« AnteriorContinuar »
it be remembered that our two Independent cham- | the whole tenor of his reasonings, in the course of pions plead that the power of rule is in the hands of which he has expressly applied all such admonitions the pastors. Dr Davidson seems fond of a plurality of Scripture, as, “ Obey them that have the rule over of pastors over one flock, which he thinks is more you, and submit yourselves," to the duties which the like the primitive model; but he is quite clear that people owe to their pastors.* there must be some invested with official rule. But let it be remarked, in the next place, that “When a Church has been formed, it will naturally be the
while these Independent Doctors plead for the power duty of the members composing it to look out for persons pos
of government being in the hands of the pastor, they sessing the requisite scriptural qualifications, whom they may
insist that he must rule alone. Dr Wardlaw's princi. invest with an official character. No corporation can exist ple is, that none shall be allowed to rule except those long without office-bearers, or without persons who virtually whose office it is also to teach. He will allow “no become such. A worshipping society may, indeed, recognise brother near the throne.” Even the deacons must not no officer-it may repudiate the very name of ruler or overseer; but there will soon be persons who, in reality, and for interfere with him in his official adininistration. He all practical purposes, will obtain the authority possessed by attempts, indeed, to compensate for their summary ex. ordinary office-bearers; else the society will fall into disorder.clusion from the bench of authority by magnifying The light of nature, no less than the Word of God, prompts their office, and assuring the crest-fallen dignitaries tbe appointment of a class of men to bear rule in a Church.” that “it is very far from being an entirely secular se-P. 142.
cularity that pertains to the office of deacon."-P. 140. This is good sense, though it is not exactly the But, alas ! secularity it must be at bottom. Let not sense we have been accustomed to hear from In- these self-important functionaries lift up their heads dependents. They have generally scouted the name on high, or look as if they had any share in the spiof “ rulers in a Church, and contended that every ritual management of the flock. They also must veil Church was to rule itself. In fact, the grand point to the dignitary in the pulpit. “ Serving tables” is which our Presbyterian writers have laboured to their “ business,” though it should be done spirituprove against them, has been the distinction, clearly ally, of course-like any other business. stated in Scripture, between the rulers and the ruled the Doctor, with a special eye to the end of their in a Church. And, so much were we startled by this office,“ they have a charge of the treasury; and it is admission, when we met it in the pages of Dr David- | incumbent on them to see to it that it is not defrauded son, that we were inclined to suspect that, owing to of any of its dues, but in its several departments, suitthe recentness and suddenness of his conversion from ably replenished.”—P. 45. The part of the people as we Presbytery to Independency, he had not had time to have seen, is to “ yield obedience.” And as for Presrecover from some of his old Presbyterial leanings; byterian elders, the Doctor huffs at the very mention but, on looking into Dr Wardlaw's volume, we find of them. “Ministers and elders,” he remarks,“ is the same view pervading it. He uniformly proceeds a very unscriptural phrase;" and drawing himself up on the idea that the pastors alone have the official with an air of modest and graceful dignity, he says: rule or superintendence of the flock-that the ruling “ Let it not be placed to the account of the high-mindof the Church must belong to the teachers of the edness of office (a feeling to which, we humbly trust, Church; and he enlarges on the reasonableness and we have no very over-weening propensity) when we naturalness of this arrangement.
add, that we are not prepared to admit the identity of the “ It is by their very competency to expound these principles, by the elder that merely rules; to admit, that is, the
office sustained by the teaching and ruling elder, and and to elucidate and carry home these motives, that 'pastors and teachers' give their people confidence--enlightened confi
latter to be the same office with the former, minus the dence-in yielding obedience to the power with which the teaching."-P. 188. In other words, Dr Wardlaw Divine Head of the Church has invested them; or, in other scorns the idea that the humble “ ruling elder” words, in going unitedly, intelligently, and heartily along with should be placed on an cquality, in point of official authem, in following out the mind and executing the will of the thority in the Church, with him—the “ teaching elder.” Head.”—P. 187.
He must not only both teach and rule, but rule beIn what stronger terms could Presbyterians ex- cause he teaches, and therefore rule alone! We press the submission which they require from the would not ascribe any “ feeling" to the Doctor people to their rulers? We are aware that some In- which he disclaims; but call it what you please, if dependents may still plead, that the acts of govern- this is not the “ feeling” that distinguished Diotrement are exercised by the pastor in the presencephes, it is beyond all question the principle which led and with the consent of the assembled Church. But so soon to the gradual absorption of the powers of it is impossible to understand the above language in jurisdiction out of the Church into the person of the any sense different from that in which Presbyterians diocesan bishop. Dr Davidson perceives tho tenoften teach that it is the duty of the people to“ yield dency of Congregationalism towards this result, and an enlightened confidence” in their rulers, and to go therefore pleads strenuously for a plurality of bishops unitedly, intelligently, and heartily along with them in one Church;t but this only shows his sense of the in following out the mind and executing the will of danger, and betrays a consciousness that the true the Head." If the pastor is to do nothing without primitive government really consisted in a council of the explicit consent of his people--if his decisions are presbyters; as it is quite ridiculous to expect that, subject to be overruled by them—why talk of their "yielding obedience to the power with which the
* The same doctrine is laid down by the excellent Mr James of Divine Head has invested him ?" If by their consent Birmingham. " Real Congregationalism is not democracy. is meant nothing more than their duty to “ go along the entire power of government within itsell; tut it does not teach
maintains, indeed, that every separate congregation of believers has with him” intelligently and cordially, when he rules that that power is vested in the private members of the Church. according to the Word of God, we are not far from
It admits and affirms, in common with other systems, that pastors
alone are the rulers of the Church."--Christian Fellowship, p. 164. agreeing with Dr Wardlaw; but what becomes of the | Dr Davidson would have all the congregations in a city, for boasted autonomy of Independent Churches? That example, to be viewed as one church, to be served by a number of
pastors in cominon, and meeting occasionally altogether in one the latter is Dr Wardlaw's meaning is obvious from
tremendous Canonmills Hall !!!
in practice, there can generally be more than one rule? Why is the gifted member or deacon, whoin teaching presbyter in a congregation. Where is the Dr Davidson would permit to preach, thrust down use of all the learning on this point, of which this among the laity, as they are called ? Dr Wardlaw gentleman has given a somewhat ostentatious display, insists on the inseparable union of teaching and rulif, after all, Independent congregations will be content ing; and, upon his own showing, all that are allowed with one pastor, and that pastor will rule alone? He to teach should surely also be allowed to rule. Dr is evidently sorely puzzled to account for the primi- Davidson talks of the incongruity of elders confining tive Churches maintaining so many pastors, while themselves to the administration of law, and abstainours can hardly support one. He may not accept | ing from that of the Word. How is it that he did not our solution, but it is a very plain one--that if there see the equal incongruity of members being confined were many pastors, there must have been many flocks; to the administration of the Word, and abstaining from or if there were many presbyters, one or two 'might that of law ? have taught, while all governed the Church in com- Into the controversy about ruling elders, embracing
as it does so many disputed passages and philological We now come to the point of ruling elders, to distinctions, we cannot enter particularly. After the which both of our authors attach an immense impor- | masterly treatise of Dr King on “ The Ruling Eldertance. Dr Wardlaw thus states the difference: ship,” the discussion may be said to have been ex“Our Presbyterian friends divide the former of the two de
hausted. Both of our authors profess to have read scriptions of offices (elders) into two classes: namely, elders
this book, but it is difficult to believe that they have that both teach and rule, and elders that rule only: elder, the done so with sufficient care to understand it: they genus-teaching elder and ruling elder the two species; or have certainly left its main positions undisturbed. Dr elder the species-teaching and ruling elder the two varieties. | Wardlaw has followed his favourite mode of dealing Independents question the Scripture authority for this distinc-with the arguments of his opponents a mode which tion; holding not only that bishop and elder are designations of the same office, but that in every case that one office in
may be compared to a process of gradual strangulacludes both the departments of teaching and ruling; that in all,
tion. Seizing first on some of the subordinate proofs, bishops and elders alike, these twofold powers are vested; that the strength of which depends on their connexion with there is no Scripture authority for elders that rule but do not others, he attempts to strangle them in the absence teach. On the subject of the OFFICERS of the Church, this is of their relatives, and then laying hold on the stronger THE GREAT POINT OF DIFFERENCE.”—P. 178.
ones by themselves, he tries to squeeze the life out We accept this statement of the difference as cor- of these by a succession of innuendoes and suspicions, rect, so far as it goes; and would have the reader to none of which are fatal, and the last of which may remark that it follows from the words which we have be subversive of the first, but which have the appeargiven in the Doctor's own capitals--that the only ance of gradually extinguishing the argument, while difference between us on this point is, that while our in truth it remains as sound and lively as ever. Thus, he pastors rule the Church with viders, their pastors rule commences by dismissing the whole argument drawn without them. The Independent pastor views him- from the constitution of the Jewish Church, as "altoself, not only as embodying the powers of the ruling gether unwarrantable, and of necessity fruitless.” Dr elder (which we grant) but as monopolizing them. Wardlaw should be made aware that this cavalier Like the “lean and ill-favoured kine” in Pharaoh's style of dealing with an argument which, to say the dream, he devours the whole of his companions, and least, has certainly the strongest presumption, not to stands“ alone in his glory.” Dr Davidson has deemed speak of the suffrage of great names, in its favour, it necessary to administer a reproof to us poor Pres- however easy to himself, and pleasing to his friends, byterians, for having “metamorphosed those who is far from being satisfactory to the candid inquirer ordinarily refrained from preaching into laymen or after truth. He then takes up the subordinate proofs, lay elders,” and informs us that there was no such appearing in Rom. xii. 6-8, and 1 Cor. xii. 28, and distinction between laity and clergy in the apostolic declaring that these give “no certain sound,” he period. He might have known, from his previous comes to 1 Tim. v. 17, as “entitled to a somewhat education, that no such distinction is recognised by closer examination,” but as," in the present argument, Presbyterians. But we beg to ask, Is no such dis really standing alone.” Thus, according to him, the tinction made by Independency? They may permit whole framework of the Presbyterial eldership hangs a pious member or a gifted deacon occasionally to on a single isolated and doubtful passage in the New hold forth in their assemblies; but will they allow Testament, which he sets himself to show is quite inany of them to meddle with the spiritual administra- conclusive! Now, we might tell him, in the first tion of the Church? Dr Wardlaw will not; Mr James place, that even should lay elders, as they have rather will not; and thus, under the pretence of granting improperly been called, be withdrawn, Presbyterial them some latitude of speech, they deny them all government would still remain, though in a mutipower of action; and under pretence of admitting all lated form. Elders are not essential to the conelders both to teach and to rule, they in reality cut stitution of Presbytery, inasmuch as the teaching off all from official duty but the clergy. We consider presbyter embraces all the functions of the rulour elders as spiritual officers; they look on their ing presbyter. We could even point him to some deacons as merely secular. And this suggests an- parishes in the Ilighlands, which must, in the Docother remark by the way. Dr Davidson asks,“ Even tor's eyes, be the very models of apostolic simplion the supposition that the phrase 'He that ruleth' city; for there they have no elders at all, but denotes the ruling elder, by what process of interpre- have to borrow them from their neighbours when tation is it discovered that he who 'ruleth' has no their services are required; there the pastor rules right to teach? Why is the presiding elder thrust alone, being prophet, priest, and king, in his own down among the laity, as they are called ?" We would domain; and there the “ Church" is as independent answer this, after the Scotch fashion, by putting an- of its neighbouring “ Churches” as the Doctor's other question : By what process of interpretation is heart could wish, or as twenty miles of wave and it discovered that he who a teacheth” has no right to mountain_can_make it. Again, why make so much ado about the term elder, as applied by us distinc- 1 ing against our ruling eldership. He argues, “ That all tively, and for mere convenience' sake, to the presby- elders or bishops are scripturally commissioned both ter who rules, but does not preach? Everybody to teach and to rule" (p. 179); that teaching and ruling knows that bishop and elder mean the same office; are inseparably united in the same office (pp. 180–184); and we are quite ready to agree with Dr Davidson THAT THERE WERE NONE WHO RULED, WHO DID NOT that the bishop, or episcopos, was the phrase used when AT THE SAME TIME TEACH.”—P. 185. Dr Davidson, on speaking to the Gentiles; and the elder, or presbyter, the other hand, maintains that“ SOME ELDERS IN THE when speaking to the Jews. All we plead for is, PRIMITIVE CHURCHES RULED, WHILE OTHERS TREACHED." that both terms were descriptive of the office of And this is a position, he says, “ too manifest to be rulers or overseers ; that when Paul, for example, ad called in question.” Dr Wardlaw, however, will no dresses bis Epistle to the Philippians more especially doubt call it in question. He seems incapable of "to the bishops and deacons,” he just means the rulers forming the idea of a person employed in ruling, who or overseers, and the servants of the Church; that is not also, at the same time, employed in teaching. when he describes the qualifications of a Christian We leave the two Doctors to settle the point between bishop, he has in his eye all the duties incumbent on them. To us, as indeed to all candid readers of the an overseer of the Church, whether as a ruler or New Testament, the position is too manifest, as Dr teacher, and his description applies equally to both, Davidson says, to be called in question, that some of though, of course, more applicable, in its full extent, the primitive elders were employed in teaching, to those who both rule and teach; and, in short, as others in ruling. But let us see how he attempts to Dr King observes,“ that the presbyters as such were rob us of the benefit of his admission. properly rulers, and that preaching was a distinct and
“ But when it is maintained that the latter (that is, thage superadded function, which a presbyter might want without annulling, or have without enlarging, his employed in ruling) did not teach because they were officially strictly presbyterate character.”—Ruling Eldership, so, the view has no countenance in the New Testament. p. 65. Dr Wardlaw, however, is so much led away Those who ordinarily refrained from preaching are thus by the modern sense of the term bishop, that he can- metamorphosed into laymen, or lay elders, in opposition to not for a moment suppose the person so designated clerical or preaching elders.” Again: “It is curious to obto be anything less than a pastor; just as if a person Treatise on the Ruling Eldership, where the real fact [point?]
serve how the main point is kept out of sight in . King's could not be an overseer of an establishment, unless he of debate between Congregationalists and Independents is became at the same time its teacher!
never stated. In this modern production, the entire arguWith regard to the much-agitated passage in ment is occupied with showing that there was a distinction 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be among the elders of the primitive Churches--some of them
When a counted worthy of double honour, especially they labouring in one department, others in another. that labour in the word and doctrine".
new work shall be written on the same side of the question,
we may let the matter be properly treated. Let it be candidly stated safely leave our readers to the treatise of Dr King that ruling elders have nothing to do with the duties of the for a satisfactory solution of all the objections that pastoral office, except with government; that they have no have been made to it, including old Principal Camp- authority, divine or human, to preach or teach, or preside at bell of Aberdeen, a writer whom the Independents the Lord's supper, or at Church meetings, or to baptize; for are fond of quoting on this and other points affecting this is the true doctrine of the Presbyterian Church.”—Pp.
186, 187. their discipline, but to whose interpretations on almost any other point affecting the Christian faith
To this challenge, couched in a style which apthey would be among the last to subscribe. After all that Drs Wardlaw and Davidson have advanced, pears to us as silly as it is supercilious, we beg to
reply, that the whole of what Presbyterians plead we still regard the passage, taken in connexion with for is virtually granted, when it is allowed that other places referring to the Christian ministry, as indicat
“there was a distinction among the elders of the primitive ing all that Presbyterians plead for, viz., that in the Church." That distinction, it appears, consisted not early Church there were some that merely ruled, and in the office properly, for they went under the geneothers that both ruled and taught, or who, besides ral name of elders or presbyters, but in the nature ruling well, laboured in the word and doctrine.* of the employment--some labouring in ruling, others This is candidly admitted by Dr Davidson, though he in teaching. And all that we maintain is, that this is pleased to say we gain nothing by the admission. distinction should still be kept up in the Church; “ Presbyterians gain nothing by proving that some that some should be set apart to the labour of ruling, elders in the primitive Churches ruled while others and others to that of teaching. If these two departpreached. That is a position too manifest to be called ments of labour were distinct in the primitive Church, in question. Other parts of the New Testament why not keep them distinct still? and why not set would warrant that conclusion, had the text in the apart and ordain individuals to them distinctly, acEpistle to Timothy been wanting. In each Church cording as their gifts may be found suitable and there was a plurality of elders. Some were chiefly sufficient? This is exactly in accordance with the employed in teaching, others in ruling.”—P. 186. Now rules of Christ, and is necessary, that “all things let this be compared with the doctrine laid down by may be done decently and in order.” If the person Dr Wardlaw, as the foundation of his whole reason is found “apt to teach,” by all means let him, in * " By these words," says Dr Whittaker, a zealous and learned
the orderly way, be set apart to that function. But Episcopal divine," the apostle evidently distinguishes between the bishops and the inspectors of the Church. If all who rule well be
let no man“ take it upon himself;" and let none worthy of double honour, especially
they who labour in the word complain that he is kept within the limits of the if all had been of this description, the meaning would have been sphere allotted to him. We are wholly at a loss to absurd; but the word especially points out a difference. If I should know what Dr Davidson means by our not treating say, All who study well at the university are worthy of double
the question properly. Presbyterians never at any honour, especially they who labour in the study of theology, I must either mean that all do not apply themselves to the study of time or in any way have hesitated “candidly to theology, or I should speak nonsense: therefore I confess that to be
state that ruling elders have nothing to do with the the most genuine sense by which pastors and teachers are distin. guished from those who only governed.” — Miller's Letters, p. 121.7" I duties of the pastoral office, except with government; that they have no authority, human or divine, to discipline, which commends itself as much to common preach or teach, or preside at the Lord's supper, or sense as it accords with Scripture. Even nature itto baptize.” This, in fact, is the very thing we state self teaches the pastor the necessity of some such asin opposition to our Independent brethren. Only, Dr sessors or council for mutual consultation and pracDavidson would state it in the most invidious form. tical management, particularly in those matters which The main point of our difference lies in this, that cannot, and ought not to be, brought before the whole while we admit some of the people to participate Church. As Dr Miller observes, “they can scarcely with the pastors in the government of the Church, take a single step without having in fact, though not Independents would systematically and peremptorily in name, precisely such officers as we recognise under exclude them; while we grant that some may rule the appellation of elders.” without preaching, they will permit none to rule but those that preach. Theirs is truly the exclusive
THE CROWNED HEADS OF ITALY. system; we exclude none from their proper “department of labour,” to use Dr Davidson's expres
BY ONE WHO HAS SEEN THEM. sion. The main thing we plead for is what he Since the 16th day of June 1846, when Giovanni Maria admits, “ a distinction among the elders—some of of Mastar Ferretti was chosen Pope, and became them labouring in one department, others in an- Pius IX., we have heard little concerning him but other."
unlimited ovations; he has well-nigh eclipsed all his Dr Wardlaw, who will not thank his brother con- brother potentates in Italy. There were some men of trovertist for this fatal admission, will no doubt be discerning minds, indeed, guided by the Word of God, ready to argue, as he has done in reply to others, who questioned or denied the propriety of the eulogies that, according to our mode of reasoning, we should thus so copiously pronounced. They could not be perconfine the teacher simply to teaching, as well as the suaded that any thing really conducive to the wellruler simply to ruling. Our answer is, that the office being of man could emanate from one who shielded of teaching is superior to, and inclusive of, the office the Jesuits from merited indignation, or even heaped of ruling; while the office of ruling is not necessarily encomiums on their order, and whose general policy inclusive of that of teaching; in other words, that appeared to be to do the least possible that was conthose hold the more honourable office, who, besides
sistent with notoriety and liberal pretences. Such ruling, “ labour in the word and doctrine."* ' It fol- minds, accordingly, warned us to wait ere we formed lows from this, that teaching must always be united
a judgment of Pius, lest it should appear that we with ruling; but it does not follow that ruling must were duped by Papal craft, rather than gladdened by always be united with teaching. The pervading the discovery that even Infallibility could change for fallacy of Dr Wardlaw's reasoning on this point lies the better, and the perfect Church be, after all, found in his overlooking this distinction. To make it plain, rotten like “ the state of Denmark.” let us take a case as closely analogous to the present
The character of the sovereign pontiff is not even as things spiritual and temporal will admit. * Doctor yet fully developed. Whether is he deceiving or deis a general term, frequently applied to all exercising ceived? Has he succeeded in imposing on himself ? the medical profession. But under that general desig
or is he still playing a deep game in the hope of ennation we have physicians and surgeons. The physician's snaring others ! Is he a vain, ambitious man, who department, as the higher, includes the surgeon's; would fain be notable, but wants wisdom and courage the surgeon's does not include that of the physician; to act with energy and decision? Is he making a vioand yet both belong to the same profession-the medi- lent effort to adapt the Papacy to our age? Is he one cal. In like manner, presbyter is a general term, of those weak personages who are sometimes tossed including the departments of teaching and ruling to the surface of society in times of ferment and comand hence the apostles, in addressing the presbyters motion, and who have restlessness enough to originate or overseers of the Church, inculcate both duties. or prolong, but
not power to guide and control, the But the pastorate or teaching department, being the excitement?. These are questions suggested by the superior, and including the other, is naturally more position of Pius, which, perhaps, history must be left directly addressed; while the other department, that
to answer, for future events alone can furnish a right of inspectorship, as being the inferior, is included reply. Meanwhile it would be wrong to let Giovanni under the directions given to the superior. Dr Maria engross all the notoriety of our day. Let us Wardlaw, however, would have all the spiritual therefore glance at some of the other crowned heads officers of the Church reduced to one faculty-would
now figuring on the arena of Continental Europe; have them all to be physicians, and no surgeons. He
and for the present we confine attention to those will allow none to be associated with him, or to assist whom we have enjoyed opportunity of personally him in the labour of superintending the Church; and studying. because none can be a pastor without being a ruler,
Next to the Pope, the first place is undoubtedly due, he will admit none to rule but the pastor! This is the at the present hour, to Ferdinand II., heretofore king theory of Independency, as taught by Dr Wardlaw: of the two Sicilies, but now of only one of them. He what the practice may be we cannot so confidently succeeded his father Francis I. in the year 1830, when say. Much diversity, it is said, prevails in this re.
he was only twenty years of age-and sat down on a spect among Independents. All of them, however,
throne which had been restored to his house, after the find it necessary to have some sort of substitute for temporary tenure of Joachim Murat, mainly by the our eldership; many lament that they cannot find a
influence of British blood and treasure. Ferdinand suitable one, and secretly sigh for the Presbyterian partakes of all the worst peculiarities of the Bourbons,
from whom he is descended. He is constitutionally * The critical comments of our authors on the word honour in this text, as meaning “maintenance," and on the term "especially,"
ungenerous, narrow-minded, despotic, and wayward; "comments which are as "old as the hills," do not affect the above and perhaps there is not now a reigning sovereign in reasoning in the least. Whatever interpretation be put on these phrases, all must acknowledge that the text gives a pre-eminence
Europe so far behind the spirit of his age as the co the teaching department above the ruling.
author of the recent massacre at Naples. In appear
ance he exhibits all the sensuousness and lack of men- | In spite of him, his subjects will weigh kings in the tal development peculiar to his family, and resembles balance, and, when the set time has come, he must an overgrown boy-fat, heavy, stolid, and dull, rather pass away, the victim of his own despotism. In than one who is born to reign, or stamp an influence describing Naples as it now exists, one has exclaimed for good on those for whom he holds the sceptre. Fer- -“ A Naples, une cour, un opera, une armée, quel luxe!”' dinand has been trained in opinions of kingly prero- These are, in truth, the strength of the kingdomgative which far outrival even those of the Stuarts. are they not weakness? He is fond, moreover, of war, and loves and rejoices Next to the king of the two Sicilies, if not in such displays as reviews and field-days afford. before him, in point of notoriety, stands Charles We should say that that is the element in which he Albert, king of Sardinia. He is in his fiftieth mainly delights. Near his capital he has a Campus year, and has reigned in his noble capital, Turin, Martius, in imitation of ancient Rome, and morning since 1831. In youth he is well known to have after morning the obese royalty of Naples may be been a liberal, the friend and hope of the Italian seen playing at soldiers with his nobility in that Carbonari, pledged to their principles before he favourite resort. His relish for such employments, mounted the throne, and idolized on that account, and the fatigue we have seen him undergo, both on but subsequently stigmatized or execrated as an apos. foot and horseback, explain how ready Ferdinand tate, when he came to his kingdom. He is married to would be to issue such orders as have recently made a sister of the Grand Duke of Tuscany: his eldest his name infamous in Europe, and filled his capital son is Duke of Savoy, and his second Duke of Genoa. with thousands of corpses—with tens of thousands of The famed Mazzini is one of his subjects, and an mourners.
exile for holding the opinions which Charles Albert Nor is there any redeeming quality that we know himself once seemed to espouse, and has now so in the King of Naples. Reigning over 6,000,000 of strangely resumed. people, exclusive of the island of Sicily, he has been We have seen that monarch in his capital of Turin, trained in all the ignorance which Popery delights to at a period when it was scarcely safe for bim to apfoster; and his notions of kingly absolutism are of the pear even on the balcony of his huge brick palace. most despotic order. The delusion, now fast passing The wounds inflicted by his apostasy had closed, at away, that moriarchs wear their crowns for their own least they had ceased to rankle much in the minds of sake, and not for the good of the people, or that a
But other causes of commotion existed in his king is an end, and not a means to an end, is under- | kingdom; and though the Sardinians are phlegmatic stood to be deeply seated in his mind—it is cherished and sedate, in contrast with the mercurial Sicilians, there by his haughty and oppressive nobility, and one cannot easily forget the excitement that reigned. gives a character to many of his proceedings. Add The vast quadrangle, of which the palace forms a to this his natural doggedness, his unyielding and side, was filled with a heaving mass of troubled men, stolid pertinacity, as evinced, for example, in the agitated or fretted by their sovereign's procedure, banishment of his brother Charles on account of his which indicated an increase of oppression or despotism. marriage, and we have at once the character of Fer- From time to time a clamour for Charles Albert ran dinand II., and a temperament which, in these times through the mass—and from time to time he appeared of commotion and radicalism, may soon make Louis amid his officers at a window of the palace; but the Philippe, hisrelative, not the only discrowned wanderer Italians want energy and concentration of character among the sovereigns of Europe. The blood-thirsty —they frown and fret for a little, and then too often severity practised against certain misguided liberals in subside into indolent submission. The affair was a the Abruzzi, Calabria, and other parts of the kingdom mere effervescence, and passed away with the day of Naples, the malignity with which they were perse- which occasioned it. cuted, and the remorseless vengeance inflicted on them Charles Albert is, after a sort, devont. Both in when captured, at once tell the despotism that reigns the cathedral of Turin, and in the Alloggio of his in that kingdom, and explain the loud, deep murmurs palace, we have seen him and his queen Theresa, of its people for deliverance and a constitution. with apparent solemnity taking part in the gaudiness
But while we thus describe the concentrated des- of what Italians call their worship, and it was there potism that occupies the throne of Naples, it should that one could best make a study of the king. His not be forgotten that the Neapolitans are not ripe for countenance is vulgar and un-Italian. Its leading a free government. Though Ferdinand had sagacity expression is that of uneasy suspiciousness, mixed to grant it to its full extent, it would speedily be with a cunning that tries to conceal it. Apart from turned into licentiousness. Popery has there per- his history, his expression speaks of instability of purpetrated even more than its usual ravages on the pose. Latterly, however, he appears to some to have minds of men. In both the Sicilies, gross darkness, redeemed the promise of his youth; and the jubilee in consequence, covers the people-abject poverty with which his concessions to his people have been reigns among myriads—and half-a-century of train. hailed must have carried joy to his heart, if it sprang ing would be needed to fit such men for freedom by from the reviving influence of the opinions which he endowing them with virtue. But that is no reason had cherished so fondly in his younger years. Above why they should continue to be ground down at a all, his concessions to the long-oppressed Waldenses despotic tyrant's bidding; and it needs no seer's have brought down on Charles Albert the blessings gift to tell that, sooner or later, in an age advanc- of thousands. We do not suppose that that tardy jusing like ours, by an inevitable, irrepressible law, tice was at all conceded on Christian principle. It outraged and indignant humanity will arise to assert was purely the effect of pressure—it was the passion its rights, and make them good, even though it should of the day, and the king made a virtue of necessity. cost Ferdinand II. his diadem and sceptre. The case Had it been called for, he would have slaughtered as of Sicily, where Ferdinand has been dethroned, and readily as emancipated the Christians of the Valleys. a constitution proclaimed, might convince him of the But from whatever motive it flowed, the freedom frail tenure by which he holds his riglit to oppress now enjoyed was one of the first—shall we say it is