by it? "After three hundred years of discussion and experiment with reference to the advantages and disadvantages of reading, the best modern opinion is in favor of the primitive mode of extemporaneous address, rendered, however, as nearly perfect as possible by collateral and auxiliary writing."-P. 325. If, as M. Bautain says, "a man may certainly become a great orator by writing speeches and reciting them well, as Bossuet, Bourdaloue, Massillon," we reply, it might be possible for a Bossuet and a Massillon to do it on set occasions, or "speeches," or in a given number of sermons, but the pulpit can never be circumscribed by this limit. M. Bautain himself, in his most admirable treatise on the "Art of Extempore Speaking," has opened up a better way, the highway of nature and all sound philosophy, to the highest success in oratory. By extempore preaching we do not mean preaching without premeditation as to the matter and arrangement of thought. Extemporization extends to the words and style only. Between thought and style there is a natural relation. Thought, enlivened by feeling, will take on a form of words, according to an internal law of suggestion and fitness, more accurately, tersely, and effectively than by any labor of the reflective reason. Thought is but the inner soul of language, and language is but the organic outgrowth of thought. The best general regulating and generative principle of style, in a cultivated mind, is the conception of the speaker. Where an accurate and general knowledge of words has been already acquired, and a competency of knowledge of the subject attained, there a lively conception of the things to be said and an interpenetration of the soul with the moral worth and importance of the theme, will furnish to the disciplined mind the best and surest sources of appropriate style. What a man conceives thoroughly and feels vividly, he will express as accurately as it is possible with his knowledge of language. And it must be remembered that when the Spirit "teaches in that same hour what one ought to speak," it is not by teaching the meaning of words. never before learned, but by helping the suggestive faculty, and bringing to remembrance words and images already stored in the understanding. If a subject has been intellectually elaborated, arranged, and impressed upon the mind-impressed in the determined order of discussion and delivery—and this plan written out, to be used if need be as a prompter to the memory, words will flow with ease and fitness, and with a power proportioned to the force with which the subject impresses the mind of the speaker. On a subject upon which volumes have been written we can do no justice in the compass of a few sentences; but we take the occasion to lift the voice of warning against the habit of reading sermons, unhappily increasing in many parts in the Methodist pulpit; increasing, too, at a time when the best and wisest men of other Churches are striving after more of the freedom of extemporaneous address. Our author has done an excellent service to the Church in candidly discussing this subject, and showing the preponderant weight of opinion and philosophy where it belongs on the side of extemporaneous speaking. Dr. Spring, in his "Power of the Pulpit," quotes high authority both from Andover and Princeton, showing that preaching has declined in power during the present century. If we were to venture a suggestion as to the cause, we would say there has been too much reliance upon the manuscript and not enough upon the inspiration of the subject; and also that sermons have too much emanated from the college stand-point, and not enough from the inner life of the preacher, and the yearning love of souls. We claim for the pulpit all the knowledge which is legitimate for the purposes of interpretation of Scripture, the illustration, defense, and enforcement of theological truth, and all that discipline and culture needed for the agreeableness and practical efficiency of the delivery of that truth, with all the freedom which the nature of the case requires, the authority of Scripture sanctions, and the Holy Ghost inspires. ART. VII.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. PROTESTANTISM. GREAT BRITAIN. THE ESSAYS AND REVIEWS-SYNODICAL CONDEMNATION-THE POWERS OF CONVOCATION.-A novel and very important step in the case of the Essays and Reviews was taken by the Convocation of Canterbury, in the session which commenced on the 21st of June. As we have carefully traced the history of this important case in the previous numbers of the Methodist Quarterly Review, our readers may remember that soon after the first excitement produced by the publication of the Essays and Reviews, the Lower House of Convocation prayed the House of Bishops that cellor what notice the government intended to take of the judgment recently pronounced by Convocation upon the Essays and Reviews. Lord Houghton reviewed the history of Convocation from the time of Queen Mary, when it condemned the Book of Common Prayer, down to the controversy over Bishop Hoadley's sermons, which caused the suspension of the functions of Convocation for more than a century, and he inquired of the Lord Chancellor whether the recent proceedings of Convocation were legal. The reply of the Lord Chancellor is to the highest degree insulting, not only for Convocation, but for the Church of which the Convocations of Canterbury and York are the highest ecclesiastical boards. To the functions of Convocation he referred in these contemptuous remarks: action should be taken in condemnation of the book. The subject was, however, postponed, on the ground that the question would come before a legal tribunal of which some of the bishops were members. The judicial committee of Council having given judgment, the subject was renewed at the ensuing session, and a committee of the Upper House was appointed to examine the book. That committee gave in its report on June 21, specifying several errors of doctrine in each of the Essays, and ending with a formal condemnation of the book. The adoption of the report was moved by the Bishop of Oxford, and opposed by the Bishop of London, mainly on the ground that it was undesirable to revive interest in a book that had well nigh passed into oblivion. The report was, however, adopted, and a formal condemnation passed, only two of the bishops, those of London and Lincoln, dissenting. The Archbishop of Canterbury very emphatically expressed his concurrence in this course, stating his belief that if they did not adopt it they would be betray-ings; the second is, when they seem ing that trust which their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had committed to them. He decided that that moderate condemnation should be the act of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. The censure was conveyed in the following terms: That this Synod, having appointed committees of the Upper and the Lower House to examine and report upon the volume entitled "Essays and Reviews," and the said committees having severally reported thereon, thus hereby synodically condemn the said volume as containing teachings contrary to the doctrine received by the United Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church of Christ. This resolution was then sent down to the Lower House, where, after long and animated debate, in which the "synodical" condemnation of the book was especially opposed by Dr. Stanley, it was concurred in by a majority of 39 to 19. The statesmen of England regard it as doubtful whether the bishops have, according to the law of England, the right to condemn a book. An important and interesting discussion took place on this subject in the House of Lords on the 15th of July. Lord Houghton. (better known by his former name as Monckton Milnes) asked the Lord Chan Convocation when it is permitted to come There are three modes of dealing with into action and transact real business. The first is, while they are harmlessly busy, to take no notice of their proceed likely to get into mischief, to prorogue and put an end to their proceedings; the third, when they have done something clearly beyond their powers, is to bring them before a court of justice and punish them. In his opinion Convocation would transcend their power if they should attempt to pass any sentence, any ordinance, or any constitution without the previous license or authority of the crown, as, according to the laws of England, "the crown is the fountain of all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical and spiritual, as well as temporal." The consequences of a transgression of this law would be very severe for the bishops, a year's deprivation of their benefices. In view of these grave consequences, he, the Lord Chancellor, had shrunk from taking the first step of asking counsel in the matter. Moreover, the thing called a synodical judgment was simply "a series of well lubricated terms, a sentence so oily and saponaceous that no one would grasp it-like an eel, it slipped through the fingers." It was "simply nothing.' He warned the bishops to be in future careful not to trespass upon the prerogatives of the crown, and if Convocation should venture to take any such step, to leave the meeting. The replies of the bishops to this insulting speech were very feeble, none of them standing manfully up for the right of the Church to decide on heretical doctrines. THE CASE OF BISHOP COLENSOCHARGE OF THE METROPOLITAN BISHOP of Capetown-THE SENTENCE OF DEPOSITION-THE COLENSO CASE BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL.-In the colonies, some of the bishops are taking a bolder stand for the assertion of the rights of the Church against the State. This is, in particular, the case with the Bishop of Capetown, who is the Metropolitan of the Province of South Africa, to which the See of Natal belongs. The bishop has published the Charge which he, as Metropolitan, delivered in the Cathedral of Natal on the deposition of Bishop Colenso. This is a document of considerable importance, as it gives us the views of one of the metropolitans of the colonial churches on the powers claimed for this office. The bishop says that at a meeting of English and of Colonial bishops, which was convoked by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in 1853, it was resolved that metropolitans should be at once appointed over the Churches of Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, (Australia and the East Indies being already under metropolitans,) and the concurrence and joint action of the Crown in the appointment of metropolitans was sought and obtained. The Crown gave what force of law it was in its power to do to the decision of the Church, and proclaimed by letters patent the see of Capetown to be the metropolitan see of the province of South Africa, and the bishops of Grahamstown and Natal (the other sees were not then founded) to be under the jurisdiction of the same. Each of the eight South African bishops that have been appointed since the province was formed, solemnly swore at his consecration before God that he would render canonical obedience to the Bishop of Capetown as metropolitan. He, the Bishop of Capetown, was received by the Church of South Africa as metropolitan, and exercised that office for nine years. His jurisdiction was recognized by all, until recently Colenso denied it and protested against it, although he (Colenso) received his jurisdiction as bishop from the same source from which the Bishop of Capetown received his jurisdiction as metropolitan. The bishop then proceeds to review the relation of civil courts to the tribunal of religious bodies at great length, contending that he has assumed no greater power than would be conceded to a Roman Catholic bishop or Wesleyan superintendent. He denies that Colenso has a right to appeal from his decision to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, because this is a court of appeal only for the establishment, and purely because it is an establishment, with its whole status defined by statute law, and the non-established Churches of the colonies have absolutely no concern with it. He admits that Colenso may appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, but not against the sentence of the metropolitan, but against any person who may withhold funds from him to which he may think himself entitled. The bishop concludes by declaring the diocese of Natal a widowed diocese. He states that until the consecration of another bishop he has appointed the Dean of Natal Vicar-General of the diocese. Subsequently to the delivery of the charge of the metropolitan, the Dean of Natal, the Archdeacon, the parochial clergy, and the church-wardens of the diocese, signed a declaration, by which they pledged themselves not to recognize Colenso any longer as their bishop. The formal decree of deposition of Bishop Colenso was read after the Nicene Creed, on Sunday, the 25th of April, in the cathedrals of Capetown and Grahamstown, and on subsequent Sundays in the various churches of Natal, as well as in the chief church of each of the other dioceses included in the province. Opposition to the promulgation of the sentence was only manifested at D'Urban, the chief seaport town of Natal, where a protest was signed by twentyseven persons, and transmitted by the church-wardens to the metropolitan. On May 31st Bishop Colenso was served in England, where he was still staying, by Messrs. Brooks & Dubois, proctors for the Metropolitan Bishop of Capetown, with a copy of the decree of deposition. As this document is of considerable importance for the history of the Colenso case, we give it entire. It is as follows: Whereas, in and by the sentence pronounced by us, on the 16th December, 1863, against the Bishop of Natal, we did adjudge to suspend the operation of the for the purpose of affording the said Bishsaid sentence until the 16th April, 1864, op of Natal an opportunity of retracting and recalling the extracts therein mentioned and referred to; and whereas, the said sentence so delivered by us on the said 16th December, 1863, was personally served on the said Bishop of Natal, at No. 23 Sussex Place, Kensington, in the County of Middlesex, on the 26th January, 1864, as appears from the affidavit of service thereof, duly filed of record; and whereas, it has been proved to our satisfaction that the Bishop of Natal did not, on or before the 4th day of March last past, file of record with Douglas Dubois, of No. 7 Godliman-street, Doctors' Commons, London, proctor, solicitor, and notary public, our commissary in England, a full, unconditional, and absolute retraction, in writing, of the extracts so mentioned and referred to in the said sentence; nor did, on or before the 16th day of April instant, file with the registrar of this diocese, at his office in Capetown, such full, unconditional, and absolute rétraction and recall of the said extracts; and whereas, the said sentence has now, in terms of the provisions thereof, and by reason of the premises, become of full force and effect; Now, therefore, we do hereby adjudge and decree the sentence so pronounced on the said 16th of December, 1863, to be of full force, virtue, and effect from and after this date; and we do, accordingly, decree and sentence the said Bishop of Natal to be deposed from the said office as such bishop, and prohibited from the exercise of any divine office within any part of the metropolitical province of Capetown. (Signed) R. CAPETOWN, [L.S.] Bishop Colenso had already, before being served with a copy of this decree, issued a letter to his diocese, in which he disputes the power claimed by the Bishop of Capetown and the other bishops of South Africa to depose him from office. He maintains that of the nine charges brought against him, four have already been disposed of by the late judgment of the Privy Council on the case of the "Essays and Reviews." His friends in England, in the meanwhile, collected a fund to enable him to plead his cause before the English Courts. This fund amounted at the beginning of May to over £2,000. the letters patent granted to the Bishop of Capetown, in so far as they purported to create a court of criminal justice within the colony, and to give to the Archbishop of Canterbury an appellate jurisdiction, had been unduly obtained from her Majesty, and did not affect the petitioner's right. The petitioner also prayed that the pretended trial and sentence should be declared void and of no effect, and that an inhibition, as was usual in ecclesiastical cases, should issue against the proceedings under the sentence pending the appeal. The petition was ordered to stand over. The Colonial Bishoprics Council, in the meanwhile, decided to carry the amount hitherto paid as a stipend to Dr. Colenso as Bishop of Natal to a separate reserved account, pending a final and authoritative decision of the legality of the Bishop of Capetown's judgment. The interest of the Christian Churches generally, and especially the Anglican Churches, in the progress of the two great English controversies-the "Essays and Reviews" and Colenso-continues unabated. As soon as the Oxford Declaration (see Meth. Quar. Rev., July, 1864) was made known in Canada, the Bishop of Montreal proposed to the bishops of the provinces to circulate the same for signature in their respective dioceses, in order that they might show their full agreement on these great points of their belief with their brethren in England. This proposition was generally responded to; for from the pamphlet containing the "Canada Declaration," with the signatures, it appears that out of the whole province of Canada there are not forty clergymen who have failed to record their names. In the United States, twenty-two bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church issued in the papers of the denomination the following declaration, which the clergy were invited to sign: We, the undersigned, bishops and clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, hold it to be our bounden duty to the Church of England and Ireland, and to the souls of men, to declare our firm belief that the said Church, in common with our own and the whole Catholic Church, maintains, without reserve or qualificaof the whole canonical Scriptures, as not tion, the inspiration and divine authority only containing but being the word of God; and further teaches, in the words of our blessed Lord, that the "punish The first proceeding in England, connected with the deposition of Colenso; was commenced before the judicial committee of the Privy Council on June 23d. The petition of the Bishop of Natal prayed that her Majesty would be pleased to declare the petitioner to be entitled to hold his see until the letters patent granted to him should be canceled by due process of law, for some sufficient cause of forfeiture, and to declare that FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XVI.—42 |