Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

I shall only trouble you with one remark on the foregoing form. Your readers will observe that in the collect, « Deus bonorum ompium" which was used at the enthronization, the archbishop is called apostolicæ sedis præsulem." Dublin, therefore, in the language of our ancient formularies, was an apostolic see. This remark will be found of some importance to the reader of medieval church history; because it shews that the title of apostolic see was often given to metropolitan or archiepiscopal sees, and it was by no means at first the exclusive appellation of the see of Rome. Yet controversial writers very generally take for granted that wherever, in the canons of councils

, or other authorities, we find an appeal to the apostolic see spoken of, Rome must necessarily be meant. The example now before us unanswerably proves that this was not always the case ; and therefore calls upon us to be more cautious in drawing conclusions favourable to the early admission of papal supremacy, from such canons as those to which I refer. An appeal to the apostolic see in the earlier authorities, where the phrase is found, may signify no more than that which our own rubric allows-viz., that when the priest is in doubt, he shall apply to the bishop; and when the bishop is in doubt, he shall refer for the resolution thereof to the archbishop.

In Ireland, it should be remembered, the papal supremacy was more slowly admitted than in any other church of the West, if, indeed, it ever was fully admitted there, except within the English pale, and therefore it is not surprising that the language of the ancient church, in the particular instance above noted, should have been longer preserved in Ireland than elsewhere. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

J. H. T. Trinity College, Dublin, Feb. 20th, 1845.

A PROJECT FOR PEACE.

SIR-While the last number of your Magazine was in the press, a judgment was delivered by Sir Herbert Jenner, the result of which is, that

, for the present, stone altars and credence tables are illegal in our churches. For the present, I say, because the parties who have shewn such an incredible want of common sense, the one in prosecuting, the other in defending such“ restorations," will probably bring the whole affair to the highest tribunal before they are satisfied, and which way it shall be decided no one knows.

For myself, Sir, I care as little as I know. At a deal table I can bow and revere a mystically present Saviour. At a stone altar I can -as far as my own spiritual advancement permits—sit down and commune with him; and I doubt much whether there exists any one who could not do the same, who deserved the title of a Christian. As a matter of taste, I prefer the stone altar and credence table, because worship is a lower grade of spiritual advancement than communion, and all public worship must, as matter of course, be kept down to a standard of average attainment, but I have for some time suspected that the new churchmanship of the age would result in some offensive

tricks being played with the communion-table. Churches still exist (or did, the year before last) in which the communion-table stood lengthwise in the chancel, and had stood so from the time of Abbot's primacy. Some young evangelical gentlemen may take the hint.

My object in writing, however, is this. I believe there are a good many ceremonial adiaphorists, who desire to do what is right, if they could but know what that is. And they, looking at all laws as in their very nature liable to fall into desuetude, and so to lose their obligation, look to their bishop as the authorized interpreter and arbiter of these laws. Accordingly, the usages of Exeter and Chester would come equally naturally to them. In Rome they would do as Romans do; (I speak in a figure.) They would pass from diocese to diocese, and change their customs, but never leave their obedience behind them.

It does not seem right, however, that they should be compelled to wear even the appearance of inconsistency, and I cannot think but that a very compendious process might put an end to it. Could not all be brought to an issue in the case of one individual ? There are those who, from a love of notoriety, or even a higher motive, would be very willing to carry a suit through the Diocesan and Arches Courts, and to the highest tribunal. No odium need be incurred. The expenses might be defrayed by the prosecutor, and both he and the defendant might concur in their avowal that they only wished the law settled for ever, and that it might be clear what was obedience to the church, and what self-will and leaning to dissent or popery. Such a matter being once decided, a very considerable number of the clergy, who are now in an uncomfortable position, might be set at rest.

Indeed, I see no way out of the present difficulties but deaf and inexorable law. If a man must do so and so, or give up his benefice, he will not be blamed by his parishioners, nor troubled with a host of factitions scruples; but until it comes to that, the mania of the day will hardly be cured. In a practical country like this, one would have supposed that a clergyman seeing an obsolete usage disagreeable to his congregation, unnecessary to any one, and only desirable on speculative grounds, wouid refuse to adopt it, or would give it up. If he was so peculiarly constituted, however, as to pursue an opposite course, one would have supposed that the parishioners would have smiled at their pastor's caprice, and may be rallied him after dinner upon it; but on anything so unpractical as a mere ceremony no one would imagine that they could have gone further. Least of all could it have been supposed that any one would be charged with a design to introduce popery, against which every feeling is on the alert, through the medium of objects which could not fail to attract notice. Yet, with all the constancy of holy martyrs, the clergyman prefers sending all his congregation to the meeting-house rather than give up his own interpretation of the rubric, and the congregation prefer abandoning the means of grace to receiving them where the minister will not dress himself twice or three times for their amusement !

I wish, however, that the doctrine of reserve could be better understood, and more acted upon in ceremonial matters. For surely, if it is

lawful (as I believe it to be) not to insist upon a doctrine, which, however true in itself, has, from some concatenation of ideas or circumstances, become false to a congregation, (as the humanity of Christ to a Socinian, or the impulse of the spirit to a Quaker.) How much more lawful must it be, when they shew themselves such children as to think some rite of their own church revived is an attempt to reintroduce corruptions into its bosom, to reserve the practice for a more convenient season and situation.

J. O. W. H.

MR. OAKELEY'S LETTER ON THE RUBRIC. Sir,—In the letter, or rather a note to it, of your correspondent, " Theta Lancastriensis,"contained in your last number, Mr. Oakeley's letter, also contained in that number, is very rightly called “ a highıly curious one.” Mr. Oakeley will surprise many by the line he takes, in opposition to the restoration of strict conformity to the letter of the rubric. But, if I mistake not, Mr. Oakeley betrays the feeling by which he is influenced, but which, at first sight, is not very obvious. It seems to be this: that for the purpose of driving us to adopt Mr. Oakeley's doctrinal views—in other words, to reconcile ourselves to Rome-we should have the church of England left visibly in as unseemly an external state as possible. He would not cover up any defect till the grand defect is cured-her hostility to Rome. The following passage, towards the close of his letter, is that from which I infer Mr. Oakeley's

design.

“The principle I have ventured to assert, involves, as a consequence, the strongest possible dislike of the attempts, now so popular, (?) in favour of what is called a perfect uniformity in our church. Surely before we talk of uniformity, we must first secure unity! To have a front of uniformity without a heart of love, would be like concealing our natural face by a frightful mask. [Why frightful?'] What is unnatural can never by possibility be becoming; and most unnatural surely would it be, that a mind so various as that of the church of England, should be represented to the world by an unchangeable exterior! (Still this does not make that exterior. frightful.' Mr. Oakeley is sophistical in his use of the term unnatural.') Let us get rid of Calvinistic doctrine, and then it will be time to dispense with Calvinistic vestments. [Mr. Oakeley knows how to use an argument under an epithet.] But who can wish to see candlesticks in conventicles, or to hear heterodoxy from a surplice ?"

Here it is quietly assumed that most of our churches, or at least many, are mere “conventicles ;" and that many, if not most, of our clergy preach “heterodoxy,and would therefore defile the surplice. We see, I think, Mr. Oakeley's mind pretty clearly from what I have quoted. I am quite of his view as to the inexpediency of strict rubrical conformity, but not from any secret desire to injure the church, such as appears to influence him.

In my parish, we are about to build a new church. We wished to have a spire, but could not raise money sufficient. It was proposed in the committee that we should have a tower, such as would admit of a spire being readily put upon it at any future time. This was agreed upon ; but when it was proposed to have some small orna

ments on this tower, to give it a finished look in the meantime, my curate warmly opposed this. “He would have the tower,” he said, “to be as unsightly and unfinished as possible, that people might be driven to long for a spire, to get rid of an eye-sore, and so might be induced to raise the money. He was outvoted. But his idea is an illustration of Mr. Oakeley's.

Having ventured to suggest this explanation of what, in Mr. Oakeley, has appeared “highly curious," I remain, very sincerely yours,

C. S. B.

ON THE DIMENSIONS OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE. SIR,- There is an apparent discrepancy between the second and the twentieth verses of 1 Kings, vi. In the former we read, " And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.” In the latter we read, “ And the oracle in the forepart (i. e., the most holy place) was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold.” In one verse the house is said to have been thirty cubits high, in the other, the most holy place, which was the principal chamber in the house, is said to have been only twenty cubits high. This difficulty is commonly removed by the help of 2 Chron. iii. 9, “ And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.” It is supposed that these upper chambers were built over the most holy place, and that thus the whole building was raised, externally, to the height of thirty cubits. Thus the note in the Pictorial Bible says, “ As to the sanctuary itself, it was, as a whole, of an oblong figure, sixty cubits long, twenty broad, and thirty high, with the exception of the most holy place, the height of which was only twenty cubits, so that there remained above it a room ten cubits in height.According to this account, the holy place and the most holy place were of different heights ; the former was thirty cubits high, the latter twenty. But this destroys the analogy between the temple of Solomon and the Mosaic tabernacle. In the tabernacle the most holy place was a perfect cube, (of ten cubits;) equal in length, breadth, and height; and the holy place was of the same breadth and height, but double the length. And in like manner the most holy place of the temple was a perfect cube, (of twenty cubits instead of ten,) equal in length, breadth, and height; but, according to the above hypothesis, the holy place, though (as in the Mosaic tabernacle) of the same breadth and double the length, was half as high again. This anomaly is noticed by a writer of the name of Kurtz, in one of the German periodicals of last year; and he asks, What proof is there that the upper chambers spoken of in 2 Chron, iii. 9, did not extend over the whole building, so as to cover the holy as well as the most holy place ? The writer of the Chronicles, in verses 3 and 4, speaks generally of the temple; in verses 5—7 he speaks specially of the holy place, in

CORRESPONDENCE.-DIMENSIONS OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

263

verse 8 of the most holy place, and in verse 9, of the upper chambers : clearly, there is nothing in this order of description which implies that the upper chambers were connected with one part of the temple more than with another. Kurtz, therefore, suggests that the upper chambers covered the whole building, adding ten cubits to its height, the holy place and the most holy place being each of them twenty cubits high. The proportions of the temple, according to this explanation, were exactly the same as those of the tabernacle; the dimensions being in every part doubled. It may possibly be objected that the writer of 1 Kings, in giving twenty cubits as the height of the most holy place, appears to say, by implication, that this was not the height of the other chamber. But Kurtz answers, that that is not a just inference from the text; the historian, in stating the dimensions of the most holy place, meant only to point out the circumstance of its being a perfect cube, equal in length, breadth, and height. That this was a characteristic property of the most holy place, is manifest from a comparison of Rev, xxi. 16. We there find that in the most perfect phase of God's temple, in which the most holy place is identical with the whole temple, and the temple itself with the city in which it stands, the cubical form is still preserved; “ The city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal."

There is another suggestion in Kurtz's essay which I do not happen to have met with elsewhere-namely, with respect to the use for which the upper chambers, which are mentioned in 2 Chron. iii. 9, were designed. We are told, in this text of the Chronicles, that the upper chambers, equally with the holy and the most holy place, were overlaid with gold; whence it may be inferred that these chambers possessed an equal sanctity with the temple over which they were built, and that they were destined to an analogous use. Now, it appears from 1 Kings, viii. 4, and 2 Chron. v. 5, that the Mosaic tabernacle, with all its furniture and appendages, was brought up to the temple of Solomon. Where, then, were these things laid up? Most probably, answers Kurtz, in the above-mentioned upper chambers. And he adds, that possibly the height of these chambers had been fixed at ten cubits, because that had been the height of the Mosaic tabernacle ; and possibly, also, the sacred relics were so distributed, that, accordingly as each article had belonged to the holy or to the most holy place of the tabernacle, it was laid up in the chambers which were over the holy or the most holy place of the temple.

M. J. M.

ANSWER TO QUERIES.

SIR-In the December Number of the British Magazine, which I had not an opportunity of perusing before Saturday last, appeared several queries, with a request that some one would answer them; if it be not too late, and the following resolutions of the proposed diffi

« AnteriorContinuar »