I will not detain you by dwelling upon the effect which the superiority of the right hand has in giving a slight superiority to the right leg and the right eye, and will content myself with mentioning a single beneficial result of the preferential use of one hand, viz. that by it, we acquire a greater degree of skilfulness and dexterity than we should do if both hands were equally employed. The exclusive use, for instance, of the right hand in writing, cutting, &c. gives it a greater expertness than either hand would have had if both of them had been accustomed to perform these offices. Hence, we usually find that persons who are left-handed are rather clumsy-fingered, because, although, in them, the left hand is used for many purposes which are commonly assigned to the right, yet the conventionalities of life interfere a good deal. The pen and the knife, for instance, are still wielded by the right hand. Accordingly such persons are neither truly right-handed nor truly left-handed; and they do not commonly acquire so great skill in the use of either hand as do those whose natural tendency is more in harmony with custom. * * * * * The great martyr of our Church, when at the stake, is said to have held out his right hand into the flames and to have been heard exclaiming, till utterance was stifled, “This unworthy hand.” This unworthy hand! Of whom or of what was that hand unworthy? Was it unworthy of Him who made it? Was it unworthy of him who bore it? Was it unworthy of the purposes for which it was made? Was it not, on the contrary, a too worthy hand? a hand worthy of a better usage than to be made, first, to sign a recantation of faith and, then, to be burned for having done so? a hand worthy of a better man? No one would have admitted this more readily than Cranmer. We may be sure that he would never have thought of proclaiming a hand or any of his members to be really unworthy of him. Rather would he have willingly confessed that he had fallen far short of the standard of excellence which the body presents; and in that excellence, we doubt not, he recognised an evidence of Divine workmanship. His meaning, therefore, has not been misunderstood. Nevertheless disparaging remarks respecting the body, and the use of the word “carnal” in the sense in which it is usually employed, have some tendency to excuse a shrinking from moral responsibilities on the ground of the weakness of the flesh. Let us remember that much of that weakness is of our own engendering, that a moral obliquity is the source of many of those physical infirmities which, we flatter ourselves, may cover our delinquencies, and which a sympathising humanity is wont, perhaps too often, to throw as a shield over offenders against the laws. In man, and in man alone of created beings, the physical and the moral grow up together and react upon one another; and the charge of a body thus capable of influencing and being