Dr. Lushington's Judgment; and that, in point of fact, the Judgment assumes as its basis, that the Articles are in strict accordance with, and dependent on, the Bible? Of course, the Lex Scripta (in this case the Articles) can alone be the criterion of judgment; and to our mind it is no small triumph, that the Judge has duly recognized documents, by which to decide the existence, or otherwise, of alleged heresy.

We are grateful for Dr. Lushington's Judgment. We now feel that the Essayists and Reviewers, and their admiring advocates, have no moral status whatever in the Established Church. We are equally confident, that the majority of the English clergy are thankful that bold and daring scepticism is amenable to legal condemnation.

Mr. Hebert shows too much deference, we think, to the men whose ability, however great, is directed to the overthrow of all true religion. He would shrink from the remotest approval of Arians, and those who, as we all allow, deviate from the orthodox views of the doctrine of the Trinity; and yet he joins hands in the morbid dislike of the Athanasian Creed, and indulges in some, as we think, rather needless criticisms on the other Creeds. Speaking of the Nicene Creed, he says:

"A very spirited sketch of the Nicene Council is given by Canon Stanley in his Eastern Church.' In fact, the book might be almost entitled "The Nicene Council, and the Russian Church;' for the other Eastern Councils want description by the same light and clever hand."

Mr. Hebert assumes, that not half the clergy can, in strictness, subscribe to the latter part of the ninth Article; and the same imputation is made in reference to the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed. We have, too, a display of alleged defects in some of the other Articles. It is for our readers to say whether or not the verbal defects are too trivial to form reasonable ground of condemnation, and consequent revision; or whether they would risk a revision.

We have devoted as much space as we can afford to Mr. Hebert. He may be taken as the representative of a large class, who entertain, in foro conscientiae, scruples of which perhaps they seldom speak; though he himself expresses more admiration for the writings of the "light and cleverhanded" Canon Stanley, than we can pretend to feel. Still, it is desirable that the existence of such a class, with a leader such as Mr. Hebert, should be known. Let us, however, give another extract. After taking for granted that there are many oppressed consciences, from compulsory subscription to the Articles and Formularies, the case of our young men preparing for ordination is mentioned :--

"Cast a glance at those most interesting groups of promising

young men, who three or four times a year are contributed to the service of the Church by the Universities, as well as those that spring up in the several stray seed plots of future clergy, to present themselves to the Fathers of the Church as candidates for Clerical Orders. What a burden will be placed on their young consciences! And how many will be repelled, or will enter with doubt and misgiving, and thus be marred in their moral standing, at their very start in the sacred course, if things continue much longer as they are! The minds of young men lie open to scruples, though they often act on impulses. But impulses, on the other hand, may be deleterious, both in those who rashly decline, and in those who rashly embrace. May we not, as advocates for these, most earnestly beseech relief for them, from men in high power, and from men of influence everywhere."

Of the 20,000

Surely Mr. Hebert has overstated his case. or 30,000 clergymen now living, what proportion has been seriously burdened with scruples such as he refers to? We have lately been in circumstances which have led us to hear much of the state of mind of our undergraduates; and the conclusion we draw is, that while there is a vast deal more thought given to the question of subscription, and the prevailing opinion is that the terms are needlessly severe, yet there is very little distress of conscience, or anything approaching to it. The causes which prevent so many promising young men from entering the ministry are of another kind. The chief of them. is the shameful poverty which lies before them. Young men begin to think much of this; parents and guardians, who know the value of money better, think much more of it, and endeavour to divert their minds into other channels. This is a sore subject; but no slight degree of irritation exists among parents and guardians on account of the expenses into which young men are run before they can take Orders,-needless delays in passing a theological examination; needless expenses in travelling far to wait upon the bishop; needless fees at ordination; and then a curacy of perhaps not more than fifty, and certainly not more than a hundred pounds a year. These expenses, after all, may not be very great; but the vexation does serious mischief, and the subsequent poverty still more.

A few words must suffice upon the Archbishop of Dublin's Charge. His Grace glances at a number of subjects through which we cannot be expected to follow him; each of them is sufficient for a pamphlet. We must notice, however, his remarks upon the half-infidel school which is claiming a right to maintain its position within the Church of England. Amongst the different forms of danger to the Church, he dwells upon "dangers from unwise friends," which he treats with almost as much severity as if they were real enemies. Thus he assigns "the denial of all Divine authority to our Scriptures to

the crude advocacy of verbal inspiration of the Scriptures which has led to a "violent reaction," and in "fact to the total subversion of everything that can be called revelation.”

"The rejection," he remarks, "of the Old Testament is not, indeed, always accompanied by a denial, in express words, of the claims of the New Testament; but it virtually implies it. For, that any one should seriously believe that he knows more than Jesus of Nazareth did of God's dealings with His people, and yet should be sincere in professing to believe that that same Jesus was a Divine Messenger, seems utterly incredible, except under the supposition of insanity."

Lastly, the Archbishop gives his views upon the alteration of our Church Services. He thus puts the case :—

"On more than one recent occasion I endeavoured, as you will doubtless remember, to show the desirableness of introducing, in a regular way and under competent authority, some small alterations into our Church Services, and also into the Authorized Version of Scripture. The need of some Ecclesiastical government, invested with this competent authority, and consisting exclusively of members of our Church, is a point to which, you will recollect, I endeavoured to call attention on several occasions a good many years ago, when there were very few who agreed with me, though now there is a general concurrence on this point."

After alluding to the saying of Lord Bacon, to the effect, "that a bigoted adherence to what is established, has no less tendency to lead to disturbances than rash innovation itself," Archbishop Whately adds:

"This observation appears to have received confirmation in our own time. Proposals have been put forth for such a thorough remodelling of our Formularies, as would amount, or at least would be generally considered to amount, to an entire subversion of some of the doctrines of our Church."

All this he considers as increasing the dread of "even moderate change."

There is much in this short extract to invite criticism; but we forbear, and pass on to notice briefly the Charge of Archdeacon Hone. His principal topic is the supply of clergy; and yet the subject of revision, and of some change in the Articles and Formularies, has a place in his wise and moderate address. With much that he says we concur; but since his Charge was delivered, the subject has moved onwards, and events have occurred in London which may have strengthened his own misgivings as to the difficulties in the way. In the front of these we place Dr. Stanley's letter to the Bishop of Durham, and the discussions which have risen out of it, and the protest of five hundred of the London clergy. When Dr. Stanley was permitted to address his bishop with a proposal suggesting a sweeping abolition of subscriptions, what

less could be expected than that moderate men should have their fears aroused?

For the present we conclude. If it were not too much to expect, we would earnestly entreat that the subject might be pursued on all sides without heat or passion; that, especially between our Evangelical friends, no root of bitterness be allowed to spring up and trouble us; that we may be able to agree upon some great principles of action; and that we may hold fast the "form of sound words," and " the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

ON WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN SERMONS.

It may be premised, that those things which constitute the essentials of a good sermon are not excluded by either mode, but are available in both-e.g., the divisions, or, at any rate, the arrangement of a discourse to be preached from notes, may be as carefully prepared as if the whole were written. The subject may receive as thorough an investigation, and the mind of the preacher be decidedly made up respecting it, in the one case equally as in the other. Without careful preparation, few men, if indeed any, could preach a continuance of sermons at all worth hearing. Many a person may, and can, preach a good single sermon, strictly extempore; but they are most truly a genus rarum, who can preach even a very limited number of such a character. Again, there is no reason which I know, why the minister, who asks and waits for the mercy, may not expect to be helped by the Holy Spirit to a right understanding of the truth of the Word, and enabled to meet the wants of his people, as much in his study, in composing, as in the pulpit, in preaching.

I. The advantages of written discourses are, perhaps, principally these.

1. You express your own meaning. This may seem rather a trifling, but is, in fact, a very material advantage. If you clearly and distinctly understand a subject, having sufficient time, you will be able to find suitable words to convey that meaning to others. Indistinctness in writing is almost always the result of indistinctness in the mind's conception of the idea. It is scarcely possible that, having a clear idea in the mind, there should be an inability to express that idea in writing. But as there is often felt a difficulty in fixing an idea readily and at once on paper; so it is certain that, if the same idea had occurred whilst speaking, it would either be rejected as inexplicable, or stated in a hurried, imperfect, perhaps unintelligible manner.

2. You complete your own plan. This is an important advantage attending written discourses. You are enabled, by this method, to do what is in your power. You are sure of filling up, if you are capable of doing it at all, the scheme of the discourse as proposed to yourself.

3. You may be correct. You may avoid the use of words which are low and too colloquial; and what is of far more consequence, the use of words which, though familiar to the writer, are above the range of the minds of the common people. "And it is astonishing, in regard to the very meaning of words most common in the usage of educated men, how much ignorance and misconception will be found to prevail among the uninstructed portions of our population. They attach a very different, if any idea at all, to the terms we should naturally employ; and the idea legitimately conveyed by the term is communicated among themselves by the aid of some very different expression." An advantage, then, of written discourses is, that a person has it in his power "to acquire the happy and attainable medium between coarseness and vulgarity of style, and that which is too polished and refined." Besides, if strict accuracy in expression be, on any account, desirable, it is best secured by a written discourse. II. The disadvantages of written discourses.

There is a certain degree of stiffness inseparable from written sermons. This is especially the case when they are very carefully and elaborately prepared, and where great attention is paid to the construction and order of the sentences. Besides, unless a written discourse be read with great freedom, it is, almost necessarily, more or less frigid and unimpressive. Of course, some very eloquent preachers read their sermons, and were tied closely to their MS., and yet were very striking and impressive, as e. g., the late Dr. Chalmers. But there is a disadvantage when the speaking eye of the preacher cannot meet the fixed eye of the hearer, and thus attention be increased and rivetted, and reciprocal benefit arise.

Again, a written discourse, if it be slavishly adhered to, will always be destitute of those glowing thoughts that start up unbidden and unexpected, the scintillations struck off from a mind warmed with the subject, which, with the promptly following ardentia verba, constitute no small part of the beauties of oratory.

III. The advantages of unwritten discourses.

We take for granted that there has been proper preparation -that the subject has been investigated and well-consideredthat the sermon is not, strictly speaking, extempore. It is said that Demosthenes refused to speak on one occasion, alleging as a reason, that he had too much respect for the people of Athens to address them in a crude and unpremeditated speech. And how much more, then, should the