Polemical considerations aside, probably even the most orthodox would allow that the invocations of the Litany might gain in devotional power, while losing nothing in august majesty, were the third to run--_O God the Holy Ghost, Sanctifier of the faithful, have mercy upon us miserable sinners_. And the fourth as in Bishop Heber's glorious hymn, _Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, have mercy upon us miserable sinners_. But all this is doctrinal and plainly _ultra vires_. [23] A very natural explanation, by the way, of the fact, often noticed, that there is no petition in the Litany for an increase of the ministry. [24] Here, _i_. _e._, in connection with Saints' Day services, would be an admirable opportunity for the introduction into liturgical use of the Beatitudes. What could possibly be more appropriate? And yet these much loved words of Christ have seldom been given the place in worship they deserve. They do find recognition as an antiphon in the _Liturgy of St. Chrysostom_. To reassert a usage associated in the history of liturgies with the name of this Father of the Church and with his name only, would be to pay him better honor than we now show by three times inserting in our Prayer Book the collect conjecturally his--a thing the Golden-mouthed himself, when in the flesh, would not have dreamed of doing. "Once," he would have said, "is enough." [25] The Priest's Prayer Book has 688 (!!) mostly juiceless. [26] In connection with this clause there sprang up an animated and interesting debate in the House of Deputies as to the wisdom of thus seeming to cut off every opportunity for extemporary prayer in our public services. Up to this time, it was alleged, a liberty had existed of using _after_ sermon, if the preacher were disposed to do so, the "free prayer" which _before_ sermon it was confessedly not permitted him to have--why thus cut off peremptorily an ancient privilege? why thus sharply annul a traditional if not a chartered right? At first sight this distinction between before and after sermon looks both arbitrary and artificial, but when examined there is found to be a reason in it. The sermon, especially in the case of emotional preachers, is a sort of bridge of transition from what we may call the liturgical to the spontaneous mood of mind, and if the speaker has carried his listeners with him they are across the bridge at the same moment with himself. The thing that would have been incongruous before, becomes natural after the minister has been for some time speaking less in his priestly than in his personal character. The notion that the points at issue between the advocates of liturgical and the advocates of extemporaneous worship can be settled by a promiscuous jumbling together of the two modes, is a fond conceit, as the Reformed Episcopalians will doubtless confess when they shall have had time enough to make full trial of the following rubrics in their Prayer-book: