therefore especially ordered that children should be brought to hear sermons, in order that they might be instructed in Christian doctrine and practice. And it was the party who were most opposed to the mediæval Church who laid the greatest stress upon sermons; as we learn from Hooker, that the Puritans, insisting on the letter of such texts as, "How shall they hear without a preacher?" held that ordinarily God wrought conversion by means of (extempore) preaching, and only by miracle in any other way. It It was no doubt from a sort of revival of this Puritanic tradition, as well as from the feeling that they had fresh new truths to declare, that Wesley, Whitfield, and generally the old Evangelicals, had recourse to preaching as the great weapon of the movement party. The modern Evangelicals still profess the same esteem for this ordinance; they attend church in order to hear "the Gospel preached;" in their family prayers they ask for a blessing on the "preached word" exclusively. But their hands are no longer strong enough to bend that bow. With rare exceptions the preaching power has passed to the new movement party, to which belong the names of Robertson and Arnold and Hare, of Kingsley, of Stanley, and of Maurice. would be well if our liberal reviewers, in their sweeping denunciation of sermons, would remember that, after all, the sermon represents this progressive element in the Church of England, that it is the sermon which to the outward eye differences our parochial clergy from Carlyle's cast-iron officials. As a matter of theory one might even wish that this element of variety could be introduced into other parts of the Church service, and that the minister should have discretion to omit certain prayers, or to exchange them for others. The prayers would probably be worse, but it might atone for this if the novelty of them could break through the drowsy half-consciousness with which people are too apt to listen to more familiar sounds. But to return to the sermon. We fear it can be but seldom defended on this plea of novelty or variety. It continues to exist merely because it has existed. Habit has nowhere a more overpowering weight than in matters of religion. It might perhaps reconcile some to what they think the follies of the ritualist, if they would reflect that one change helps on another, and that the liberty conceded to superstitious fancy may be equally claimed by the opposite party when the reaction sets in in favour of common sense. We have now pointed out the evil effects of the present state of things both on preachers and hearers, and we have shown briefly how the system originated: it remains that we should consider whether it is possible by any reform to get rid of the bad effects of preaching, and to retain those which are undeniably good. The first thing we would suggest is to diminish the number and length of ser mons; the second, to diminish the number of preachers. We will afterwards proceed to inquire whether anything further can be done to improve the quality of the sermon itself. First, then, is there any reason why there should be two or three sermons every Sunday? Is there any reason why each sermon should last for half an hour? If it be said the poor will have it so, or they will leave the church-why, we have sometimes been told the poor like hard words which they cannot understand, or they like shouting and vulgarity, and therefore flock to chapel,-are we to give people what we know to be bad for them because they like it? May we not hope gradually to educate them to something better? One wellthought sermon is of more use than three of the ordinary compilations of the overworked minister; or if there should be oddly constituted minds, which profit more by good when well diluted with bad, are we to sacrifice to these the preacher himself and all the normal minds of the congregation? At least let the latter have a chance of escape; leave a short pause after the prayers, during which persons might be allowed to exercise the right of going in or out of church as their inclination for sermons might direct. Dr. Arnold set the example, which has been wisely followed in many schools since his time, of preaching to his scholars only once a day for not more than a quarter of an hour; and yet (we will not say in consequence of this) there has probably never been a school in which the influence of the chapel services was so widely and deeply felt as it was in the Rugby of Arnold. No doubt there are subjects and occasions on which long sermons are appropriate, and there are preachers, like the late Archdeacon Hare, who are fitted to deal with such subjects and occasions; as there are others who are endowed with a natural eloquence which enchains the hearers though there should be no special propriety of subject or time; but it is a safe rule to lay down that most subjects in the hands of most men are treated far more effectively in a discourse of ten minutes than in a discourse of treble that time. As to the number of sermons, if it be thought too much to hope for the entire abolition of the second sermon in ordinary churches, we would strongly urge the restoration of catechizing in country places, and the adoption in towns of a lecture or exposition instead of the afternoon or evening sermon. Our next suggestion has reference to the preacher. Why is every clergyman licensed to preach? In the Ordination Service it seems to be implied that deacons as a rule should not preach, and we think it would be far better to be chary of this licence in their case, and not to admit them as a matter of course to the order of priesthood. Many who are most useful clergymen in the parish are We read that Evelyn used to keep his family away from church in the afternoons because sermons had taken the place of the old catechizing (A.D. 1655). anything but useful in the pulpit, as there are others who can preach well, but have no business habits, and are wanting in the tact and geniality which they would need for personal intercourse with their parishioners. The medieval Church understood well how to utilize these special qualifications of the clergy. The Church of this nineteenth century, the century of free trade and division of labour, still digs with a razor and shaves with a spade, sending its lack-Latins to the West-end church, and burying the refined scholar in some remote country district. Is it utterly impossible that we may see a revival of the itinerant friar in a shape suited to modern times? May we not hope that the proposed institution of a subdiaconate will eventually lead, among other good things, to the recruiting of our preaching staff from the ranks of the laity? 66 * Without dwelling upon this, it is evident that if we silence a considerable proportion of the clergy, the congregations will look for some substitute in place of the preaching to which they are accustomed. We believe that we may borrow a hint from the reformers of the sixteenth century, as we have just done from their predecessors of the unreformed Church. Our English reformers were not so unreasonable as to assume that every poore persone of a toune" could preach his own sermons. They put forth homilies suited to the wants of those times, which the clergy had to read to their people from the pulpit. At a later period Saunderson, and after him Tillotson, urged the publication of a new collection of homilies, "in consequence of the unmethodical, useless, needless notions in many sermons." It would of course be vain to hope for a new volume of homilies in the present day; perhaps it is not even to be desired; but would it be impossible to obtain the sanction of each bishop for the reading of certain selected sermons by the deacons of his own diocese? Why might not such pulpit readings come in time to be as popular as the penny readings? If the authority of the bishop could persuade country people to lay aside their horror of the printed book, we might hope in this way to put a stop to the scandalous sale of MS. sermons. As regards the great towns, if any clergyman would have the boldness to announce a course of sermons taken from the Fathers, or the Reformers, or the Germans, or the Medievalists, or Post-mediævalists, or any of the best English divines of modern times, we will venture to promise him a large and educated audience. We believe that the adoption of some such changes as have been suggested would do much to remedy the faults of our present style of preaching. Still there remains one important branch of the subject *The following passage from the Life of Gilpin, "the Apostle of the North," will show the mischief which followed on the suppression of the friars :-"Some people have not heard four sermons these sixteen years since the friars left their limitations." upon which we can only touch on the present occasion, and that is the training of the preacher. It is less necessary to dilate on this now, in consequence of the interesting article by Dr. Reichel in a former number of the Contemporary, entitled “ University Reform in Relation to Theological Study." Dr. Reichel has, however, omitted to notice a late change in the Cambridge system, which will probably lead to a considerable extension of theological study among the undergraduates. By the new scheme, the mathematical and classical examinations for the ordinary degree are finished before the end of the second year of residence, and the student has his choice of several subjects, such as natural science, moral science, law, theology, to one of which he is required to devote his attention during the third year, and the examination in which will form his final examination for the ordinary B.A. degree. There can be little doubt that theology will be the subject selected by almost all poll-men who look forward to being ordained; and if the Theological Board are careful not to allow too much weight to the cramming up of articles and heresies, if Greek Testament and English composition are made the main subjects of the examination, we have great hopes that the new scheme inay prove an important step in the way of educating our preachers. One lesson, at least, we hope they will derive from instruction in English composition,-how to use simple every-day language in the pulpit. It is another of Dr. Arnold's many claims to the gratitude of Churchmen, that he broke through the stereotyped phraseology which was alone thought appropriate for the solemnity of religious discourses, making it his aim to use in the pulpit the same words which would be used in private life by one man speaking earnestly to another. The great advantage of this is that common words compel a man to have some meaning: technical or traditional language hides the absence of thought both from speaker and hearers, at the same time that it deadens the force of direct appeals to the conscience, weakens the cogency of arguments, and to some minds leaves an air of misty uncertainty, or at least of unpracticalness, about the whole subject-matter of religion. A few words in conclusion as to the manner in which any reform must be brought about. It can only be by free expression of opinion on the part of the laity, and by energetic backing up of those clergy who venture to make the first move. Bishops can hardly be expected to take the initiative in the matter, and Convocation is of course busy with Bishop Colenso; but whatever help may be desired from either quarter will no doubt be forthcoming when it is seen that there is a strong body of opinion in favour of a small number of definite alterations such as those which we have described above. J. B. M. POPULAR GEOLOGY. IT Geology for General Readers· a Series of Popular Sketches in Geology and T was at the Sages' Congress at Nottingham that the complaint was made, that at the present time an educated man may go forth into the world with all the prestige that education gives, and may yet, without a blush, confess to utter, gross ignorance of the most familiar household words of science, nay, even of the rationale of the most common applications of science to the affairs of common life. The complaint is a very just one. Its truth was attested by Mr. Bernal Osborne's undisguised plea of guilty to this grave indictment of ignorance. But who is to blame? We venture to say, the men of science themselves. We all know that there is no royal road to learning in any branch of knowledge; but while fully admitting this, we must also admit that there is a woeful dearth of books, in the different walks of science, which hit the happy mean between repellant abstruseness and equally repellant childishness. Mr. Page has admirably hit this happy mean in one of the most attractive of the sciences,-perhaps the youngest of them all, certainly that which, humanly speaking, is destined to undergo most reconsideration if not reconstruction, the science of Geology. It is something to be able to place in the hands of an entire novice a book which cannot fail to clear his ideas, and give him a vast amount of lucid, well-arranged information on a subject of such necessarily comprehensive scope; and which, without making or professing to make him a geologist, will give him precisely that insight into a strange subject |