But what we must needs guard against is abuse from within.  In the first place we are a good deal given to self-congratulation.  I use the first person plural and not the second person; I remember a friend of mine, a distinguished clergyman in Boston, an Englishman, who once ventured to preach upon political corruption in the municipal government, and the next day he had the audacity to drop into the office of one of the business men of his congregation and say, “What did you think of that sermon?”—­a very dangerous question, by the way, always to ask—­and the reply came promptly, “You had better go and be naturalized so that you can say ‘we sinners,’ instead of ‘you sinners.’” [Laughter.] Since that time, from the pulpit or from any other place, I have hesitated to say, “You sinners,” and I will promise to say “we sinners” to-night.

But truly the pulpit and the Bar, in their ideal, are, as it were, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” a witness to the eternal truth.  Are they not?  The pulpit is sent forth to herald the love of God, and the Bar is sent forth to herald the justice of God; but they don’t always succeed.  I can speak from experience for the pulpit, that the position of authority, the claim of a divine mission, is often turned into the excuse for the airing of a man’s individual fads, and is naught but a cloak for pretentious ignorance. [Applause.] And for the Bar, I wonder if I might venture to quote the definition of legal practice which was given me the other night, apropos of this toast, by a distinguished representative of the New York Bar Association, that it was “a clever device for frustrating justice, and getting money into the lawyer’s pocket.” [Laughter.] But if it be true that we have a mission, it is equally true that we must join hands if we are going to accomplish that mission.  I am tired of hearing about the Pulpit as the voice of the public conscience.  I do not know why the Bar should not be the voice of the public conscience quite as much as the Pulpit.  If there are laws on the statute book that are not obeyed, I don’t know why the clergy should make public protest rather than the lawyers, who are representatives of the law. [Applause.] And if principles of our Constitution are being subtly invaded to-day under the mask, for instance, of State subsidies or national subsidies to sectarian institutions either of learning or of charity, I don’t know why the first voice of warning should come from the Pulpit rather than from the Bar.  Indeed, when the clergy initiate reforming movements it always seems to me as though there is need of rather more ballast in the boat, need of one of those great wheels which act as a check on the machinery in an engine; and the best fly-wheel is the layman.  The tendency, you know, of the Pulpit is toward an unpractical sort of idealism.  Its theories are all very good, but my professor in physics used to tell me that the best mathematical theory is put out of gear by friction