he had been out fishing, and he caught nothing, and the Lord helped him to a good catch of fish; Simon Peter’s wife’s mother was cured of a fever; Simon Peter was with Jesus when he fed the people with a few loaves and fishes, and he took part in the collection of the fragments. He was present at the transmigration. It was to him that Jesus said, “To thee I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Simon Peter was with the Lord all through his life; and when Jesus came to trouble, he was the first who abandoned him and denied him, even with oaths, “I know not the man;” and that Peter is the model of faith whom the Bishop presents to you. Of the two I rather prefer Thomas to Peter. Certainly Peter came back to the Church when he caught more fish. When Jesus rose from the dead, Peter did not or would not know him, but when Jesus said “Throw in your net,” and he did so, and caught more fish, then he knew Jesus directly. I will ask what lesson the Lord Bishop meant to convey by the contrast between those two? In what sort of way is Peter put in contrast? Simon Peter was true enough when any profit was to be got by it; he ran away when danger came. This is the model which the Lord Bishop puts before you to copy. But Dr. Magee said that Christianity could not be demonstrated. Christian evidences were of some use as weapons when believers were exposed to assaults on their faith. If I thought he had intended to preach a comic sermon instead of a serious one, I could have heartily laughed at this. He says that the evidences of Christianity are weapons to put in the hands of every man and woman when his or her innermost soul is assailed by the enemy with desolating doubt. Is it true that God permits an enemy to reduce man to the level of the beast, and to be continually besieging the soul of man? Is it true that the subtle devil tempts man from the faith? If it be true, then the devil exists either because God cannot help it, or will not prevent it; and if he exists because God is powerless to prevent, then God is not omnipotent; if God wills it, then God consents to—nay, strives to procure man’s damnation. But, says the Bishop, Christianity does not repel the doubter, and he even admits the utility of doubt, subject only to one condition. Before I deal with the Bishop’s condition, permit me to quote what Buckle has said on the effect of doubt, and I quote him because he stands in a position entitling him to the attention of the extreme heterodox, as well as of the extreme orthodox. He says: