Графични страници
PDF файл


that pots

rs with your father in 2010 748 Review.-Bloomfield's Recensio Synoptica Annotationis Sacra. I am glorified in them;" my glory consists in their fidelity, and their success in diffusing my religion." I shall be glorified in them, by their propagating my religion, communicating to others what I taught them, and making manifest among men my dignity of Messiah.” (Kuinoel, ap. field.) Ver. 22, The glory which thou gavest me I have given them.” I bave made them partakers in the honour and happiness of accomplishing the work for which I was sent. Ver. 24, “ I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 10

His glory, the accomplishment of the purposes of his mission, to which he had been chosen before the foundation of the world, he wishes that his disciples may at length be able fully to perceive by being admitted after their labours into that heavenly state upon which he is now about t enter. It appears, from a comparison of these passages, that the glory sought by Christ consisted in the success of his religion, and was to be participated by his faithful followers; that it could not be any personal benefit or any attribute of Deity, and that it could not have been actually enjoyed by him before, because it is described as resulting from the labours in which is he had now been engaged. The passages usually cited to prove Tapà ooi, with thee, in the last clause signifies in thy counsels and purposes set seem to us perfectly satisfactory; “ with respect to,” or “ in the estimation of,” being a common meaning of the preposition, and the difference .eit between geautớ and col suggesting the difference of sense between the two clauses. The use of sxeuv, to signify destination, is objected to by Tittunan and Lampe, who accuse the Socinians of trifling egregiously. Schleusner

, the however, expressly ascribes this meaning to the word habeo mihi aliquid a

Matt. vi. 1, moody oủk štete na på tố natpi óvão, “ Ye have no reward;" there is none appointed or destined for you heaven,” in his counsels and plans : nor can we think eixou TPD T8 Toy kouny Elvan, “ I possessed (meaning in the Divine decrees) before the world was," even putting out of the question the qualifying rapa coí

, more difficult than αρνίον έσφαγμένον από καταβολής κόσμου, or other similar passages referred to in our remarks on ch. viii . 58. Lampe's objection, founded on the use

of the word 8.6 cīday, in 2 Tim. i. 9, “ that it is one thing for any thing to be given, which signifies only the act of the giver, and another to have it,” is extremely trifling in relation to that passage, and is not applicable to the example we have now quoted, where an event is plainly spoken of as having taken place many ages before it actually occurred, because it was fully de termined upon in the Divine counsels. An observation of Mr. Bloomfield on ch. xx. 28, is worth quoting as coming from him. After endeavouring to defend the explanation (où el) kypsos jov,

" thou art my

Lord and my God,” he adds, “ It may, however, be justly doubted whether the so lately incredulous (because prejudiced and unenlightened) disciple had then for at any time before the illumination of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost) any com; plete notion of the divine nature of Jesus as forming

part of the Godhead.” We think, indeed, it may be more than doubted, but we hardly expected such an acknowledgment from our author, who has laboured so hard to prove that Jesus frequently and distinctly taught his divine nature. We think Mr. Bloomfield right in supposing that we are to take é Kúpos pou els pou as nominative cases, but surely the most natural way of filling up the imperfect sentence is “ my Lord and my God,” is here manifested, is the author of this wonderful miracle.

It is my Lord and my God.” The cient Syriac and Persic versions do not

, we think, sanction Mr. Bloomfield's


[ocr errors]



construction, though the Latin translations placed beside them in the Polyglot may in some degree do so. They are themselves as ambiguous as the Greek.

We must now conclude. Mr. Bloomfield has certainly made an important contribution to our English theological literature, and we trust he will be very useful in diffusing sound principles of scriptural interpretation. Much as we differ fronı him on many points of great interest, we highly approve the general character and spirit of his expositions, and are happy to ihink that they will probably be studied by many who have been accustomed to draw from very inferior sources.

that purpose,

ART. III.-Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching. By Henry Ware, Jun.,

Minister of the Second Church in Boston. Boston, North America, 1824.

This is a very elegant and pleasing essay, and in our opinion well deserves the compliment of a reprint in this country. It is divided into three chapters, in the first of which the author treats of the advantages of extemporaneous preaching ; in the second, he examines and endeavours to obviate the objections commonly urged against this practice; and in the third, he proposes some rules with a view to its attainment and cultivation. Though we are by no means disposed to go all his length in recommending the disuse of written notes as an habitual practice, yet many of his observations are unquestionably very just, and may at least serve to convince the reader that the power of occasional extemporaneous delivery in the pulpit is an important and valuable talent,--that to a considerable extent it is capable of being acquired, and will amply repay the labour which is necessary for

We should hesitate, however, in making this concession, if it should be thought necessary for the attainment of the desired facility in this talent, that it be made the constant or ordinary practice. We readily admit that there are occasions when the employment of unpremeditated language even in the delivery of premeditated thoughts is desirable in the pulpit, and Mr. Ware on the other hand acknowledges that the Christian preacher is called upon to treat of many subjects which are far from being well adapted to extemporaneous discourse. He, however, seems to consider the latter as the exception, and the former as the rule; to us it appears to be nearly the re

An important distinction is very properly insisted upon between extemporaneous speaking and that which is absolutely unpremeditated; while the former is recommended, the latter, when introduced into the pulpit, is justly stigmatized as an unwarrantable abuse of a valuable endowment. While the language is to be trusted to the moment, the thoughts are to be the objects of careful and attentive study, But how is this study to be carried on. With respect to the greater part of the topics with which the preacher is conversant, we are inclined to think that there is no way in which the business of previous preparation can be carried on so effectually and completely as by writing upon them. Every one accustomed to composition well knows that the very act of committing to paper his thoughts upon any subject, not only enables him to ascertain more exactly the extent and the deficiencies of his knowledge, but also tends very remarkably to render that knowledge more distinct and precise. This being the case, it seems to follow in general, that a preacher is scarcely warranted in attempt

ing to address a congregation, or can be considered as having given them all the advantage they are entitled to expect from the exercise of his abilities and industry in their service, unless he have previously devoted as much time and labour to the examination of his subject as would have enabled him to compose a written discourse, and even that in the conduct of his examination, if it have been pursued judiciously, a considerable portion of that time must have been occupied in the actual business of composition. They who suppose that by the mere animation or vehemence which they can communicate to words hastily poured off from a fluent tongue, they can dispense with previous study, or are authorized to put their hearers off with the crude, hasty, and ill-considered idea which may occur to them at the moment, certainly cannot be regarded as doing justice either to themselves, to their audience, or to the all-important truths on which it is their duty to discourse.

In estimating, therefore, the comparative advantages of extemporary and written sermons, the real question we have to consider is simply this; in which way is the preacher likely to make the most powerful impression on the minds of his audience, at the same time that he communicates distinctly and satisfactorily the requisite religious instruction ? Now, upon this point it is, perhaps, scarcely practicable to arrive at a decision which shall be fairly applicable to all cases or to all preachers. We hold that in respect of this, as of all other intellectual endowments, there are considerable original, and still more extensive acquired, diversities. There are some who, without any course of mental discipline which can be distinctly traced, find themselves possessed of a more than ordinary degree of self-command and Auency of language, while at the same time they have less aptitude for the labour of composition with the pen. But, without pretending to decide on extreme cases, we should venture to lay it down as a general rule, that most men, possessed of such habits of composition as are implied in the degree of intellectual culture which is admitted on all hands to be indispensable to the Christian minister, might be expected to compose a written discourse intrirsically superior to any which they could speak.

If ihis assumption be correct, as far at least as the ordinary routine, if we may so call it, of pulpit duty is concerned, we have only to inquire whether the superiority of manner ascribed to the one mode of preparation and delivery would more than counterbalance the superiority of matter, as we think not unreasonably expected from the other ? ' In discussing this point, at the same time that we are fully sensible of the justness of many of his remarks, we are inclined to think that Mr. Ware has been led into a fallacy hy uniformly contrasting the best forms of the one mode with the worst forms of the other ; taking it for granted that every extempore speaker must be animated and impressive, while every reader is unavoidably dull and uninteFesting. He speaks continually of the drowsy uniformity of the man that reads," "cold reading," “ indifferent reading,” &c. But is it necessary that reading should be drowsy, monotonous, cold, or indifferent? On the contrary, does not every one's experience bring to his recollection examples of preachers who have been in the general habit of reading written compositions, but who have, nevertheless, been remarkable for earnestness, rariety, impressiveness, and animation? It is a well-known fact, that many of the most eminent and popular preachers of the present day, such as Chalmers and Irving, are mere readers; the latter, especially, even slavishly confined to his notes. We are not recommending either of these distinguished men as models in pulpit eloquence; they are eminent, not in consequence, but in spite of, their peculiarities. We only bring them forward as proofs that dull and monotonous uniformity are not the inseparable con

comitants of written discourses; and it would be easy to cite

many instances both of living and departed excellence in preachers who have been deservedly acceptable, not merely 10 the refined and thinking few, but to numerous congregations, and who are not only known as readers of precomposed sermons, but are universally admired for correctness, elegance, and good taste. Certainly there is nothing in the mere act of reading which is inconsistent with a deep feeling of the importance and interest of the subject, with an earnest wish to impart that feeling to others, or with the capacity of pronouncing the prepared sentences by which it is to be imparted with energy, animation, and effect. It is not necessary that a reader should be fixed like a statue, that his eye should be constantly fixed on his paper, or that he should express himself with cold and lifeless monótony. If he have real sincerity and feeling, it is unquestionably practicable for him to deliver in public what he composed under the influence of this feeling, in such a manner as to communicate it to his hearers.

“ The cold reading of what a man wrote, perhaps, with little excitement and delivers with less,” is doubtless flat and unprofitable enough; we should say, however, that this was to be ascribed not to his reading, but to his bad reading; and should be inclined to address to him our author's exhortation not to attempt to exercise in 'public an art of which he had neither studied the principles nor applied the rules to practice. It appears, therefore, that the evil complained of arises, in a great measure, not from any thing inherent in the method itself, but from the bungling and imperfect manner in which it is practised by many who are contented with being able to read, but to whom the art of reading well, with correctness, propriety and good laste, has never occurred as an object worthy of serious considera

That such imperfections may be removed, the success of many eminent and highly popular preachers who read their sermons, is a sufficient proof.

“ In the inquiry,” says Mr. W., "which of the two methods is to be preferred in the pulpit, we must consider, not which has the most excellencies when it is found in perfection, but which has excellencies attainable by the largest number of preachers. (P. 18.) This is certainly a very important point to be attended to in instituting this comparison, and in our judgment it seems materially to influence the result; because it will scarcely admit of a question, that the number is much less of those who are capable of becoming good extempore speakers, than of those who can learn to read with propriety a discourse recently composed under the influence of right feelings, when the train of thought and argument pursued in it is deeply impressed upon their minds. And this leads us to observe, that as it is not necessary that a sermon should be read in a dull and lifeless manner, so it is not necessary that it be written with liule excitement of feeling. If a sermon produced under such circumstances is dry and uninteresting, and consequently fails of working a desirable effect upon the audience, may we not say that it is not because it is written, but because it is ill written ? A man of learning, well accustomed to the business of composition, may nevertheless forget, when employed in preparing himself for the pulpit

, that he is not engaged upon a moral essay or a critical dissertation intended for the press; and in that case, whatever correctness, elegance or ability, his production might display in other respects, we should not hesitate to pronoucce it an ill-written sermon. But surely it is not impossible that a discourse intended to be addressed to a numerous audience, in circumstances of solemnity which ought to be attended by considerable elevation, if not excitement, of feeling, should be composed under the influence of a constant recollection of its intended object. This


recollection,carefully preserved, will infallibly produce, if the mind beotherwise well-disposed and prepared, such a degree of warmth of feeling even in the leisure and retirement of his study, as will enable him to communicate to his composition its appropriate and essential character. A written sermon is a discourse of a distinct species, the preparation of which is an art which has its own peculiar rules. That it has also its peculiar difficulties is readily admitted ; but they are difficulties which may be surmounted by attention and perseverance; and it is reasonably expected of the preacher that lie exercise this attention and perseverance in the due discharge of his office.

Not only a warmth, but an ease and rapidity of composition in every variety of situation, is frequently very important to the Christian minister in his preparation for the stated duties of his office, and more especially for occasional services; and this, too, is capable of being acquired by practice

. This species of extemporaneous writing is an art possessed in high perfection by some of those who are but little distinguished for Auency of speech, and has frequently enabled them, on very short notice, to avail themselves of peculiar circumstances and unforeseen emergencies with no inconsiderable readiness and propriety. Still, however, it must be admitted, that a minister is liable to be placed in situations where no adequate substitute can be found for the easy and correct delivery of unwritten discourse. And this furnishes a strong recommendation, not, we think, of the habitual practice, but of such intellectual exercises as are necessary to secure the power of extempore speech. It is forcibly urged by Mr. W. in the following passage :

“ Occasions will sometimes occur when the want of this power may expose a minister to mortification, and deprive him of an opportunity of usefulness. For such emergencies one would choose to be prepared. It may be of consequence that he should express his opinion in an ecclesiastical coincil, and gire reason for the adoption or rejection of important measures. Possibly he may be only required to state facts which have come to his knowledge. It is very desirable to be able to do this readily, Auently, without embarrasment to himself, and pleasantly to those who hear; and in order to this, a habit of speaking is necessary. In the course of his ministration also among his own people, occasions will arise when an exhortation or address would be seasonable and useful, but when there is no time for written preparation. If, then, he have cultivated the art of extemporaneous speaking, and attained to any degree of facility and confidence in it, he may avail himself of the opportunity to do good, which he must otherwise have passed by unimproved. Funerals and haptisms afford suitable occasions of making good religious impressions. A sudden providence also on the very day of the sabbath, may suggest most valuable topics of reflection and exhortation, lost to him who is confined to what he may have previously written, but choice treasure to him who can venture to speak without writing. If it were only to avail himself of a few opportunities like these in the course of his life, or to save himself but once the mortification of being silent when he ought to speak, is expected to speak, and would do good by speaking, it would be well worth all the time and pains it would cost to acquire it.”—P. 21.

Mr. Ware in several places holds it out as a recommendation of the habit of extempore preaching, that it saves time in preparation, which conveniently and profitably employed in prosecuting other studies

. How far this is consistent with the view which he gives of the labour and verance required in the cultivation of this art, and the disapprobation which he frequently expresses of those who presume to enter the pulpit with their minds not fully possessed by and familiar with their subject, it may not be easy to determine. The advantage, however, if it be one, is intimately connected with one of the most serious objections to the practice, in ube




« ПредишнаНапред »