26. Is there any one window more lowly-silled than the other windowsand in what part of the church is it? 27. Are there any small passages through the chancel walls, below the level of the windows, communicating either with the church-yard, or with an aisle, directly or diagonally? Hagioscopes or Confessionals? 28. Are there any chantry or rood-screens, or stairs, or the remains thereof? 29. Are there any inscriptions or paintings on the walls, ceiling, or roof—Is their design diapered or heraldic? 30. If there be any ancient stained glass, state of what character are its subjects, and what the prevailing tint of its ground-and take tracings therefrom on thin paper, noting their colouring, especially if heraldic. 31. Of what description is the ceiling-Of stone, and groined-or flat and of wood, or lath and plaster-if the internal part of the roof be visible, how is it supported-And are any of the timbers carved or painted? 32. Of what does the pavement consist ?-If of large slabs on which are, or have been, brasses, armorial bearings, or figures drawn by incised lines, or with inscriptions prior to the 17th century, or if there be any figured tiles, heraldic or otherwise, procure rubbings or tracings from them. 33. Of what pattern is the carved wood-work of the altar-piece, pulpit, lectern, screens, rails, communion-table, or seats, church-chest, or poor-box? If unusual, take impressions from it on damped paper. 34. Of what material and form is the font-Is it ancient-Are there any sculptures on it, and what? Has it a cover, plain or ornamented? 35. Does the communion plate bear any inscription, armorial bearings, or ornaments worthy of notice? Are there any ancient hangings, embroideries, or altar coverings? 36. How many bells are in the tower-Are any of them inscribed with Gothic letters ? 37. Are there any altar-tombs, monumental effigies, ancient armour, banners, or achievements, older than the 18th century? To whom do they relate ? If they are decorated with arms, describe them, or take tracings from them. 38. In what state are the parochial registers ?-What is the date of the earliest entry-what information do they contain in reference to remarkable occurrences, or family history? Are there any vestry books, sexton's books, or parochial documents and accounts, which supply information respecting the building or repairs of the church, and other local details. No. IV. MILITARY AND CIVIL REMAINS. 1. Is there any ancient Castellated building in the parish? What is its natural position, and its ground plan, as to fosses, (wet or dry,) walls, ballia, mounds, towers, keep, chapel, kitchen, lodgings for the garrison, well, &c. 2. What old domestic edifices are there, whether mansions, halls, granges, or farm-houses? What are their general ground-plans, and their elevations, as to gables, parapets, dormer windows, roofs and chimneys, oriel windows, porches, and doorways? 3. In what style are any ancient gardens belonging to such edifices laid out, as to pieces of water, terraces, vases, statues, clipt hedges, &c. ? 4. What parks are there, and in what style are they planted? are the clumps of trees right-lined masses? and are they said to represent the formation of troops in any battle? or do the avenues radiate from a centre ? It is desirable also to notice any peculiar circumstances regarding wakes, feasts, or other local customs; any traditions, the general character of the inhabitants, and local dialect. 495 CORRESPONDENCE. The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions ON MYSTICAL INTERPRETATION. MY DEAR SIR,-Your reference to the pamphlet which I published about four years ago, on the subject of the Oxford Tract, No. 89, induced me to look for a few thoughts which I put on paper very soon afterwards, as the beginning of a second letter on the subject. The circumstances which led to my not prosecuting the design at that time, are of no consequence; but this beginning seems to me to agree so far with the views and feelings which you have expressed, that you may perhaps be willing to give it a place in your pages. I send it without altering a word, that I may not, in any part, be suspected either of merely repeating ideas which you have just expressed, or alluding to other recent events; but, I have added one or two notes. I am, &c., S. R. MAITLAND. THERE is no doubt that I might have said a great deal more in my former letter; those who agree, and those who disagree with me, will probably concur in wishing that I had done so-but beside what I might truly say, of a great press of occupation, and of my wish to avoid prolixity, I may add, that my object was not so much to argue out a subject, as to call attention to a fact. Not so much to point out how and why the cultivation of a particular style of interpreting (if we must so abuse the word) is injurious, as to show to what an extraordinary extent, and by what arguments, it is defended by the writers of the Tracts for the Times. It is no new invention. It has always had those who have more or less admired and adopted it, though I do not know that I have ever seen any writers who have gone so far, or avowed such dangerous principles in its defence; and I cannot help thinking, that those who really consider the Bible as the word of Truth, and as addressed by infinite Wisdom-not, I grant, to the captious and curious, the wise of this world and the disputer, but still to the understanding of men humbly and reverently trying to understand it, will feel, that so to use the Scriptures is unlawful, and a sin against Him by whom they are given for our instruction. Let us, however, return to the consideration of No. 89, and see what the author proceeds to state as the very first "symbolical exposition." It is the statement respecting Moses to which I have already called your attention, and which represents him as offering a type of Christ during the conflict of Israel with Amalek. In my former letter, I merely protested against what is clearly and undeniably an addition to, if not contradiction of, the word of God, for, on that occasion, I wished only to notice what was me obvious, and, I should have thought, most indefensible; but, for a reason which will presently appear, I would now add some other observations. In the first place, how are we to get that which lies at the foundation of the type, the cruciform figure? Surely it is all but directly contrary to the Scripture history. He who reads that history finds that when Moses first received his commission to deliver Egypt (Exodus, iv. 2), he had a rod in his hand; and, after its miraculous transformation into a serpent, he was told, "Thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs" (v. 17); and, accordingly, when he returned into Egypt, he took it (now dignified with the title of "the ROD OF GOD"-v. 20) with him. I need scarcely say how this rod was used during the plagues of Egypt,+ or at the dividing of the Red Sea, or, what has nearer connexion with * The passage of my pamphlet referred to, and without which what follows may be scarcely intelligible, is at p. 9. Having made an extract from the tract, No. 89:"St. Barnabas has the following passage: Israel being attacked by the aliens, with a view, amongst other things, of signifying to the people that their transgressions were the cause of their being given over to death, the Spirit speaks inwardly to Moses, to form a type of the Cross, and of Him who was to suffer: that if men refuse to trust in him, they will have no peace for ever. Moses therefore places one shield on another in the middle of the mound; and being thus posted high above all, he stretches out his hands, and so Israel began again to be victorious: afterwards, when on the contrary he let down his hands, again they were slaughtered. Wherefore? That men might know there is no chance of salvation, except they put their trust in Him. And in another Prophet he says, ‘All the day long I have stretched forth my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.'—p. 17.” I added the following observations: "On this I may briefly remark that here we have-perhaps in rather a small way, but yet worthy of notice for the sake of illustration-one of those injurious effects which I have long observed to flow from this allegorical mode of interpretation. It leads men to tamper with the Word of God; and either by addition, suppression, or some tortuous proceeding or other, to make it agree with their imagination. People little know what they do,' says the author of the tract,' when they deal contemp. tuously with anything, be it in Scripture or in common life, under the notion that it is too slight or insignificant for the ordering of the Most High.' To this I heartily subscribe. Let me add my belief that the Scripture narratives were so given by inspiration, that people little know what they do when they add to them circumstances which may appear minute and trivial. It may perhaps be said that St. Barnabas (allow me so to speak for the sake of brevity, without prejudice to the question whether the apostle was really the author of the epistle) knew by inspiration, or had learned by tradition, or had imagined in the lawful use of his poetical gift, that Moses placed one shield on another, though nothing of the kind is intimated in the book of Exodus. Well and good; if it is a new revelation, let him tell us so; if it is tradition, let him give it as such; if it is poetry, let there be some mark by which people may know it, for it looks like a mere statement of fact. But observe, I entreat you, that it is not brought before us under any such character; we are not talking about revelations, or traditions, or poetry, but of the interpretation of Scripture-and this, whatever it may be, gently slides in to take its place as Scripture, and to be interpreted with the rest. It is, however, as I have said, a minor instance, and it is not worth while to dwell upon it." "Thou shalt stand by the river's brink against he [Pharaoh] come; and the rod which was turned into a serpent shalt thou take in thine hand." (Ex. vii. 15) . . . . Behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters," (v. 17); and see the chapters which follow. "The Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward; but lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea and divide it.” . . . . "And Moses stretched out his hand,” &c. (Ex. xiv. 16, 21.) Surely the present subject, at the smiting of the rock in Horeb. these particulars explain to us what was meant by the declaration, "wherewith thou shalt do signs," and prepare us to understand the words of Moses, only four verses farther on in the same seventeenth chapter, "And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the ROD OF GOD in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed." Now, could any unprejudiced reader of this, and of the accounts which are given of the previous occasions on which Moses had done signs with his rod, in all of which he is (as one might naturally expect) represented as holding the rod of God in his hand, not hands-could any one, I say, who was impartially seeking truth, imagine, that on this occasion, Moses stretched out both hands at once, so as to make his body a type of the cross? Can we doubt that he stretched forth his hand, holding the "rod of God," as at other times? But this allegorical interpretation does not know what to make of the thaumaturgic rod; and, with the caprice which so eminently characterizes its proceedings, it casts it aside, and says not a word about it. Surely, if the action was typical, the rod of God, which Moses had thought it worth while to declare that he would hold in his hand, must be a feature too important to be thus passed over. In one thing, of course, this sign wrought by the rod of God would differ from all the previous ones-namely, that instead of being accomplished instantly, or in a very short time, it occupied a whole day; and Moses would naturally be obliged, to use first one hand, and then the other, and when both became (as we are told they were) heavy, he would as naturally avail himself alternately of the assistance of those on each side of him. If any one prefers supposing that Moses held the rod with both hands, it seems to me that he equally destroys the very ground and essence of the figure, which is the form of the cross. I can hardly suppose that any attempt will be made to evade this, by saying that notwithstanding what is previously said of the rod, it is not expressly stated that Moses had it, or anything else, in his hand, when he held it up. If it be, however, there is enough in the language of the passages to which I have referred, to remove any doubt that the mention of the one, was equivalent to that of both. For instance, (chap. ix. 22,) "The Lord said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven that there may be hail;'"+ and in the next verse we read, "And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven." It is more likely that we may be told that in this history of the conflict with Amalek, the Septuagint and Samaritan reading is, that when Moses *"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go." (Ex. xvii. 5.) † Chap. ix. 22-And again, "The Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the land of Egypt. and Moses stretched out his rod over the land of Egypt." (Chap. x. 12, 13.) 2 M lifted up his "hands" Israel prevailed. This is true; and it does not appear to me to be any contradiction of what I have suggested as the sense of the passage; for, whether alternately or both together, it is quite clear that Moses did lift up his "hands," and that during the time that he did so, Israel prevailed. If, however, it can be shown that there is a difference amounting to a real contradiction, I must beg to stand (with our translation) on the Hebrew text. That is quite clear and express; and should it appear at all strange that the LXX. Greek translators, if they understood that the hands of Moses were raised singly and alternately, should have used the plural number, I will, for a moment, waive all consideration of authority, and ask, in return, whether it would not be much more strange that a writer who meant to tell us that both the hands of Moses were lifted at once, should have used the singular number? If this seems trifling, it must be remembered that the very root and foundation of the whole matter, is the assumption that Moses placed his body "so as to form a type of the cross," and if he did not in fact do so, the whole matter falls to the ground, and we are simply listening to one who (whether intentionally or not) is, in fact, a deceiver who is falsifying the word of God. I am compelled to use language which may seem harsh, because, without it, the insidious but pernicious error which I oppose would slip away under some form of fancy, or poetry, or perhaps under a halfreluctant smiling confession, that to dull people it might seem to be nonsense. You, I am sure, understand me, and I anxiously desire that every one who sees these lines may do the same. Let any man who chooses make up these fancies, and call them poetry or prose, or what he pleases, or let him take them up on any authority, or no authority, and call them traditions, because he knows not what else to call them; but when he describes them as "interpretations of Scripture" when he presents them to the church as "meanings" (natural, or supernatural, or what not) of the written word of GodI call on men to beware of him as a seducer, even though he may come as an angel of light, and really be himself persuaded that he is one. For you will observe, and it should be most deeply considered, that this mode of allegorizing comes before us with peculiarly high pretensions. It claims to be the revelation of hid treasure. It pities those who are gathering up the mere product of the surface, and intimates that it has something far more valuable to offer to those who are worthy to receive it; but that it dares not rashly expose things so high and holy, lest it should be casting pearls before swine. The author of No. 89 tells us that the date of A.D. 136, assigned to the epistle ascribed of St. Barnabas, " deserves notice because it suggests sufficient reason for the freedom with which the author, in a popular tract, exhibits the method of symbolical exposition, which was generally rather withdrawn from ordinary eyes. The calamity, perhaps, was great and astounding enough to justify disclosures otherwise irregular, for the consolation and establishment of the faithful.”—p. 16. What would have been said of me four years ago if I had added "nonnatural"? |