THE Denison case, after long occupying attention, and continuing before the public, has at last, the various difficulties thrown in its way having been overcome, the obstacles to progress surmounted, reached an authoritative decision. In our last we stated that technical proceedings had been had before the Court of Queen's Bench. These were on May 22, 26, and 27. Directed, by an order previous to these, by the Court of Queen's Bench to proceed, the Archbishop of Canterbury finally, on Tuesday, July 22, commenced the hearing of the case at the Sessions Court, Bath, his assessors being Dr. Lushington, Dr. Heurtley, Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and the Rev. G. H. S. Johnson, Dean of Wells. Dr. Bayford and Dr. Phillimore were the counsel respectively for the prosecution and defense. The opening day and the next were occupied in preliminary proceedings, and the same game before pursued was continued, technical objections being urged, and in the case of the proof the publishing the sermons so successfully that the proof failed in that the third sermon and the cause went before the Archbishop on the two first only. The next three days were occupied with the arguments, and on Monday, the 28th, Dr. Lushington, for the Archbishop, adjourned the Court to August 12th, when he announced the decision to which the Archbishop, with the advice of his assessors, had arrived. The gist of the case may be briefly stated as follows: Dr. Denison holds that the body and blood of the Saviour are present not in a corporeal but spiritual manner, in the elements of the Lord's Supper, so that all, wicked as well as good, who receive the latter, receive the former also, and that though the bread and wine, as remaining unchanged "in their natural substances," are not to be adored, yet "worship is due to the real though invisible and supernatural presence of the body and blood of Christ" there. In reference to these doctrines the Court held that they were "directly contrary and repugnant" to the 28th and 29th Articles of Religion, and Dr. Denison was allowed to Oct. 1st, to revoke his errors, failing which, sentence would be given on Oct. 21st.

Thus have the Romish teachings of Dr. Denison, when brought to judgment, been as pointedly and authoritatively condemned as have the fripperies and superstitious furniture of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and St. Barnabas', Pimlico. Are we then to look for obedience from these disturbers of our peace, these adherents of Romanist errors in doctrine and follies in worship in our noble Protestant Church? Not so: we shall, we apprehend, witness the same disregard of the judgments of a legal tribunal in these cases, as of that laid down in the Gorham case, and of the authority of

bishops when bishops happen to be opposed to their views. Secession has been threatened; if carried out, the Church, while mourning the errors of those who might have been among her ornaments and supports, will be decidedly the gainer, and, freed from such enemies within the camp, will be the better fitted for her contest with those without and for her mission. This trial is a vindication of Dr. Ditcher, who has, through such varied difficulties and assaults on himself, bravely persevered in bringing the cause to trial.

The judgments in these two cases and the Gorham case, give the ruling of the Church too strongly to be misunderstood. It is surprising that such errors should be held in the Church which boasts her martyrs on this very question, and the 29th of whose Articles is entitled, "Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper." It is lamentable that men can be found who, with such opinions, can remain in a Church which so testifies against them. Yet these are the men who, condemned out of the Bible, by the Articles and by their own Church authorities, hold their heads high, indulge a tone of defiance, and arrogate to themselves the position of true Churchmen to which they have so little claim.

In the Church Furniture case, not long since decided by Dr. Lushington, the appeal has been argued, and Sir I. Dodson reserves his decision.

The Sunday bands question, so far as London is concerned, has received a nearly complete check by the action of Lord Palmerston. In the old royal Parks the bands have been stopped, but in Regent's and Victoria's Parks, which are constituted by authority of Parliament, government can, it is said, only interfere as an affair of police, and there the playing was continued after it had ceased in the former. The latest in reference to "The Sunday Bands Committee," is the announcement that they are behindhand over £126, and that the band playing would close in September; may we hope for ever? The Commissioners of Works have interdicted preaching in the Parks.

In Leeds, a number of the clergy protested against the profanation there, but we regret to add that the Vicar of Leeds, Dr. Hook, was not among them, but that he, in a sermon at the time, took different ground, considering the Lord's day as an ecclesiastical and not a divine ordinance, and that recreation on that day was not only allowable but desirable. In other places in the provinces the movement has produced fruit, the notes of preparation having been sounded, and committees formed, and bands having performed as at Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, and Leicester. At Birmingham the band has, it is announced, died; at Salford the corporation has prohibited one by 34 to 5; and at Manchester, a resolution regretting the introduction of Sunday bands, and requesting their withdrawal, passed by 27 to 18, has been answered by the committee acceding to the request, with an appeal to "working-men," which shows how unwillingly it was done. It is the working-man who would lose most by this scheme of Sunday desecration. At Canterbury too, an application for a band has been withdrawn. The signatures to memorials for and against Sunday desecration, are stated at 60,000 and 600,000 respectively.

The Rt. Rev. James Henry Monk, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, died at his residence, Stapleton, near Bristol, on June 6, aged 72. He had been Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge, then Dean of Peterborough, in 1830 Bishop of Gloucester, and in 1836, of Bristol, then united with it. He was liberal in his charities. His preferments were nearly all given to HighChurchmen, but he was fair in his bearing towards others. Recently the Bedminster Church case has brought his name forward. The separation of the two sections of the diocese was in consequence of this event agitated, but, we regret to say, not carried through. There was a report that the Rev. R. Chenevix Trench, well known here by his admirable works, and a broad Churchman, would be appointed to the vacant see, and it is probable that he had it nearly within his possession; but the Rev. Charles Baring, a younger brother of Sir Francis Baring, late first Lord of the Admiralty, was nominated. He, and Dr. Harper, Bishop designate of Christ Church, were consecrated Aug. 10th in the private chapel of Lambeth Palace by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Winchester, Chichester, and Oxford. The Rev. J. H. Gurney preached the sermon. We can congratulate the Church upon this appointment, as it was our privilege to do upon that of Mr. Villiers, and hope much from it in regard to the Bishoprics of London and Durham. Dr. Baring has the reputation of being strongly opposed to the old Oxford movement, and has recently been selected to preach one of the sermons against the new movement there. He has appointed the Rev. E. A. Litton as his examining chaplain.

Parliament was prorogued on July 29. The most exciting question towards the close of the session was on a bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor, to provide for the retirement of the Bishops of London and Durham. It provided for retiring pensions of £6,000, (with the palace at Fulham,) and £4500 respectively. It was warmly opposed in the House of Lords, Lord Redesdale leading the opposition, and the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford joining warmly in it; the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the bill. It passed second reading by 47 to 35, and third by 26 to 15, then passing, the Bishop of Exeter protesting. It passed second reading in the House of Commons by 151 to 72, and finally without a division; its advocates and opponents being mixed in their character. The arguments against it were that the measure should be general, and that it was simoniacal in its character. The reply to the first was want of time, and that even in a general bill, these cases must have been exceptional. As to the latter charge, it met with disfavor not alone from evangelical men, and it did not amount to much, nor had it probably much effect. The incomes of both these prelates were about three times the amount of pension settled in the bill, and the principle of pensions is so common in England and propriety of giving them in the cases of retiring bishops, accustomed to so much state by their very position, is so great, that the severe remarks against the Establishment which this proceeding elicited, might well have been spared. Especially in the case of the Bishop of London, a prelate known for his enlarged charities, is this to be regretted. The real reason, however, which arrayed such

a warm and determined opposition was, as was intimated by one of the speakers at least, and one of the High-Church organs, fear of the kind of bishops Lord Palmerston would appoint, if the bill passed. The opposition was a scarcely disguised party movement, which played into the hands of the maligners of the Church, and reflects no credit on the men who carried it on.

Both the Bishops in question are advanced in years, the Bishop of London 70, and he will have been 32 years Bishop; and that of Durham 86, having been in office about 35 years. The opportunity thus afforded for the division of these dioceses, it is reported, will be embraced in the former, though not in the latter case, and that London will be filled without a translation. We would be glad to see a more extensive division of dioceses, but perhaps of all others we should particularly be glad if the report as to that of London is correct. Among other reasons, Westminster Abbey would seem almost to invite such a measure, and the title of the Romish Bishop being taken from Westminster yet more.

Besides this, the Cambridge University bill has passed. The House of Lords struck out the amendment carried in the other House, by which Dissenters were admitted to the Senate, (not to enjoy the advantages of an University education, but to sit in the governing body,) by 72 to 25. Mr. Heywood, the principal mover in the House of Commons, however, failed in his object by 21 majority when the bill came back, and the amendments of the House of Lords were carried. The formation, etc., of Parishes bill, has also passed, one akin to the "Peel Act," and affording an increased facility of forming parishes, and the Church is for it largely indebted to the Marquis of Blandford, one of those admirable laymen, who do her great credit, as well as benefit.

The following measures failed to pass: the Abrogation of Oaths bill, an indirect mode to get the Jews into Parliament, the House of Lords standing firm against the measure; the Parochial School (Scotland) bill, on a clause in which providing that no confession of faith or tests should be required from any schoolmasters the two Houses disagreed, the House of Lords by 50 to 20 having voted against it; Mr. Spooner's Maynooth bill, which though supported by 6 majority, he withdrew on account of the parliamentary difficulties attending it; Sir W. Clay's Church Rates Abolition bill, and the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes bill. A motion of Mr. Walpole for an address on the modification of the national system of education in Ireland, was carried, but resulted in nothing practical; and one of Mr. Heywood's in relation to the revision of the English Bible, was opposed by government and withdrawn. A debate has occurred in the House of Lords in relation to the refusal of the Bishop of Salisbury to consecrate a burial-ground, but a bill prepared by Lord Portman in reference to it was withdrawn.

The Appellate Jurisdiction bill, though not an ecclesiastical bill, claims our attention. It provided for two deputy Speakers of the House of Lords, with life-peerages and a salary of £6000 to each. It is well, we think, that this bill failed to pass, and that the House of Lords stood out against the

attempt to create Baron Sir James Parke a peer for life. Baron Parke was subsequently created a peer in the ordinary way, and, however the government might have desired to test the question, and however proper it was to do this in the case of a person without heirs, we can not but regret its application in the case of one who has such high claims as that of the able and eminent lawyer in question.

Among the miscellaneous items of interest may be mentioned the following:

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have agreed to issue recommendatory letters, the Queen's letters having been discontinued, and selected the National Society as the object for the year.

Steps have been taken to form a Society to establish an agricultural colony of believing Jews in Palestine, to be also of a charitable and missionary character.

A new Free Church College has been founded in Glasgow, for which Dr. Clark of Moffat, gave ground and £40,000, and a similar sum has been raised by subscriptions, and four Professors chosen, Dr. Fairbairn, Dr. McCosh, Rev. James Gibson, and Dr. Buchanan. It is announced that Dr. McCosh has finally declined to accept this office.

The Rev. J. Macnaught's book, "The Doctrine of Inspiration," has met with a good deal of comment. He has been expelled from the Liverpool Clerical Society by an overwhelming majority.

A correspondence has taken place with the Rev. D. Wilson, Rector of Islington, for the establishment of a church with different church views from that of the parish. The Rector states, that 10 or 12 sites for new churches had been selected.

In the matter of the charge against the Rev. G. C. Gorham, for brawling in church, the commissioners to whom it was referred reported that there was prima facie ground for further proceedings.

The £600 per annum, for many years given to the Episcopal Church in Scotland, has been withdrawn.

A book called "Perversion; or, the Causes and Consequences of Infidelity: a Tale for the Times," ascribed to Mr. Conybeare, who was in part author of a work on "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul," and to whom a recent article in the Edinburgh Quarterly Review on "Church Parties," has been attributed, has been published. A statement has been made that he has resigned his benefice. Recently Dr. McNeile has written to Mr. Conybeare, on the part of the article in the Review, relating to himself, and some correspondence ensued.

The Council of King's College, London, has received £500 to be applied as a memorial of Sir R. H. Inglis, "from one whose family loved him." The Council have resolved to apply it and any other sums for a similar purpose they may receive, to the establishment of a prize or scholarship.

A committee has been formed to raise a memorial to Archdeacon I. C. Hare, and the intention is to found a triennial historical prize in the University at Cambridge, bearing his name.