extemporaneous preaching. He certainly does not advocate that system on the ground which, we are satisfied, is the foundation of its popularity with many, an absurd, we might say, blasphemous interpretation of Matt. x. 19, 20. Indeed we think we may infer, both from his language and his practice, arguments which invincibly demonstrate the superiority of the system commonly in use with the English Clergy. But our readers shall judge.

It is not possible to say what is the best mode of preaching for every individual, because the talents of men are so various, and the extent of their knowledge so different. It seems at all events expedient that a young Minister should for some years pen his sermons, in order that he may attain a proper mode of expressing his thoughts, and accustom himself to the obtaining of clear, comprehensive, and judicious views of his subject: but that he should always continue to write every word of his discourses, seems by no means necessary. Not that it is at any time expedient for him to deliver an unpremeditated harangue this would be very unsuitable to the holy and important office which he stands up to discharge. But there is a medium between such extemporaneous effusions and a servile adherence to what is written: there is a method recommended by the highest authorities, which, after we have written many hundred sermons, it may not be improper to adopt: the method referred to is, to draw out a full plan or skeleton of the discourse, with the texts of Scripture which are proper to illustrate or enforce the several parts, and then to express the thoughts in such language as may occur at the time. This plan, if it have some disadvantage in point of accuracy or elegance, has, on the other hand, great advantages over a written sermon: it gives a Minister an opportunity of speaking with far more effect to the hearts of men, and of addressing himself to their passions, as well by his looks and gesture, as by his words.-Pref. p. xii.

"for

Mr. Simeon here unequivocally recommends written sermons some years," and that the extemporaneous plan should not be adopted until after we have written many hundred sermons." Let us examine, then, why a plan which works well, and exclusively too, for some years, and through many hundred discourses, is to be given up at last, for another which "has," it would seem, "great advantages over it. The value of the first plan is accuracy; that of the other, appeal to the passions, by looks and gestures. Now this advantage, if such it be, is equally attainable by means of a written sermon; for a written sermon may address the passions; and where the preacher has well mastered it, as is notorious from instances, looks and gestures will not be wanting; but the advantage itself requires to be qualified. Appeals to the passions are not, ordinarily, the best instruments either of healthful or of permanent conviction. Brutus and Antony may thus alternately command the crowd; and the same populace may shout "honourable man" and "traitor" almost in a breath. It was an appeal to the passions which changed "Hosanna in the highest" to "Crucify him, crucify him!" We do not, of course, deprecate all address to the passions. The gospel itself addresses them; those, at least, of love, hope, and fear; and many men require something of the

kind to arouse even their attention; without which, of course, the preacher's labours must be ineffective. But let our Lord's discourses be studied; how sparingly do they address the passions! yet how solemn are they! how affecting! how awakening! how convincing! We would not hear a Christian preacher deliver the tremendous truths of his commission like " the saying of a lesson;" but even this would be far preferable to much that we have seen in the way of " looks and gestures" in the pulpits of extemporaneous preachers. Decency is not enough, but indecency disgusts. But for this advantage, equivocal as it is, and attainable as it is under the ordinary method, Mr. Simeon would sacrifice accuracy; a quality, in a sermon especially, of the very first importance. We do not hesitate to say that no quality is of such rare attainment by speakers as accuracy; and it very often happens that the most fluent and eloquent speakers are the most deficient in this particular. Fox used to say of Pitt, with equal truth and generosity, "I am never at a loss for a word; but he is never at a loss for the word." Now it is the word which it is the especial province of the preacher to have always at command. In the study, the sermon writer will consider every word;-does it " accurately" express the required idea? does it express the idea clearly? will it be intelligible to the ordinary hearer? or, will it convey to him an idea different from that intended by the preacher ?—

all this is impossible in the pulpit; but is it unimportant? Surely none would say so, who had ever considered the importance of gospel ministration. Were the sermons of our most practised extemporaneous preachers taken down exactly in short-hand, which of them would sanction the publication precisely in that form? And yet the sermons have been so published, and in the most effectual manner; effectual, too, in no matters of temporary interest, but in regard to subjects which the most thoughtful approach the most tremblingly. One inaccuracy may have affected the salvation of a soul.

The authority of Charles II., who commanded the preachers before the University of Cambridge to discard written sermons, will scarcely be allowed much weight. Although ostensibly done to approximate our practice to that of the foreign Protestant Churches, the character of the prince forbids us to admit for a moment that this was the genuine motive. Indeed, in the order itself, the word Protestant does not occur; and it was the Romish, and not the Protestant practice, which the king had in view. We do not deny that the extemporaneous

66

system had been before that time much practised in the Church of England; and it was, perhaps, the general disadvantages which resulted from it that caused it then and afterwards to fall into disuse. We have said Mr. Simeon's practice as well as reasoning is not always in favour of the system he advocates. Notwithstanding the royal mandate, recorded in the university statute book, Mr. Simeon has invariably written the sermons he has preached in St. Mary's. He tells us that he does not think the extemporaneous system advisable "in all places," ‚”* and this, it appears, is one of them. And who that has ever heard Mr. Simeon in the University pulpit and in his own, could doubt to which the preference was due? Accuracy, which he, in common with all men of wisdom and candour," admits to be the honourable distinction of the written sermon, is remarkably conspicuous in Mr. Simeon's written compositions; it is from these that we extracted all that we adduced of solid and valuable in theology in our last number. When Mr. Simeon took pen in hand, he found that he could no longer indulge that loose and unsatisfactory course on the regeneration question, which his skeletons leave open to others and himself. He was obliged to submit to the constriction of the system; and under that constriction, the Proteus Arminio-Calvinism delivers a true oracle, and accords with the Bible, antiquity, and the Common Prayer. Of so much importance, even to sound theology, is accuracy of expression; and, indeed, we shall commonly find the best divines have written their sermons.†

2. As a practical commentary, the plan of Mr. Simeon's work is good; although, as we have already intimated, the reader must not expect to find it a perpetual commentary. He will, however, meet with some compensating advantages. No commentary, not even that of Henry, can go so minutely into the discussion and application of single texts, as a series of skeletons; and thus, if the reader find many, and important portions of Scripture unnoticed, he will find others not less important, thoroughly sifted and closely applied. This species of composition too is eminently useful to those clergymen who revive the true homily, the opλín, or familiar exposition of Scripture, which, however desirable, few clergymen have leisure to write. In continuous skeletons they will find almost all that it will be necessary to say.

Thus far then we have only spoken in the present number of the objects of the work. We must defer our consideration of their execution to another opportunity.

* Pref. p. xiii.

+ We beg our readers to refer to the Christian Remembrancer, Vol. XI. p. 36.

:

ART. III.-1. A Last and Summary Answer to the Question, "Of what use have been, and are, the English Cathedral Establishments?" with a Vindication of Anthems and Cathedral Services; in a Letter to Lord Henley. By the Rev. W. L. BOWLES, A. M. To which is added, an Answer to an Article in the Edinburgh Review, on the Relative Number of Learned and Eminent Characters furnished by the Scotch and English Churches. London Rivingtons. Bath: Carrington. Pp. viii. 117. 2. Remarks on the Prospective and Past Benefits of Cathedral Institutions in the Promotion of sound Religious Knowledge and of Clerical Education. By EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, B. D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christ Church, late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Second Edition. London: Roake & Varty. Oxford: Parker. Cambridge: Deightons. Pp. xii. 184.

WHEN the great Lord Bacon pronounced that "deans and canons, or prebendaries of Cathedral Churches, were of great use,” he little anticipated that such a manifest truism, as we shall prove this assertion to be, would endanger his well-earned reputation with the enlightened Christian infidels of the nineteenth century. Such is nevertheless the fact. The modern apostles of dissent would fain establish a railway, as it were, to bliss, and promote religion and morality by contract-would have that gospel, by which we hope for things eternal, taught at the least possible sacrifice of things temporal-would, in fact, reinstate the money-changers, and buyers and sellers in the temple of the living God-and renew the “abomination of desolation" which Cromwell and his army of dissenting regicides perpetrated-and which still, like the brand on the forehead of Cain, remains an indelible mark, by which these Reformers may be known from Christians, and their real views held up to execration. The print of the horse-hoofs of these impious violators of the "holy of holies" is still visible in many of our cathedrals-even within the very altar rails, where we commemorate the sacrifice of the Lord "that bought us," traces of their sacrilegious hands may be discovered—and well do the present generation of Cromwells vindicate their claim to such a worthy parentage, when they exclaim with the immaculate Lord Teynham, "Of what use are Deans and Chapters?" and when, with the diabolical spirit of the Westminster Review, in speaking of our venerable cathedrals, they cry, "Down with them, down with them, even to the ground; why cumber they the earth?"

Were the enemies of our Church, however, confined to parties so utterly worthless, both in mental calibre and popular weight, as these dissenting brawlers, we should have little to fear. The audacious falsehoods uttered by Dr. Bennett at the Poultry chapel-the wild ravings

of the disciples of Irving-the blasphemies of Taylor and Carlile-the Christ-denying doctrines of the Socinians-the impieties of Howitt-all levelled, as they are, not at the Church of England alone, but at the root of all religion, are sources rather of pity than alarm. But when men, under the guise of friendship, sap and mine the altar-when certain Latitudinarians connect themselves with the Humanitarians, or any other herd of schismatics, for the purpose of injuring that stately fabric, which, having sworn to defend, they are conscious of having betrayed, it is time for all true sons of the Church to arm for the conflict, and go forth against these suspected friends-conquering, and to conquer.

The question, in fact, has arrived at this crisis-Whether the Church of England is to be bound hand and foot, and delivered up to the will of her enemies-whether an ancient and venerable structure, founded by the wisdom, and consecrated by the blood, of its first immortal architects, is to be levelled with the dust, merely because a few minute philosophers have discovered that its proportions are not strictly geometrical, and because certain "malignants" find it an obstacle in their road to universal anarchy? Both these parties are aware that, to use the language of a distinguished author, "The property of the Church and the British Constitution began to stand, and will inevitably fall together; and, that if innovation successfully assail the one, the days of the other are numbered also." The Dissenters, therefore, attack her proportions, hoping to have the job of reconstructing the edifice; as the dissenting preacher, Dr.! Bennett, significantly asked, (from the pulpit too!) when discussing the glorious spoliation of city churches, as his tolerant and Christian party call the impious desecration of God's altars, and the unhallowed disinterment of the dead-" Why did not the Dissenters obtain them?" In other words, why are not places, devoted to the service of the Most High for so many generations-in which an apostolic succession of the priesthood has been accustomed to officiate-given up to a class of men who have no part nor portion with that priesthood, inasmuch as they deny the validity of episcopal ordination, and thus call in question one of the most important features of that ecclesiastical constitution ordained by Christ himself and perpetuated by his Apostles?

The malignant infidels who constitute the other division of our assailants, repudiate even the semblance of any religious profession; and boldly declare, that, like Belshazzar, they are prepared to defy the God of heaven, and convert his temples into change-houses, and the sacred vessels consecrated to his especial service to the, with them, ordinary purposes of rioting and drunkenness.

In such a state of affairs it is a natural, nay, even an imperative duty for Churchmen, to be on the alert. And, fortunately, we possess