THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Will you allow a lay-woman to make a contribution to the dischSsion on the poverty of the sermons preached in the Church of England ? I do not think that any amount of reading or study would improve the sermons of anyone who had not got'the gift of preaching ; it would only makethem dry instead of twaddling. I was the wife of a parish priest for more than forty years, so I have listened to a good many " first " sermons, and in no case did the preacher either improve or deteriorate t; those who preached well—that is who had something to say, and said it so as to attract and interest the congregation, continued so to preach, one knew one was going to be interested when he preached. Thoie whose first sermons were dull and uninteresting continued to preach dull and uninteresting sermons to the end. They were often excellent visitors and teachers, but they never learned to preach.
I think preaching is a gift—I had almost said a knack-- whiCh cannot be acquired. I think it is a great pity there is such a prejudice against the sermons of eminent preachers being read to the congregation ; the sermons of such men as F. W. Robertson or Bishop Phillips Brookes. Only the dull preachers would probably read them badly (for bad reading is even more common than bad preaching) and the congre- gation would be equally bored.—I am, Sir, &c.,
A CLERGYMAN'S WIDOW.
Previous page
