Page images
PDF
EPUB

Surely Gregory would not, if among us, be able, without gross inconsistency, to side with the three Romish Doctors who have just been mentioned, and the Papal Zouaves! Has he not left upon record his firm conviction that "Whoever calls himself Universal Bishop, in his elation foreruns Antichrist (in elatione suâ Antichristum præcurrit)"? Will bishop Dupanloup and his fellow Doctors venture to deny that Pio Nono both calls himself, and desires to be called by others, Universal Bishop? nay, that he would not scruple to anathematise all who deliberately and on principle withhold from him the proud and cherished, but unscriptural title? May we not then ask, not without wonder at their profane rashness, how it is that bishop Dupanloup and Dr. Newman, Dr. Wiseman, and Dr. Manning, dare trample under foot the memory and testimony of the Great Gregory— with all his shortcomings one of the most illustrious of the bishops of Rome-by calling Pio Nono, whom Gregory's solemnly-recorded testimony plainly declares to be one of the precursors or forerunners of Antichrist, the Holy and Infallible Vicar of Christ, the Vicegerent of God upon earth? Yes, it is plain that Gregory's solemnly-recorded opinion and episcopal verdict virtually declare the long succession of Popes, from the day when Boniface III. wickedly sought and obtained from the usurper and murderer Phocas the evil and unscriptural designation of Universal Bishop, to be neither more nor less than a long succession of precursors of Antichrist.

But it may be said that Gregory would regard the Pope as only a precursor of Antichrist, and that we have no right to think that he would go so far as the good, and just, and pious Sir Matthew Hale, who did not hesitate to say that, if St. Paul's description of the Mystery of iniquity were inserted in the public "Hue and Cry," any constable in the realm would be justified in seizing, wherever he found him, the Bishop of Rome, as the head of that Mystery of iniquity.* It is one thing, it may be said, to regard Pio Nono as a forerunner, bearing a more or less imperfect resemblance to Antichrist, and another to look upon him as a part and parcel of the very Head of the Mystery of iniquity. In the latter case, we seem

*Since writing the above, we have met with two passages in which language quite as strong as that used by Sir Matthew Hale is employed. The first is from the pen of the learned and pious Archbishop Ussher, and is found in the eightieth Article of the Church of Ireland wherein it is said that, "so far from taking the Pope for the visible head of the visible Church of Christ upon earth, we doubt not that he is that Man of Sin and Son of Perdition whom the Lord will consume with the breath of

His mouth, and destroy by the brightness of His coming."

The second passage is found in the Assembly's Confession of Faith:-"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist. that man of siu and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."- Chap. xxv. Of the Church.

to consign him to inevitable perdition; while on the former supposition, that he is merely an ignorant forerunner of Antichrist, there is room for hope that he may be yet led to see the wickedness of the system in which he is entangled, and over which he presides, may abhor and forsake it, and become, instead of a triple-crowned Pope, a contrite and pardoned sinner, a penitent and humble believer in Jesus Christ. For our own part, we are quite willing to take the more charitable view, as we have long been inclined to regard the succession of Popes only as a succession of precursors or forerunners of Antichrist, as Gregory has described them, and to expect that the real Antichrist will yet be manifested in an individual, who will run a brief career of terrible antichristian cruelty, impiety, and blasphemy.*

Still, we think it not improbable that Gregory would make great allowance for Sir Matthew Hale's strong and decided views. If Gregory was so greatly shocked merely by the love and assumption of the title of Ecumenical or Universal Bishop, how much more so would he have been at the impious claim of infallibility, and at such a title as that of Infallible Vicar of Christ! And how would he have shuddered and recoiled from the ecclesiastical and papal greediness which, not satisfied with the titles of Universal Bishop and Vicar of Christ, could not rest without claiming to be Supreme and Sovereign Lord of all earthly kings and potentates, and profanely grasping the blasphemous title of God's Vicegerent upon earth. Pio Nono is, confessedly, if we speak the ordinary language of human society, a man not without amiable qualities, and too good for his bad position. Yet he could not refuse to join with Cardinal Antonelli in urging onward his armed Zouaves to a career of rapine and slaughter in Bologna, Perugia, and other Italian cities and towns, to retain his hold on these impious and blasphemous titles and the usurped power connected with themtitles and power which the Roman Gregory would be bound, in common honesty and consistency, to regard with almost as much aversion and horror as would the English Protestant, Sir Matthew Hale.

Nor is Gregory the only illustrious Doctor to whom Pio Nono stands opposed. In December 1854, the present Pope authoritatively, as Christ's Vicar, and Head of the Church, defined and established the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary; a doctrine which claims for her the honour due only to the Son of God, and asserts that she was conceived without the taint of original sin. Now, St. Bernard, one of the most honoured of Rome's canonised saints, "in a letter to the Chapter of Lyons, reproves them for having introduced into their Church the Feast of the Conception. In his much-quoted document he argues under the impression

that this innovation is a proof of their belief that the Conception. was immaculate, and accordingly he proceeds to reprobate that theory as absurd--for why, he asks, should not the same honour be assigned to the Virgin's mother, and so on, for ever?-as superstitious and presumptuous, because not authorized by the head of the church; and above all, as new."* In establishing this doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception, Pio Nono must appear to the majority of devout Protestants as the ignorant, ill-advised, and vain-glorious champion of that which is at once childish and absurd impiety, and fearful and satanic blasphemy.

[We must request that the opinion expressed as to the exact Antichristian character of the Pope, and the coming of a future and personal Antichrist, may be received as that only of the writer of the article. It is a point on which we wish to express no opinion.-EDITOR.]

CORRESPONDENCE.

SOME REMARKS ON READING ALOUD.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR-A notice of the bishop of Rochester, on the subject of candidates for holy orders being examined as to their power of reading aloud, has given rise to considerable discussion. That some such measure was greatly wanted, few would deny. It has been said, however, that other bishops have required their candidates to be examined on the same point; and it is implied, with too much truth, that no clear improvement has followed. It is not difficult to account for this. When a man read badly, the aforesaid bishops probably said something to this effect: "Sir, your reading is far from good; you will do well to endeavour to improve it." But the man was ordained, nevertheless. It is to be hoped that the bishop of Rochester will say similar case: "Sir, your reading is so far from good, that you will not be able to receive ordination at present; we shall be happy to see you again next June.”

in a

Some persons have considered it a hardship that candidates for ordination should be expected to read well, when the means of instruction in the art are few, or none. It may be useful, therefore, to make known more widely some directions on this point which would probably enable any man of ordinary intelligence, with a small amount of painstaking, to read in such a manner as to gain the attention of his udience. The remarks referred to are to be found at the end of Archbishop Whateley's "Elements of Rhetoric." The gist of his ystem is, that reading, to be good, should be perfectly natural; i.e., he attention of the reader should be carefully withdrawn from his voice,

* Quarterly Review, June, 1855. p 154.

&c., and fixed on the subject-matter of what he reads. His mind should be absorbed in his subject, and his voice allowed to follow its natural course, as in ordinary conversation. Any difficulty as to the loudness necessary, is easily overcome by the reader's occasionally looking at the person farthest from him, and addressing himself to him. The whole of Archbishop Whateley's observations, however, deserve to be most carefully studied by every man who has to read or speak in public.

It will be observed at once that the system completely strikes at the root of all affectation or acting, of which many are apprehensive (and with justice) when any mention is made of instruction in reading aloud. On this system the object is attained by the moral and intellectual elevation of the reader. It is not, of course, supposed that by following these directions all men will read equally well. The difference of their natural powers will prevent such a result. But it is believed that every man may bring himself to the greatest degree of perfection of which he is capable. A clergyman who has followed this system will not read the prayers, but pray them aloud. He will not murmur or shout the appointed passages of Scripture; but read them with such an intelligent interest as to draw the attention of his hearers, not to himself or his reading, but to the subject-matter of what he reads. To effect this object, every clergyman ought to study carefully every passage of Scripture which he reads aloud to the congregation. If it be a narrative, he should make himself thoroughly acquainted with its purport; if an exhortation, with its general tone; if an argument, with its drift, together with the objections of supposed interlocutors, and the answers to them;-if the passage be dramatic (like many portions of the prophetic writings), the reader should especially observe the change of speaker, or of the persons addressed. It is to be feared that not one clergyman in a hundred does this systematically.

It is, perhaps, allowable to add a few words on a cognate subject, Preaching; by which is here meant "Christian teaching addressed to a congregation acquainted with the facts of the Gospel." When the question is discussed, whether preaching from a MS. or extempore is the preferable plan, the disputants often fall into the fallacy of determining the question absolutely. Now, the fact is, that the question does not admit of an absolute decision, at least as far as any practical object is concerned. Probably few will deny that, cæteris paribus, extempore speaking is better adapted than reading to gain the attention of the audience. But such a decision of the question is of no practical value. First, the individual preacher must be considered. With many men no amount of practice would give even ease and fluency in extempore preaching. Shall we still say that it is the best mode of preaching for them? Secondly, the character of the audience must be taken into account. Where the congregation is wholly uneducated, a clergyman's poorest extempore lecture may be more profitable than his best written sermon. With a highly-educated congregation the statement may be, perhaps, exactly reversed.

Before, therefore, the question can be answered, whether a written or an extempore sermon is the more profitable, the question, "From whom?" and "To whom?" must be considered. To prevent mis

understanding, it may be as well to observe here that the following observations relate entirely to the intellectual, not to the spiritual preparation nccessary for preaching.

There will, probably, always be a large majority of our clergy, who will never find their extempore preaching profitable to their congregations. Our national character, our mode of education, our social customs, all forbid the expectation that more than a minority of our clergy should become generally effective extempore preachers. They must, therefore, write and read their sermons. But much, very much, may be done towards approximating the effect of a written sermon to that of an extempore address. A man may be quite unable to collect his thoughts on a given subject, and at the same time to express them in public. But he may divide the labour. He will, probably, find no difficulty in writing down in his study what he wishes to say in public. If he has accustomed himself to read to others, on Archbishop Whately's system, be will be able to deliver what he has written with an energy, a vivacity, and a natural expression which may be made to approximate closely, though, perhaps, never to equal those of extempore speech. If he is deeply interested in his subject, and in earnest in persuading or exhorting his hearers, his voice and manner will necessarily take much of the character of ordinary speech. Of course, what has been said relates only to the manner of preaching. But no manner, however attractive, would make many of the sermons we hear interesting or profitable. however, men of the most ordinary abilities would think over their text-would examine the context in the original language (at least, in the new Testament)—would try to write what they have to say in plain colloquial language, avoiding a superfluity of theological termswould bring their observations to bear on daily life; and would seek the guidance and blessing of the Holy Spirit in the use of these means, remembering that they are only means-we should then hear less about the length of dull sermons, and the impatience of weary listeners. Sir, yours, &c.

C. G. C.

If,

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

SIR,-Always refreshed by the calm and consistent tone of your advocacy of truth, I have, from many years' experience, accustomed myself to attach much confident reliance to such information and guidance as you judiciously give us from time to time, and am apt to seek sound information at your hands. Could you, or will some of your correspondents, enlighten me-an inquiring lay-Churchman-upon the claims of the Scottish Episcopacy on the sympathies of English Churchmen?

This question presses, by reason of some of the most able of our English prelates' obvious desire to raise the Scotch Episcopate from its low estate. In my simplicity I have always regarded this religious section, being north of Tweed, as respectable non-conformists, having, in fact, no part or lot in the Church as by law established. By the thirty-seventh Article of our Church, the supremacy of the sovereign

« PreviousContinue »