tongues, and they attract attention, and make themselves known. Still they are what are called "talkers;" i. e. they have no real meaning in what they say. We do not assert that what they say has no real meaning, but only that they have no real meaning in saying it. They take their subject in hand, whatever it is; expand, adorn, and enrich it; they carry it into every variety of illustration, and work it up in the most approved rhetorical fashion. They are copious and ornate-ornate and copious. But with the ornateness and copiousness of the writer himself the matter begins and ends. He views his subject under the aspect of identity with the exhibition of his own powers in treating of it. Not that he is, of necessity, in the vulgar sense of the word, conceited: he may be; but he need only have the strong general desire inherent in a well-stored mind to unfold its own resources and fertility, and make those powers, which were obviously designed to show themselves upon the literary field, fulfil their object. He obeys the call of nature. The process of exhibition approves itself as the legitimate enjoyment of a cultivated intellect. He comes into the arena like a generous steed, performing its lively curvets and evolutions, and giving expression to the natural innocent display of a spirited nature. To ask the tournamenting charger, why do you rear, and why do you caper, and what is your object in this movement oblique, and that movement round about, would be plainly a vexatious question; because if the generous animal could express its feelings, it would say at once-" I really have no particular meaning at all: I perform my feats and agilities because it is my nature, and because I find my spirits elevated by the exercise. I delight in the free development of the graceful elements in my constitution, in high and salient and spirited movements. But, then, I have no particular meaning in doing this no deep ulterior object at all. It is only a large gay scene; there are a great many people looking at me; and I like prancing before the ladies."

Such, in effect, would appear the inspiring motive in many exhibitions of intellectual prowess that we see. The subject is ushered in and set going; the composition begins to roll; sentence after sentence marches in stately procession to the sound of the drum, with antithesis and imagery, banners and rich colours floating. What does it all mean? The explanation is simple enough: the author is on parade, and displaying his professional insignia. If he is sublime and imposing, rich and magnificent in the treatment of his subject, it is very fortunate for his subject that he is so. But it is an accidental piece of luck for it. It basks under a favouring sunshine, and is the happy material upon which the author brings his illuminating powers to bear. The subject, we say, is of an accidental, as distinguished from essential, importance in the author's scheme.

He hangs his imagery and diction upon it. Genius is the reality, the great fact in the case: its subject matter is secondary: it looks with the air of a patron upon the rude material which it moulds and ornaments. The final cause of all subjects, viz. that they should be written upon, is answered; the act of being copious and ornate is ultimate and conclusive; and the author rests with satisfaction in the result, and enjoys the light and sunshine of his own spreading. The view is, to a certain extent, a natural one; nor are we disposed to bring any charge against it, except that it implies a deficiency of object, of what is commonly called meaning, in the author. It must be doubted whether his proceeding has, in strict language, "sense" in it. With whatever shining qualities, brilliance, power, richness, attributable to it it appears to labour under this particular deficiency. For end, purpose, object, are things out of and beyond the rhetorical medium through which they are aimed at; whereas the medium, in this instance, is what arrests, captivates, and fixes. The author energizes like a musical composer, and produces what a musician does a composition. And, as in a musical piece, the reality is the composition itself.

--

Our readers will recognise, perhaps, the characteristics we have been giving, and we hope not overdrawn or exaggerated. The class of what are called "talkers" is by this time an esta blished phenomenon in the literary world; and, though often a mischievous one, we must add, in sincerity, often not intentionally so. They only give a somewhat grotesque turn occasionally to public thought, when it has fallen upon grave and serious subjects, and spread over a deep sombre state of general feeling, a too light, fantastic ripple--an avпpí0μov yeλáoμa. Nobody thinks of being serious on their appearance; when they come on the scene, somehow or other, every body smiles. They carry about with them a secret spell creative of levity. They disarm ill-nature. They and their ways are understood. "We know such an one,"—is the remark made.

We feel we have been giving too glowing a description of the class we refer to, and that the mass of what are called "talkers," are much duller, and more prosaic, than would be gathered from the above. We can only say that we have been unconsciously influenced all the time by the very high standard and exemplar of the class that we have had before us. Mr. Garbett is not an ordinary "talker." He stands confessedly at the head of his class. A great number are dull, heavy, flat; Mr. Garbett is, on the contrary, clever and brilliant. He has not only a great deal to say for himself, but says it with literary unction and richness. His is, in the Homeric phraseology, « divine” talk - θεσπέσιος ἀλάλητος. He is, moreover, we understand, an amiable and a good-natured man; and we really only know of one thing against him, which, after all, conveys no

violent moral censure, viz., that, whenever his name is mentioned, persons laugh. This appears to be a fact, as we understand from those who live within the sphere of his name-especially its academical sphere; and, however it may be accounted for, it is a remarkably significant and expressive one. That Mr. Garbett is clear and brilliant, everybody says; and then everybody smiles. And Mr. Garbett's fair name is of the nature of an April sky, shining full upon him, and ducking him most goodhumouredly at the same time.

And now, it may be asked, why take formal notice of a sermon preached by a literary theologian of this character? Why treat it with such gravity at all? We answer, simply because that sermon contained statements that ought to be noticed; because, independent of the question of what result or influence such statements might have, they ought not to have been made. The fact itself, independent of any ulterior harm it might do, called for attention. The fact was, that very light, supercilious, and heterodox views, had been put forward by Mr. Garbett, on most awful subjects; that the recognised Church doctrines of the Sacraments and the Church had been openly attacked. It was clearly wrong that this should take place; it was wrong that such statements should be heard, even if they were only heard and had no sort of influence whatever upon the minds of the audience, within the walls of the University Church.

And such notice is the more necessary when the party who has occasioned it, seems, from a variety of signs, to have a career of sermons before him, and to be disposed to follow up the obnoxious one with others of the same stamp. In such a case, there is a particular propriety in taking notice of a line of preaching, before it has gone further. Objections raised when a thing has been going on for some time are apt to be met with the question-Why did you not object before? In Dr. Hampden's case, it was asked-Why did you not notice him at the time? and the objection was much insisted on. Dr. Hampden really thought error; in Mr. Garbett's case, we think it is more talk than anything else. This makes no difference, however, in the external fact. Viewing these sermons simply as exhibitions, we say such exhibitions ought not to be made within the walls of the University Church.

So much for Mr. Garbett, and his sermon. To turn now to another part of the proceeding, in which another personage figures.

Nothing can be clearer than the line enjoined upon the ViceChancellor, by the strict letter of the statutes, in case of any sermon delated to him. He has, in the first place, to consider whether a rationabilis causa suspicionis" has been given by the delator; and if he thinks there is, then, secondly, to call for

a copy of the sermon, and, taking six Doctors of Divinity into formal consultation upon the matter, to examine its contents. The latter division of the business is one whole proceeding, which follows upon and after the former. To call for the copy of the sermon, and the examination of it, follows upon and after the acknowledgment of a "rationabilis causa suspicionis." The Vice-Chancellor is not told first to call for a copy of the sermon, and see, by examining it privately, whether it contains a "rationabilis causa suspicionis." This is to confound the two divisions of the matter. He is to consider whether there is a reasonable causa suspicionis" to warrant examination; that is one thing: and if he considers there is, he has to examine the sermon, together with six Doctors; that is another thing. Only one examination of the sermon is mentioned; that, viz., which takes place after a reasonable "causa suspicionis" has been acknowledged, and which takes place, when it does take place, in company with six Doctors.

66

But, with this statute lying before him, what course did the Vice-Chancellor pursue on the occasion of this delation? He sent for a copy of the sermon, to examine it by himself, and made that private examination the test as to the existence of a causa suspicionis." It is obvious that the "cause of suspicion" was created by what had taken place before. It was contained in the fact of an unexceptionable member of the Universitya sensible, a learned, able and conscientious man, stating, as a fact, that he had heard with his own ears unsound statements from the mouth of Mr. Garbett. Taking the lowest possible view of such testimony, it at any rate amounts to a reasonable cause of suspicion against the sermon. The natural question to ask, in such a case, is, Do you object to the nature of the testimony, and the character of the witness? If you do not, you must admit it as a "rationabilis causa suspicionis." The Vice-Chancellor did not object to the testimony, and yet he did not admit it. He put it, without assigning a reason, simply aside; and whereas the statute says, A sermon shall be examined by six Doctors if a reasonable cause of suspicion is given by any competent party whatever that heard it; the ViceChancellor, on the contrary, says, A sermon shall not be so examined, unless the Vice-Chancellor shall have previously read the sermon himself, and formed a determinate opinion of his own upon it. It is clear that the very phrase "reasonable cause of suspicion," is used in order to express some ground for instituting an examination of a sermon, other and less stringent than a prior examination of the sermon itself. You examine a sermon, i. e. examine the actual contents of the document itself, to know if you are to acquit or condemn it, not to know whether you are to examine it. Simply to know whether you should examine it, some lower ground is, in the nature of the case,

necessary; and this lower ground is expressed in the statute by the term "reasonable cause of suspicion.' Such reasonable cause of suspicion, though not sufficient ground for a sentence against a sermon, is certainly a sufficient ground for instituting an examination of it; and a regular examination of the sermon was all that was asked for in the present case.

How did the Vice-Chancellor act on a precisely similar occasion a year ago? When Dr. Pusey's sermon was delated to him, did he take upon himself a responsible examination of the doctrines in it, previous to deciding whether it should be examined by a regular Board or not? He did not. He simply accepted the delator's testimony; and, upon that testimony, placed the sermon before a Board. It was even particularly given out, and persons were told to understand, that the fact of a delation obliged the Vice-Chancellor to call in the Board of Heresy, and left him no option on the subject. He described himself as acting passively in the matter, and being the simple official executor of a step, which followed in course, upon such a call being made. The whole proceeding, in short, on his part, from the first delation to the final judgment, was asserted to be of this purely instrumental character: and as he was the mere passive executor of the delator's call in the first instance, so he was the mere passive executor of the six doctors' judgment in the second. Now a different rule is acted on. When Mr. Garbett's sermon is delated, so far from thinking himself bound to accept passively the testimony of the delator, the Vice-Chancellor sends for the sermon, and tests the delator's testimony by his own review of the document. He exerts, personally, the greatest judicial power on the point; acts as the sole and absolute judge as to instituting an examination or not; and takes upon himself the whole responsibility in the matter. Academical law is interpreted in one way in one year, and precisely the opposite the very next; and Dr. Wynter in 1843 and Dr. Wynter in 1844 contradict each other.

The contrast is more striking from the fact of general opinion, at the respective times, having declared itself so much more on the side of one delator than of the other. With respect to Dr. Pusey's sermon, the delator stood alone, as far as all signs went. All was quiet-the sermon passed off without a remark, and everybody was simply surprised when the delation was heard of, and could not conceive what it was for. In the case of Mr. Garbett's sermon, the opinion that it was a most heterodox production was very strongly and decidedly expressed within half an hour of the delivery, by a considerable portion of the University. A very unanimous and wide disapprobation was felt and shown. Yet the same Vice-Chancellor who had viewed himself as the passive recipient of the testimony of Dr. Pusey's delator, standing alone against Dr. Pusey; now made himself the active and responsible