said of what was done in the early days. Reference has been made by the Dean of Rochester to the Sermon on the Mount, and to other discourses of our Saviour Himself. What was the result? If you are to judge the Church of England clergy, or the Dissenting minister, or the Roman Catholic priests, or the missioners, by the results, who knows the results upon others? Who knows what words have been stealing into men's minds and hearts? After the Sermon on the Mount and many another discourse, after our Saviour's work of three years, how many were found in that upper room? Only one hundred and twenty. That was the result, and if you

are to judge only by results, what is to be said? Then again, if you speak of the preaching of the Apostles, no doubt there was a steady progress, but there was only one great instance of what we may call an enormous conversion; and if you come to these questions of circumstance and remarkable conversions, I am not going to disparage those sermons which are of a different character, which are, as it were, to convict men who are not Christians, and to make them Christians.

But the clergyman has a good deal to do besides. He has to edify and to build up in the Faith. And I was so glad to hear that which I think is one of the great wants in the pulpit of this country urged by the Dean of Norwich-exposition and explanation. Thousands of people come into your churches who would receive the exposition of teaching if carefully and lovingly given to them. But there is a great deal to be done from the foundation. That brings me to the point which I want to touch upon, viz., that any clergyman who neglects the religious elementary education of the young in his parish is preparing for himself and his successors audiences to whom his sermons will be uselessly delivered. What is the use, if you have not trained the children in the way they should go, of expecting them to receive sermons into their hearts with meek reverence? It is of no use. You must begin at the beginning, and that is the only way in which you can prepare yourself and your successors with congregations that will understand you. As I have a short time at my disposal, let me say something about listeners. We have many thoughts to distract us, and unless there is something telling in the sermon we are apt to be led away by our thoughts, and to forget that which is going on. I am afraid it was so in the old time; I am afraid it will be so in all time. I quite admit that we ought to go to church with the honest and good heart ready for reception, and then, however poorly the sower may scatter his seed, if there is the honest and good heart, then perhaps one grain of wheat in the bushel of chaff will find its way into that honest and good soil, and will bear fruit abundantly. I am quite ready to take my share of the blame of the laity in not sufficiently co-operating with the clergy, by showing that they are influenced by the sermons in their conduct in life. If the educated portion do not do so, it is very natural that others should be negligent. But if the laity and clergy co-operate, I still believe that the foundation of a good, religious education lies in the clear exposition of the Bible, and of the Prayer-book, in showing that you are teaching a religion which can be defended, and one which is, or ought to be, the foundation of a holy and Christian life. By addressing yourselves in that way to the hearts of the people, by steadily working to reach them, can you alone accomplish the great end which is to be desired, but mere surface results in good listeners are not really the tests of good preaching.

The Rev. CLAUDE BOSANQUET, Vicar of Christ Church,

Folkestone.

MANY a layman thinks that it is the easiest thing in the world to produce a sermon. Our answer is, Let him try it. It may be he will manage one; but how about those that are to follow? Ask the candidate for Orders what he thinks about the duty of

preaching. Ask the deacon whether his first sermon did not occasion much anxiety. And those of us who have had so much preaching to do that we have nearly come to complete the fourth thousand, will tell you that the sermon is still the subject uppermost in our thoughts. A country squire, who was in the habit of addressing his workpeople every week, once said to me, "I marvel more and more how you clergy are able to go on preaching year after year;" and John Bright is reported to have said something to the same effect. It is a difficult matter to prepare a sermon ; beyond our ability, it may be, ever to accomplish a good one. But we would not have it otherwise. For difficulty inspires energy; the work of God should make demands upon all the faculties or talents He may have given us; difficulty sends us to our knees; casts us upon God; calls for faith in the grace of Ordination; and we would not set before our people, still less would we offer to the Master, that which has cost us nothing.

And here I would address myself to two questions. I.-How many sermons ought we to be expected to produce? I say emphatically only one a week. For, though a paper comes to us every year with this question, "How many services have you on Sunday? Is a sermon or lecture given at each ?" yet you will observe that the Prayer-book only seems to require one on the Sunday and one on a Holy Day. I, like most of my brethren in the ministry, am expected to do much more. Consequently I may often have twaddled, perhaps seldom preached. One a week is about as much as most of us are good for. The present Bishop of Winchester once wrote to me that he could not help me in Lent, for, as vicar of S. Pancras, five original sermons were required of him every week. A man possessing his remarkable gifts may be equal to this; but we, whose powers are not above the average, who, not being clever, have what is next best to it, the consciousness that we are not, we cannot attempt anything like it. So, if the people will have two sermons rather than one, I counsel the taking of one subject and dividing it into two parts, giving the first half in the morning and the second in the evening. And then it may be, alas, it is but a possibility, that some will deny themselves to the extent of dining early on Sunday and attending the evening service. Or, why should not a written discourse be carefully delivered in the morning, and the same repeated in a more popular form in the evening? I say that people cannot digest more than one sermon; and if, after the prayers, there were an interval of a few minutes, those might leave the church who had been present in the morning, and some outsiders might come in.

II. What should be the length of sermons? I know that it is the fashion to demand that they should be shorter. A man like the late Mr. Vaughan, of Brighton, may be able to put into a fifteen minutes' sermon what another could not say in thirty, and he had an eclectic congregation. Many of those who ask for shorter sermons would not be ill-pleased if there were none. These are the people, some of them, at least, whom the preacher sees leaving the church as he ascends the pulpit. To say nothing of what they may thus lose in the way of godly counsel and admonition, I hold this to be bad form, certainly most discouraging to the preacher, while they can scarcely escape the suspicion of wishing to evade the offertory. When speeches in Parliament are shorter; when a charge to the jury is delivered in fifteen minutes, then we may begin to listen to such as plead for sermons of a quarter of an hour. Only once a week have we precious souls before us, and, as the ambassadors of the King of Kings, we may not forget that we bring the Bread of Life to the hungry, that someone is probably asking for help, for guidance, or comfort, and we dare not curtail our message. What, then, is necessary to the production of a fairly good sermon? Among the many requisites that I might mention I will only allude

to four. (1) Selection; and the laity may not know that the choosing of the text is often a matter of great anxiety. As far as possible this should be done early. Thomas Scott, the commentator, always chose his text on the previous Sunday night. It was said of the late Bishop Wigram that he preached a good sermon when he had three months in which to think of it; and many of Mr. Moody's addresses occupied him six months in their production. Where shall the text be found? Of course, in the first place, in the appointed lessons of the Church. But many a text is to be found in parochial visiting, at the sick bed, in conversation with a doubter or an enquirer. If "The house-going priest makes a church-going people," it is also true that the house-going pastor will be the sympathetic preacher. And at times I have found a sermon most useful, both to myself and my hearers, when one of my parishioners has asked me to preach upon some particular passage. Our minds naturally run in a groove; we are all too apt to repeat ourselves; and such a suggested text may compel us to look at Christian truth from an entirely new standpoint. And I am sure my brethren of the clergy will agree with me that we have often been happiest in preaching when we have given to our people that which has been made a blessing to our own souls-some precious view of truth which has come to us as we studied God's word in the closet.

(2) Preparation. Some evangelists tell us they never think of their addresses beforehand. They trust to the inspiration of the moment. If a minister acted on this rule he would soon be preaching to empty benches, and serve him right. Richard Cecil said, "I am not inspired, therefore I prepare." Let us never forget Bacon's aphorism that "writing makes the correct man; speaking makes the ready man; reading makes the full man." I plead for the study of works written by men of all schools of thought in the Church. More than that, I think we ought to acquaint ourselves with the writings of men outside her pale. When I cease to be a learner, then I must cease to teach. And valuable help I acknowledge to have received when consulting the Commentary of Dr. Gill the Baptist, and Adam Clarke the Wesleyan, as well as from the devout and beautiful meditations of Isaac Williams. Then it is an excellent plan to take the subject of the coming sermon as the basis of instruction in the sick room. Many a sweet thought upon it will thus occur to us. And oh the joy of preparation, of digging deep beneath the surface of God's Word, for this is the Word of the Holy Ghost. Often I wish that I could spend my life in my study; and I like to think that one of the joys of heaven will be the study of God's Holy Word. And here, as in the selection of the text, the people have a work of preparation to do. When on their knees, let them remember the ininister in his study; let them ask that the right word may be given him; then, if they have to find fault with him, they will assuredly do so in all gentleness. Criticism is so easy; intercession is so difficult.

(3) Adaptation. By this I mean the polishing of the rough material, the sharpening of the King's arrows. I often wonder at the long words which some preachers use in addresses to children. Speaking as one who has had some experience in this matter, I say that a sermon to children demands at least as much study and careful preparation as a sermon to adults. And here I would mention the seizing and making use of that which is at the moment occupying men's thoughts— as Mr. Spurgeon once preached upon election when a general election was imminent. Apt allusion to something in the newspapers may be very timely. People like to know that their pastor is not a recluse; that he interests himself in the affairs of men; and explanation to simple folk is often much needed. A great man, not the less great because little known, had a singular gift in this matter. Speaking of a shield, he said-" Many of you have no idea what it is, having never seen one; but

if you will take the lid off the pot and will put your arm through the handle, you will have something very like a shield."

(4) Proclamation. The best sermons in every age have been written. But how much depends upon delivery. The sermons of Wesley seem dry and uninteresting, yet when delivered by him produced a marvellous impression. Dr. Pusey once preached a sermon on the Judgment, and as he spoke women fell into hysterics, or were carried fainting out of church. Yet those who read it now wonder that it was So. Whether a sermon be written or not, let it be spoken rather than read. It would never do for the barrister to read his address to the jury. If we speak as naturally as in a room, as solemnly as in a death room; if we speak as those who stand in the presence of the Lord of Hosts, men, and not only women, will listen. And oh! the joy of preaching when the sermon has been steeped in prayer; when we go from the presence chamber of the King with the burden of the Lord; when we preach because we feel. Those who remember the late Mr. Vores, of Hastings; those who have seen in the pulpit one who has spoken at many of these gatherings, but whom, I fear, we are not again to listen to at a Church Congress-these will testify that since the days of S. Stephen the faces of some have been seen as the face of an angel.

And when all is over, and the sermon that has cost so much thought and study has been preached, what is it? It is probably a very poor production. If a man thinks otherwise, let him look at it ten years hence, and if, generally, he is not ashamed of it, I shall think little of him. Do not imagine that we are satisfied with our

sermons. God is our witness. We go into the pulpit with an awful sense of responsibility, and we come back with the humbling consciousness of having how feebly discharged it. Some probably will be ready with praise, will say it was a beautiful sermon. But remember that only one in a hundred knows what a good sermon ought to be, and that with many manner does instead of matter; and, as sometimes even in a Church Congress, declamation passes for argument. Speaking on quite another subject, a writer of fiction has said, "Four-fifths of your work will be indifferent, but it is worth doing for the sake of the one-fifth that will be good.' And whether our sermons be good or bad, as your Grace once wrote to a dear friend of mine, who, looking at his pastoral work, mourned over shortcomings and small results, "We can but do our best and leave it with Christ."

DISCUSSION.

The Rev. G. S. REANEY, Bickley, Kent.

IT has been said that preaching has made Nonconformity the power that it is in England to-day. What sort of preaching? All sorts. Some of the greatest of Nonconformist preachers read their sermons, and read them closely. Jonathan Edwards, the great American preacher, read his sermon as closely as Canon Twells did his address, and Edwards moved his congregation with the most wonderful power to the expression of the most profound penitence. How is it that Nonconformist ministers are, in the average, better preachers than the clergy? They must preach, and if they cannot preach, they go! What the Nonconformists do, with many less advantages, the clergy ought to do, and must. But let it not be forgotten that the clergy are not only preachers, they are priests and pastors. Let the younger clergy be as earnest and diligent to become as good preachers as they are priests, and they will succeed. In both preaching and education the clergy have the advantage over Nonconformists. The strain upon the clergy is much less than the strain of a Nonconformist pastorate. If the clergyman has to make bricks without straw, the Nonconformist has often to make bricks without clay. What preaching has done for

Nonconformity it may do for the Church, and more. Now, the Nonconformist preachers do not cross our paths either as priests or pastors. In that respect the clergy stand in a splendid solitude. They, the Nonconformist preachers, run us very hard as preachers. They, I know, have formed a deep determination to win over this land to practical and spiritual Nonconformity. What if they succeed? Will they destroy the Church? No; but they will set such a limit to your priesthood and pastorate as shall make it as if for tens of thousands there shall be no Church of the Living God. We must be preachers as well as priests and pastors. But two factors go to make the preacher. There is the man with his message, and there are the hearers. The Nonconformist congregation are better hearers than Church people. I have heard more than one clergyman say, "We don't make much of the sermon here," and more than once I have been told by a courteous vicar or churchwarden to "cut it short." Some congregations are haunted by the gentleman with a somewhat vacant and vacuous face, ornamented with an irritating eyeglass, who, so soon as the text is announced, consults his watch, and continues so to meet the preacher until the ascription is pronounced, and then he drops his eyeglass and puts his watch in his pocket. The preacher who comes into the pulpit with honest labour and by the secret ways of prayer, and who dares humbly to stand up in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, owes it to himself, to his office, and to God, to treat that sort of person with supreme contempt.

Lewis T. DibDIN, Esq., Chancellor of the Dioceses of Durham Exeter, and Rochester.

THERE has been a great deal of criticism which I think is so far just that it reflects a feeling, which is very prevalent among Churchmen generally, that there is something wrong in the condition of preaching. But there is one consolation which my clerical friends may lay to their own souls if their preaching is defective, lay preaching is a great deal worse. Laymen, like the organist of San Francisco, of whom we heard yesterday, I dare say do their best, but they stand quite as much in need of sympathetic consideration as that unfortunate gentleman. There are certain difficulties which the clergy have to contend with which are due to the laity themselves. In the first place, we have been told that sermons are too frequent, and so they are. But why is it impossible to have fewer sermons? Because the laity will not have it. Clergymen will tell you that it is impossible to drop one sermon on the Sunday. Their parishioners will not have it. Again, have you ever noticed how unencouraging, I do not want to say stolid, people look in church? Even our nearest and dearest, if I may venture to say so, do not look their best in church, and if that is so with the narrow horizon of a single pew, what must it be from the pulpit, when you look out on a whole churchful? A good deal has been said against written sermons. I quite admit that most people prefer to listen, and find it easier to listen, to a spoken sermon rather than a read one, but there is another side of the question. A spoken sermon, to be properly done, requires a great deal more preparation than a written sermon. There must come times in the history of every clergyman when he cannot give the detachment of thought which is necessary for the preparation of a spoken sermon. That is the time when it seems to me written sermons are in their right place, and I venture to say, particularly to young clergymen, that it is not a wise thing to get out of the habit of writing sermons. If you write a sermon, you must take a certain amount of pains, but men can easily get into the habit of mere talking without any thought at all. Such talking is valueless. There is no reason why written sermons need be dull. I notice two things. As to manner, although a man does preach a written sermon, it does not at all follow that he should behave “Like a crow in a gutter," as an Irish bishop once said of his own clergy. Well, then, as to matter. I have nothing to do with theology, and it would be presumptuous of me to say anything about it. But what I want to say is that sermons ought to be made informing. We do not hear enough of facts. Surely it is not too much to ask the clergy to inform themselves, and to keep themselves in the forefront of knowledge. It may be presumptuous, but you will forgive me for saying that the danger before the clergy at the present moment is lest the reading and knowledge of the average English clergyman should sink below those of the average educated layman.