without going so far as to reach the region of obscurity-in always employing indigenous thoughts on topics in which it is impossible to be original-in great histrionic skill, as far as the gravity of the pulpit allows it-and in a constant earnestness and sincerity, without which the powers I have mentioned would be insufficient and worthless in the hands of a clergy

We heard Mr. Sortain only after his nerves were shattered, and his voice in the pulpit had become little more than an audible whisper, a year or two before his death; and it would be unkind, and indeed unjust, to correct these lofty eulogies by our own impressions. Nothing, however, remains from his pen which will lead the next generation to place him in the first rank of Christian orators. Indeed, Mrs. Sortain allows "that it has, perhaps, with truth been remarked, that nothing which Mr. Sortain ever printed gave a fair idea of his powers as an orator." Robert Hall wrote but little, but what he wrote was of the highest order of excellence. We have from his pen some of the best reviews, and several of the best sermons, viewed as specimens of pulpit eloquence, which the English language has produced for upwards of a century. His treatise on the Work of the Spirit (long since on the list of the Tract Society) has never been surpassed. Mr. Wilberforce, whose kindness to young men endears his memory to many who are now no longer young, once read to us the concluding passage in which "the gales of the spirit" are so exquisitely described as the seasons "when the believer should spread every sail and launch out into the deep of the Divine perfections;" adding the remark, that it had affected him as much as anything he had ever met with. His sermon on the "Sentiments proper for the present crisis" has no superior in declamatory, nor that "On modern infidelity" in argumentative, eloquence. It would be an affront to the just reputation of Mr. Sortain, to attempt a comparison of any of his writings with models such as these.

But there are higher attainments, and far more to be coveted, than those of the profoundest intellect, or the sublimest eloquence. For more than a quarter of a century Mr. Sortain was a consistent Christian, a faithful, and no doubt a successful, minister of Jesus Christ. His character was meek and gentle, and of overflowing tenderness and love. His letters to the young people of his bible class appear to us to be the most valuable part of the volume; and we do not wonder that children and young people loved him, for he appears to have loved them with an affection almost romantic. The Christian of experience, the tried and doubting Christian, the shrewd and battered man of the world; these belong to a class to whom Mr. Sortain's mission did not extend. It was his calling

rather to deal with gentle natures, and to guide them into the way of peace, and, like his Master, to carry the lambs in his bosom. It was not his vocation to lead the veterans and to cheer on the van of the great Christian army, and help them in the fiercer conflicts of the spiritual war. But his post, though less honourable, was well sustained, and he too has fought a good fight, and finished his course, and has now entered into the joy of his Lord..

CORRESPONDENCE.

PROFESSOR HAROLD BROWNE ON THE CAMBRIDGE
THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-In the October Number of the Christian Observer there is a severe article on Cambridge Theological Examinations, with something like an insinuation against myself. Will you allow me a few words in reply? First, let me express my entire accordance with the sentiments of Dr. Vaughan, quoted by your contributor. I cordially agree with him in the belief that an extension of theological teaching in the universities would be far better, tending to produce a more catholic and enlightened spirit in our clergy, than the multiplication of local theological colleges.

Next, whilst I acknowledge the deficiency in amount of our present Cambridge teaching, having been myself always a zealous advocate for its increase, I must say, that your October article undervalues it. The lectures in many colleges are by no means confined to Paley and Greek Testament; and indeed, even if they were, thoroughly good Greek Testament lectures may embrace very extensive theological teaching. But, moreover, there are constantly public university lectures, by the four Divinity professors and the professor of Hebrew, in the Old and New Testaments, in church history, in Christian doctrine and the history of doctrine, in the controversy with the church of Rome, in the duties of a parish priest, &c. &c.

The real mischief is, that young men, instead of availing themselves of the helps afforded them, prefer to put off the study of divinity to the last possible moment, and then to "cram up," by the aid of a private tutor, that which of all things in the world is the most unsuited to the cramming process. Hence the wretched examinations too frequently passed by them, and the wonderful rapidity with which they forget all that they have so imperfectly acquired.

The statement that young men are obliged to go into the theological examination a few weeks after their B.A. degrees, is wholly unfounded. There are now two principal examinations for B.A. degree in the year, one in January and one in June; and there are also two theological examinations, one in April and one in October.

A graduate can choose his own time for going into the latter; he can put it off for as many years as he likes. The only restriction is that, if he competes for honours in theology, he must compete either in the first or the second year from his B.A. degree. If it were otherwise, we might have tutors of colleges competing with men who have just taken their B.A. degree. I have myself examined M.A.'s of twenty years standing; but, of course, not for honours.

As to the character of the examination itself, I am not concerned to deny that occasionally injudicious papers have been set. I never knew any examination anywhere, of which this might not be said. But the greatest care has been taken to select able men for examiners. The rule is, that two professors and four other persons elected by the senate shall examine every year. I have never yet heard the papers set by the professors objected to; therefore I will not defend them. Of the other examiners it may suffice to observe, that they have been selected from the ablest tutors of colleges, and other persons of the highest standing and best repute as Christians and divines in the university, and with special care that no theological party shall be allowed to preponderate. The present system has only been working since 1856, in which time there have been on the whole fifteen elected examiners. Several of them have already been chosen to important posts in the church,-e. g., Mr. Gell, now bishop of Madras; Mr. Ellicott, now dean of Exeter; Mr. Lightfoot, now Hulsean professor of divinity, and chaplain to the Prince Consort; Mr. Purton, examining chaplain to the bishop of Worcester. There have been two out of the three tutors of Trinity; one of the tutors of St. John's; one tutor of Corpus ; the others being distinguished Fellows of Trinity, King's, St. John's, and Corpus. What better can be done to secure good examinations than the appointment of good examiners?

And now for the specific charge that my book on the XXXIX. Articles is made a text-book. Let me say first, that I myself never examined in that subject. I have steadily refused to do so. The only persons whom I can remember as having examined in the Articles, are the bishop of Madras, Mr. T. T. Perowne, Mr. Barrett of King's, the dean of Exeter, and the late archdeacon Hardwick. They were men of very different shades of opinion; all, I am thankful to say, friends of my own; but none very likely to wish "to stamp my mind whole upon a section of the clergy.' The first two have been generally considered, and probably the third also more or less, as belonging to the same school of theology with the Christian Observer, and so are not likely to be condemned by you. Dean Ellicott is justly praised by your contributor for his moderate views. There remains the late lamented archdeacon Hardwick, whose paper I remember, because I specially observed it, as the only one I had ever seen which could not possibly have been answered by a man who had read my book only. The real reason why questions may seem to be set from my book is, that my book is a larger book, and embraces a larger extent of subjects, than any other book on the Articles. No fair paper could possibly pluck a man who had fairly read my book. But we have no text-books in Cambridge. It really is a fact, that Cambridge is one of the very few schools of theology connected with the church of England, in which my book has not been adopted as a text-book.

Not only is it adopted in most English and Colonial theological colleges, but universally throughout the episcopal church of America; besides being very generally recommended by bishops' chaplains of opinions as different as the bishop of Exeter's and the late bishop of Durham's (bishop M. Villiers). Cambridge, then, is really the very last place chargeable with forcing my book on its students of theology. I repeat, that I myself never examine in the subject; I never recommend the book; and if any personal influence of mine has recommended it, it has been an influence wholly unknown to myself.

It is a great pity that, instead of fighting with imaginary grievances, your contributor did not point out the real defects of the theological education at Cambridge. Those amongst us who are anxiously desirous of seeing it extended and improved, would welcome any aid which was fairly given us in that direction.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your faithful servant,

Cambridge, Nov. 26, 1861.

E. HAROLD Browne, Norrisian Professor of Divinity.

[We do not wish to reply to professor Harold Browne. The question between us is now fairly before our readers. Let it be decided upon its own merits. But as we seem to have been misunderstood, we think it due, both to the Professor and ourselves, to offer a few words in the way of explanation.

The Professor intimates that we have made something like an insinuation against himself. We can assure him that nothing was further from our thoughts, and we can only express our regret that he should have taken anything we said in this light. We protested against the method of examination pursued on the Thirty-nine Articles, and we added, "It is more properly an examination on professor Harold Browne's book on the Thirty-nine Articles;" a book from which, we went on to say, we differed on some points of doctrine. Surely there was nothing in this statement that can be fairly construed into an imputation on the author personally. If professor Harold Browne will do us the favour to refer to our Number for May, 1860, pages 342-344, he will find that we there explained more at large the reasons why we were dissatisfied with the theological training of the university, indeed of both our universities, and on what doctrinal points we thought his own work on the Articles defective or erroneous; but on reference, in neither of our papers-that of October last, or that of May, 1860-can we find anything personally offensive to professor Harold Browne. He himself places even in a stronger light than we did the fact, that a knowledge, not so much of the Articles themselves, as of his own view of the Articles, is essential for the success of every candidate for the voluntary. "No fair paper could possibly pluck a man who had fairly read my book." We contend that, as Butler says, "the Bible is, after all, what it is," so the Thirtynine Articles are what they are; and it is an act of injustice both to the student, the university, and the church of England, to make the success of any candidate depend, not upon his knowledge of the Thirty-nine Articles as compared with Holy Scripture, but as viewed through the lens either of bishop Burnet, professor Harold Browne, or any other commentator. We repeat, what was well said

by Dr. Vaughan in May last before the University, "it is a resolute endeavour to stamp one man's mind whole upon a section of the clergy." Such must be the inevitable consequence. Though we would by no means be understood to imply that this is the design of the examiners, still less of professor Harold Browne.

With regard to the lectures of the different Divinity professors, we must repeat that, however excellent they may be, they are, as a matter of fact, of very little avail to nine-tenths of the students who pass through the university of Cambridge. Till they take their Bachelor's degree, they are, or ought to be, hard at work in daily preparation for their own college lectures, and for the final examination in the Senatehouse. Then comes the voluntary, or theological examination, a few months after. No, says the Professor; not necessarily so; the student may postpone it for a year, or five years, if he likes; he may please himself. No doubt he may, if his friends are rich, or if he himself has been one of the few choice men who remain at college a young Bachelor rejoicing in a fellowship. He may take his time, and postpone his ordination till he is seven or eight and twenty. Boswell tells us, that when it was remarked in Johnson's company, "The law is open to every man," his answer was, "So is the London Tavern." But, after all, we believe that there is no real difference between the Professor and ourselves. We are greatly dissatisfied with Cambridge as a school for the Christian ministry. We believe that professor Harold Browne, in our circumstances, would be just as much dissatisfied. He would feel that it is a bitter mockery to the candidates, who cannot obtain Orders until they have passed the examination, to tell them that they need be in no haste about it. He would feel with their parents, that it is a cruel thing to throw impediments in the way of their sons, whose expensive education is met in too many an instance by the sacrifice of many reasonable indulgences, if not necessities, of life, on the part of every other member of the family. Above all, he would feel-we are persuaded he now feels-that the examinations are not such as to direct the theological student to those great essential points, both of practice and doctrine, on which, under God, the efficiency of their future ministry depends. For our own parts, it is with the feeling of something like shame that we turn from the curriculum of some dissenting colleges, and contrast it with our own meagre and yet harassing theological examinations at either university.-EDITOR.]

REV. G. S. BULL ON THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR, The Congregational Union met in October, at Birmingham. Four or five hundred ministers, of the Baptists, the Independents, and some of the lower offshoots of Methodism, with a considerable number of "secular" members, were then and there assembled. There was an unusual paucity, at their meetings, of purely religious subjects. The irreligion of the vast masses of the people, well