satisfactory account of the events that happen therein ! How different would have been our accounts of the actions and public principles of the kings and prophets whom God raised up, or of the nations whom He scourged! Does, for instance, the history of the Fall of Man justify itself to the mere reasoning of man? Does the Deluge commend itself to the carnal mind as the act of a Just and Merciful GOD? Is the history of Moses one that may be reduced to the philosophy of the modern historian ? What would be-what is said by the unenlightened understanding of man to the destruction of so

many cities and nations in Canaan? What would be said of Joshua's act with regard to the guiltless family of the guilty Achan? Perhaps the numbering of his people would be, in such hands, accounted the wisest and most politic act in David's life. Weigh such characters as Elijah, Elisha, and the prophets generally, by the world's standard; and what would be the result but either condemnation or reservation of the truth concerning them? If then, so little can the civil historian comprehend the lesser light the Jewish, how shall he embrace the greater, the glories of the Christian Church? If her actions must indeed be judged by the world's standard, yet at least let not her own sons be deceived by the pretences of Judas. How many times might the acts of some distinguished overseer of CHRIST'S flock, condemned without hesitation in secular history, be found when judged by the light of Christian truth and holiness, to be full of matter for the Church's rejoicings? When then we hear complaint, let us not give too ready ear like those disciples of old, but first ask " May not this be some Judas who says this; some one who at least never heartily loved that Church of whose children he speaks so freely?" And then surely from our libraries (at least as works of authority on points of religion) will be discarded the deist Hume, the scoffer Gibbon, and in their place we shall ask for writers whose whole lives testify to their love of the Church of CHRIST; not those who have lived ever

out of the Church; not those who, within the Church, hold doctrines learnt from her enemies, but men who are commonly recognized as writers of a Church temper. Who is likely, according to analogy, to give the most probable account of an ecclesiastical transaction, he who can enter with affection into the minuter indications of her spirit, or he whose mind is the more estranged, in proportion as he is separated from her, by those many lines which distinguish an enemy within the camp from the open blasphemer against GoD and all religion?

Finally, my brethren, let us faithfully keep on our course of well-doing. Let not the example of weak brethren amongst us deter us in our acts of devotion to CHRIST'S body. The two rocks on which they are wont to split, led by their evilminded pilot Judas, have been pointed out to you; the jealousy and envy of the one party, the disaffection and disloyalty of another. Let us beware of both, and avoid being numbered with the disciples who unwarily committed themselves to the guidance of the traitor. Above all, let us be careful how from erring companions we become fast friends with Judas, and so be involved in one common ruin with the son of Perdition.

SERMON VIII.

OINTMENT AN ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE.

S. MATT. XXVI. 10.

WHEN JESUS UNDERSTOOD IT, HE SAID UNTO THEM, WHY TROUBLE YE THE WOMAN? FOR SHE HATH WROUGHT A GOOD WORK UPON ME.

In the last discourse we considered at some length the complaint of Judas. We dwelt upon it in its obvious application to some but too well remembered features of the gospel history. The too favourable reception which it has met with in the world from the pretended friends, but designing enemies, of the Church of CHRIST, cannot escape the student of ecclesiastical annals, who finds that in all the several stages of Christianity there have ever been those who murmur in the spirit of Judas. We then contented ourselves with showing that CHRIST had manifestly set HIMSELF against this evil spirit ; and had defended, in the strongest manner, that holy and noble temper of mind which it gainsaid and depreciated. We reserved, however, to the present occasion, the statement of the grounds of CHRIST'S

defence of Mary, and the exhibition of the intimate connection that exists between certain acts of the Church which are popularly misconstrued, as daily prayer, costly alms, and other kindred devotions of the faithful, and this act of anointing by S. Mary Magdalene. We shall now attempt to show that both are a common result of but one and the same principle.

And in endeavouring to exhibit the grounds of Mary's act, let us observe its characteristic feature. It claims for itself no ostensible usefulness. It begins and ends in itself. The precious ointment is poured out-the box containing it broken-nothing saved. In short, there is so much appearance of "waste" in it, that men of undoubted religion and piety, even the disciples of CHRIST, complain of it.

But notwithstanding, we see that CHRIST fully justifies-approves of it-and commends it as a good work, no less to be imitated than commemorated by all posterity. For as Bishop Andrewes says, "Go and do thou likewise" is plainly enough

inscribed on this box.'

Now this work may be good undoubtedly in many other respects; but to be rightly a guide to us, my brethren, we must show it to be good in principle; and this construction will be found warranted by the words of the sacred narrative. The act is affirmed to be "good," by way of contrast to the charge of waste. Why this waste? saith Judas and the disciples. He pretended that it was bad in principle.

'Bp. Andrewes. Lib. Ang. Cath. Theol. Vol. II. p. 56.