was worth anything, what was his profession of faith, but itself an act of worship? If he believed himself to be in the presence of Him, who could without blasphemy declare Himself to be the Son of God, how could he do less than acknowledge the presence of Deity by the devoutest sign of outward reverence? The profession of faith in Christ was, in this case, no cold formal declaration of belief, but a heartfelt act of allegiance, a declaration of unswerving loyalty. And there is no reason why our own profession of faith should not be of the same kind. He who regards the Creed in this light will probably find that there is no form of thanksgiving, no hymn of praise, no Christian doxology, which more warms his heart and excites deep feelings of gratitude and love, than the Creeds which he is taught to repeat.

Of all mischievous innovations proposed in modern times, perhaps the removal of Creeds from the public worship of the Church is nearly the most pernicious and the most to be deprecated1.

1 There are some very valuable remarks upon the existence and use of Creeds in Maurice's Kingdom of Christ, Part II. Chap. IV. From the Revised Prayerbook, which I have criticized further on, all Creeds are omitted. The ground of the omission is explained in the Preface to the book: the real value of Creeds as a part of worship is strangely overlooked.

ONLY one Sermon in the day is positively ordered by the Book of Common Prayer. After the rehearsal of the Nicene Creed, the Curate is directed to give notice of Holydays and the like, and this Rubric follows: "Then shall follow the Sermon, or one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth, by authority." This Sermon then is the sermon of the day: and if the whole Parish could attend the morning service, this one sermon would perhaps be sufficient for all purposes, and the afternoon would be open for catechising, which in many ways and in many cases would be found a more profitable exercise than preaching. But the practice has now become almost universal of making a sermon a part of both morning and evening service, and inasmuch as in many places it is found impracticable to persuade the poorer class of people to attend the Church in the morning, it is probably necessary that a second

sermon should be added. Nor can any fault be found with the practice, except the tendency which it has to discourage public catechizing.

When we reflect that in the greater number of the Parish Churches of England there are two, and in many three sermons preached every Sunday, to say nothing of a large number preached upon other days, we feel perhaps disposed at first to think that we have here an instrument of almost incalculable power for the promotion of religion. On second thoughts we are probably still more disposed to marvel at the comparative smallness of the effect which appears to result from such a complete machinery for teaching. The truth, I believe, lies in the middle: that is, we shall be right in supposing that the power of the Christian pulpit is indeed great, but that it is not what it ought to be, and what (one would think) it might be. Much of the failure of sermons may be attributed, it is to be feared, to the fault of the preachers: either they are careless, or unskilful, or inconsistent in their practice, or their own hearts are dark and their minds unenlightened; "those who would make us feel must feel themselves;" under such conditions there can be no wonder if the voice from the pulpit be "as sounding brass or as a tinkling cymbal."

If I were writing for preachers and not for people, I might have much to say concerning the manner in which the pulpit should be used, so as to make it in God's hand a successful engine for beating down the strongholds of Satan: but I am writing for people, not for preachers, for those who attend the Parish Church to worship God, to hear His Word, to be admonished and taught; and therefore I shall say nothing of any blame which may attach to the preacher, but shall assume that the teaching is plain and good, such as (God be thanked!) it is in the greater number of our Churches, and shall inquire how the preaching is to be received so that it may bear fruit and prosper to the end for which God has sent it.

The first and most obvious remark is that which George Herbert expresses when he says, "Judge not the preacher, for he is thy judge."

It is quite clear that a person puts himself entirely in the wrong position with regard to his spiritual teacher, if he allows himself any great liberty in criticizing the sermons which he hears. Of course a preacher is not infallible, and the parishioners have a right to "search the Scriptures whether these things are so1:" but

1 Acts xvii. II.

certainly the general tone of mind upon the part of the hearer should be that of respectful attention, a desire to find good if good may be found, a readiness to apply to his own heart and conscience and conduct any hints which may have been given, rather than to remark upon the preacher's peculiarities or to make light of his powers.

There are two dangers of opposite kinds, into either of which we may fall; and so far as the great result which Satan desires to attain is concerned, namely, that of neutralizing Christian teaching, it is all the same whether a person fall into one or into the other. The first is that of despising God's Minister; the second is that of too much honouring him. Those who spoke of S. Paul lightly, describing his bodily presence as weak and his speech as contemptible, were probably not more mischievous in the Church nor greater enemies to themselves, than those others who wished to make the Apostle the head of a party, saying, "I am of Paul", in opposition to the "I am of Cephas", and "I am of Christ”, which were the watchwords of some of their fellows. And it may be worth noting, in connection with this remark upon the manner in which S. Paul was treated by different classes of converts, that the two faults which have been mentioned were both found in the same Church,