his flock in the faith is the sermon. The idea that a religious service without a sermon is a poor sort of Church, has its good and bad side. The good thing about this idea is that it makes people tolerate them, and on the bad side is the idea that listening to a sermon is an act of worship, or a form of pious dissipation like Gounod's S. Cecelia Mass.

It may be that the time has come, foretold by the Apostle, when men will not endure sound doctrine, but I cannot believe that much is gained in that case by asking men to listen to a political harangue or a graceful talk on the new school of poetry.

As a matter of fact it is my experience that our laity are glad to listen to careful and well reasoned sermons on the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith. Preaching the Gospel must mean, it seems to me, the setting before men the means of salvation. The Gospel, or Good News, is that salvation has come to us through Jesus Christ. This salvation involves certain things that he does, and certain things we do. The whole scheme of salvation as set forth in the Gospels must be set before men I should think in any preaching of the Gospel that is worthy the name. If a man asks what he must do to be saved, the answer is that he must believe and be baptized, and the Episcopal Church has committed itself to that view of salvation. Before we can baptize a man he has to declare that he believes all the articles of the Christian faith as contained in the Apostles Creed, and he must renounce certain things, and do God's will and keep His law. Before he can come to Holy Communion he is urged to still more definite acts of faith, and he must repent.

The Creed contains twelve great doctrines, or what have been for centuries called (horrific word) dogmas. Among these are the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. Matters like the Resurrection, the Forgiveness of Sin, and the Catholic Church find their place there. The whole matter of Renunciation, God's Will, and the

Moral Law as involved in Baptism is hardly negligible, and the Faith and Repentance required before communion are things of deep importance to a thoughtful soul seeking to find in that great act some help for the way.

What sort of conception of the Church and its teaching has the priest who thinks that men do not like to hear about these matters. Surely it is an insult to any intelligent and thoughtful man to suppose he will be offended if he is instructed in these elements of the religion to which he has given his allegiance. It is possible that a parish priest may so accustom his congregation to hearing about everything except religion, that an aberration into theology may make them restive; but I know that the careful presentation of the official teaching of the Church in her creeds and services is the only sure way in inculcating a solid and practical piety that can stand the wear and tear of modern life. It may indeed be possible to hold together a congregation by good music and non-religious preaching, or non-Christian "talks," but that would be easier to do with a good "movie." I do not see that that means anything. A good "movie" draws a better crowd than a good lecture, but the intellectual life cannot be nourished by all the good photo-plays of all the Mary Pickfords in the world; and it is the experience of the Church in all the ages that a sound faith must lie at the bottom of a sound view of life and its problems. The Apostle knew that times would come when men would shun sound doctrine, but still the preachers were to be instant in season and out of season in exhorting, rebuking and teaching. And our Lord told His Apostles, trained by Him, that if their message was rejected in one city, they were to go to another. It was not theirs to change the message, but the sphere of its presentation. The modern interpretation of this principle laid down by our Lord, seems to be that the whole vestry may go if it likes, with all its cash, but let the priest go on with his message to those who stay to hear.

Strangely enough the very school of clergy which seems to attach little importance to Sacraments as means of grace, and even sneers at the "magical" effects of them which Catholics are supposed to believe in, is the very school which seems to have a superstitious regard for mere church going. It seems to be a triumph of grace to have induced a man to attend a church service. Good music, entertaining "talks," flower services; anything at all serves if only a man will attend Evensong. We hear of gracefully robed young ladies performing "sacred dances" before the Altar, colored lights, turned on and off at dramatic moments when the organ swell is put on, or a cloud of smoke rolls up from the incense burners, silence and noises, a conglomeration of theatrical effects used to attract people into a down-town church. To what end is all this? It is but another form of the emotionalism that in the old fashioned revival often ended in moral failures.

A religion that is not found on a definite body of accepted fact is but an unmoored craft, subject to every wind of doctrine, of emotion good or bad.

My own unhappy experiences with those who came to hear me preach taught me early, that the only people I could tie up to, were those who came to hear me teach. That is, it is the instructed layman who helps to forward the cause of Christ. In spite of the fact that we have a large number of wealthy men who are members of our Church, one by one our schools and colleges go to the wall, or lose their character as Church institutions, because the wealthy laity give their money to Yale or Harvard or Princeton. They may prefer the ordered dignity of liturgical worship or a clergyman in a surplice, but the doctrinal system that lies back of the Liturgy and vestment has not been sufficiently brought home to them to seem to have a value.

I am certain that our intelligent laity do like to hear doctrinal sermons. I do not myself like sermons which are

labored efforts to prove theological truths, and I do not think the laity do either. But an authoritative explanation of doctrine is a different thing. If the existence of the Catholic Church for two thousand years is not a sufficient proof of the facts stated in the Creeds, I cannot think of any more convincing proof to be had. So far as I know our communicant laity, they are not asking for proof for the Incarnation, or Atonement, but for a statement of what they mean historically and practically.

Not so long ago I attended the Choral Mass in a well known Catholic parish in the month of July. The service was rendered with all the usual adjuncts of Catholic worship, but the celebrant preached a long and involved sermon in which he presented philosophical and other proofs of the personality of God. It was a dreadful ordeal, and I judged from their looks that the entire congregation was as bored as I was. I object to that kind of a doctrinal sermon myself.

I have seen large congregations gathered together for a time by brilliant preachers, which melted away as suddenly when the brilliancy became an old story, or the rector removed, and a man succeeded him of moderate abilities in that line. Whence I conclude that attractive preaching in itself does not accomplish permanent results. And I have seen congregations slowly built up by careful, systematic and constant teaching, which held on under many adverse conditions.

The parish priest standing in his pulpit ought to realize that he is as much engaged in the work of God, as when he is at the Altar. The solemnity of the responsibility to declare the whole counsel of God ought to press upon him. It is no place for him to express views and theories. He is to preach the Gospel. He is to declare to his people the official teaching of the Church of which he is a minister. He is there not to amuse or entertain, but to teach, admonish, exhort, encourage. He ought to be sure that his

parish know what the Creeds teach, how to pray, repent, receive the Sacraments, fast, give alms, keep Lent. So I plead for the instruction of our laity as the only means of building up a solid work which endures.

3. Our Priest-ridden Laity.

Of course I am using that much abused word in its worst sense. It does not follow that a people who are docile and loyal to their clergy, are priest-ridden. What I mean is that too many of our clergy fail to see that their laity are as important to the functioning of the Church as they are themselves. A Church of priest alone would be a maimed thing. In a sense it is true that the Catholic Church is a congregation of priests. We are all priests unto God, but there is the official priesthood as well as the priesthood of the laity. They must coöperate to carry out the intention of Christ. The official priest indeed ministers to men in the things of God, but he ministers to God in the things of men. He must not only be a ruler but a leader. He must not only reign, but guide as well. Little by little the whole function of worship seems to be slipping out of the hands of the laity into those of the clergy. One might think it was an indecent thing for the laity to pray. We seem to be getting back to the Georgian period as to the matter of responses. Only a priest may pray at the opening of the Sunday School, or say the prayer in the choir room before the service. Only a priest may say grace at table apparently. Organization of our laity into societies for the spread of the cause of Christ is very hard to accomplish. Vestries too often leave the temporalities of the parish to be managed by the rector. It is becoming more and more difficult to get lay workers in the parish. Men have no time and women are too busy.

Now at the bottom of all this I believe lies the fact that the clergy have been exercising their kingly office at the expense of the priestly function. They have grown intol