I now address myself to the last sermon of the Bishop of Peterborough, entitled “Christianity and Faith.” The first portion of this was a recapitulation of the principal arguments of the two previous sermons, and then he made a statement utterly opposed to the whole purpose of his sermons. I will deal with the exact purport, if I do not read to you the precise words he uttered. He said, It is a waste of time to endeavour to satisfy the consistent sceptic. He said, We Christians, have absolutely nothing in common with the consistent sceptic. If that be true, why did the Bishop come to preach the course of sermons to win back sceptics to the Church? Why did the Dean and Chapter inaugurate the course of sermons, if it was, in their opinion, impossible to satisfy the sceptic? Why did the Bishop say it was not only to strengthen the faith of those in the church, but to win back those who had left it? If it be not possible to win them back, then the whole course of sermons was a mere pretence, and I put it that the Bishop was, either consciously or unconsciously, misleading his hearers as to his real views, or that he did not know what he was talking about. The Bishop offered some advice to Christians for dealing with sceptics. He said, Before you allow a sceptic to put your belief to the proof, ask him what is it that he believes. That is what you have no right to do. The sceptic does not come to you at all to force his opinions on you. You come to him when he is in the cradle, and by aid of early habit and repetition of phrases in lieu of thoughts, you put your religion into him, you train him to accept your religion in school, you fashion his brain-power before it has stability for resistance. He has a right to express his disbelief in your religion, and you have no right to pretend to answer him with a mere What do you believe? There is no equality in the two positions; religion is law-protected, scepticism is law-condemned; and the Bishop has no right to take such ground: a sceptic’s ignorance would be no evidence of a believer’s knowledge. But give the Bishop the full benefit of the ground, and what does it amount to except that, after the Dean and Chapter had made a parade of their desire to answer infidelity, declaring that they would have the most competent man, this most competent man is obliged to say, The only way I advise you to meet modern infidelity is by admitting in effect, that you can do no more for your faith than to ask the infidel, What do you believe? I dismiss this; it is of so trifling a character that if it had not formed a prominent part of the Bishop’s sermon, it would not have been worth noticing. The Bishop, in dealing with Christianity and Faith, said that morality is built on faith, and that in order to be moral and have a code of morality, we must exercise an act of faith, and believe in our higher and better nature. What is our better nature, judging by the Churchman’s standard? The Articles of