Page images
PDF
EPUB

upon our blessed Saviour's sacrifice. Some will be happy to see the ancient piscina placed by the side of the altar in some of the many new churches which we must rejoice to mark rising in all directions throughout the land. For want of the piscina, which, where I have found it remaining, I have always used, I have myself, after causing the remains of the consecrated elements to be consumed by the communicants who were nearest the altar, long been in the habit of throwing reverently the few drops remaining in the cup into the flame of the stove in the winter, and on the floor of the altar in summer, in the face of those who were leaving the church. I am equally careful to throw away with my own hands the consecrated water after baptisms.

The indelicacy of dissenters in permitting themselves, as at Leeds, to be thrust into offices of trust in the church, which offices they are too likely to abuse, and into association with the priests of a church whose spirit they are not of, and whose principles they cannot comprehend, cannot be too severely commented upon.

There is a fact mentioned in the worthy vicar of Leeds' letter, in your July number, upon which I would respectfully make a few remarks. That consistent churchman relates that he found the presbyterian mode of celebrating the communion, which has probably never been discontinued since the great rebellion, prevailing at Leeds. He doubtless knows better than a stranger can do what probability there is that so irreverent a custom, such a violation of the wholesome rule of uniformity, could, in his parish, be quietly done away with. But I may be permitted to say, that, with my own feelings, were I to come into a parish where I was shocked by so unseemly an innovation, I should decidedly leave no stone unturned-no argument, or persuasion, in season and out of season, untried—until I could carry the feelings of the parishioners with me (supposing them ever so strongly prejudiced in favour of the existing mode) in introducing a more decent method of administering the eucharist. I am happy to observe that many have, without the slightest difficulty, succeeded in parishes where the only accommodation within the communion rails for celebrating the eucharist had been the disgracefully shabby, slight oak or elm tables, which, at the great rebellion, were made the substitutes for the more decent massive tables, or stone slabs, or altars, previously used-they have succeeded, in such places, in restoring the more substantial structure, to the gratification and comfort of the more devout and intelligent portion of the congregation.

Permit me, with reference to the existing practice at Leeds, to relate an anecdote of a humble son of the church, whose name, I believe, has not been transmitted to us, but of whom, for the respect which the judicious Hooker while living bore to him, and for the respect which he bore to the memory of the venerable Hooker when dead, I have often thought, as of the woman who did what she could to do honour to our blessed Saviour while on earth, and of whom I could wish, that wheresoever the gospel be preached, these little incidents might be recorded as memorials. Hooker's parish-clerk at Bishop's Bourne, in Kent, the place of his death and burial, in 1600,

seems to have enjoyed his confidence, and to have been admitted into the recesses of his heart in this good man's most retired thoughts and practices. It is related of this worthy clerk and of his rector, that such was their mutual respect for one another, and such the humility of each, they never conversed with one another but both their hats were on, or both off, during the whole time of their discourse. Hooker used, too, on Fridays, ember-days, and all other days of fasting, to take at this man's hands the keys of Bishop's Bourne church, into which he was wont to retire on every such day, to lock himself in, and spend there many hours of solitary prayer. It was the will of God that this humble friend, with whom he had often taken sweet counsel, and walked to the house of God in company, should survive Hooker several years, during which he watched his deceased master's grave, and shewed it to the numerous visitors who resorted thither from Canterbury to view it, and to converse with his old servant upon his talents, his labours, and his many virtues. He was spared to the third or fourth year of the Long Parliament, and witnessed the sequestration of Hooker's successor, and the intrusion of a minister of the Geneva school. "This and other like sequestrations," observes Isaac Walton, "made the clerk express himself in a wonder, and say, they had sequestered so many good men, that he doubted if his good master, Mr. Hooker, had lived till now, they would have sequestered him too.' It was not long before this intruding minister had made a party in and about the said parish that were desirous to receive the sacrament as at Geneva, to which end the day was appointed for a select company, and forms and stools set about the altar or communion table for them to sit, and eat, and drink; but when they went about the work there was a want of some joint stools, which the minister sent the clerk to fetch, and then to fetch cushions, (but not to kneel upon.) When the clerk saw them begin to sit down, he began to wonder; but the minister bade him 'cease wondering, and lock the church door;' to whom he replied, Pray, take you the keys, and lock me out : I will never come more into this church, for all men will say my master Hooker was a good man and a good scholar, and I am sure it was not used to be thus in his days;' and report says the old man went presently home and died; I do not say died immediately, but within a few days after."

[ocr errors]

But," as Isaac Walton says, "let us leave this grateful clerk in his quiet grave, and return to Mr. Hooker himself." Humility, it is well known, was always a characteristic of Hooker, and, without supposing that the clerk was superior to hundreds of the humble pious men who fill these places in our quiet country villages, we may account, from Hooker's character, for the courtesy and respect which Hooker shewed to him; but the habitual respect shewn to Hooker by one who for years was associated with him in his clerical duties gives gratifying proof of the effect which the piety and consistency of Hooker, the "visible rhetoric" of the pious pastor's life, produced upon those who had the privilege of living within his influence. "No one is a hero to his valet de chambre," may elucidate the notion which many modern clerks may entertain respecting the saintship, the ex

emplariness, the separatedness, the self-devotion, the self-denial, of some of the spiritual pastors of the present day. Yet can I recollect with peculiar interest the sober seriousness, the evident deep devotion, with which a venerable village-clerk (whose grey locks were waving in the wind, as he stood by an open grave, and was reminded by one whom he had served in this capacity for half a century that "their hour, too, was coming,") remarked slowly, with a pious shake of his aged head," Aye, Sir, we know all about that." A pious pause followed each word in this natural, this simple, but eloquent, expression of the result of his experience, and the fruits of his reflection, on the solemnities in which he and his master had been so long engaged together.

The increase of Dr. Hook's communicants, the enlargement of his spacious church, which has become necessary since his residence at Leeds, and its still crowded state, are gratifying proofs of the happy influence which a clear statement of the principles of the catholic church, and a consistent life in our clergy, may even in these evil days produce; and many, I trust, are the parish-clerks and other humble members of our flocks who may hereafter bedew the graves of clergy of the present generation with their tears, and pray, as doubtless did the clerk of the venerable Hooker, that "God would give them grace so to follow their good examples, that with them they may be partakers of his heavenly kingdom, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only mediator and advocate." Φιλάρχαιος.

PRESBYTERIAN BAPTISMS.

SIR,-As several letters have lately appeared in your Magazine on the subject of presbyterian baptisms, perhaps you could find room for the following extract from Bishop Bethell's work on Baptismal Regeneration (p. 19, second edition), which seems applicable to the case of those who (to use the words of "T. C.") " leave their own country, and become members of the English church, and receive from the hands of her ministers the Lord's Supper."

"The Donatists held, agreeably to Cyprian's opinion, that the baptism of schismatics is invalid; and since they contended that, with the exception of their own churches, all the Christians of their days were in a state of schism, they affirmed that none but themselves were validly baptized, and that none could enter into the kingdom of God without receiving baptism from their ministers. But Augustine replied that, even allowing the truth of their accusation, they who are baptized in schism are in the same situation with those who are baptized in impenitence or hypocrisy. For as the latter participate in the saving effects of regeneration, when they repent of their sins, and believe the gospel with sincerity, so the former enjoy the benefits of their baptism whenever they renounce their schism, and are received into the communion of the church."

S. I.

ON PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY AND ORDINATION.

DEAR SIR,-I have read attentively a long letter of Mr. Faber's in your November number, but without being at all convinced of the possible validity of presbyterian ordination. Without, however, pre

suming to set my opinion against his, I beg leave to communicate to your readers another FACT, which may perhaps throw some light upon that of the ordination of Pelagius by two bishops and a priest, on which he lays so much stress. It is recorded in the late Dr. Burton's History of the Christian Church, that it was a privilege of the Bishop of Ostia to ordain the Bishop of Rome. It seems to me that this peculiar custom may have induced the bishops John of Perusium and Bonus of Ferentinum to take with them Andrew of Ostia, in order to give greater apparent validity to their ordination of Pelagius, which, though irregular, was quite sufficient, according to the apostolical canon—ἐπίσκοπος χειροτονείσθω απο ἐπισκόπων δύο ἢ τριῶν.

Not having by me the former number, containing Mr. Crosthwaite's letter, I cannot examine whether, according to Mr. Faber, the drift of it was to establish the fact, that "governing bishops were appointed by the apostles as a new and distinct order;" but I am strongly inclined to think it was not, because that proposition appears to me palpably absurd, it being well known to all readers of ancient ecclesiastical history that the order of diocesan bishops, if not identical with that of the apostles themselves, was immediately derived from it, in the cases of James (the brother of our Lord) and others. It was the opinion of the learned Dr. Hammond, as quoted by Bingham, that there were at first only two orders of clergy-bishops and deacons. Some churchmen have been afraid of this opinion, as though it favoured the pretensions of the presbyterians; but surely the right inference from it should be, not that one who has received priest's orders may assume the powers of a bishop, but that there is no warrant in scripture for the office of a presbyter, so that, upon the old presbyterian principle, such a one should not be allowed any powers at all.

It is indisputable that, in the apostolic times, bishops were stationed in hundreds of places where, according to our modern customs, only priests would be sent to reside; and it is remarkable that, although the first ordination of deacons is distinctly recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, the origin of the second order of the ministry (as now existing) is involved in complete obscurity. St. Paul (1 Cor. xii. 5) speaks of various ministries exercised in one church, but we have no earlier writing than the epistles of Ignatius which makes distinct mention of the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons. Even he, if I mistake not, alludes to the priests only as attendants on, and assistants to, a bishop, and therefore holding a position somewhat similar to that of the assistant curates to the incumbent of a large town parish. Allowing, however, that the primitive bishop was only the chief among the elders, it does not follow but that he had a distinct ordination as such, and that in that ordination, or consecration, there were conferred upon him the powers of ordination and confirmation, which were withheld from his brethren of the second throne.

In fine, let me invite Mr. Faber, and all who think with him, to reclaim that lawful dignity which our order enjoyed in better days, when the bishop sat among them and took counsel of them in the

* It is notorious that the first bishops were all called apostles.

house of God, but let me entreat them not to bestow their encouragement or approbation on those who run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perish in the gainsaying of Korah. I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully, H. CODDINGTON.

ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS.

SIR, I have been surprised at the ignorance which generally prevails upon the subject of one of the most decent and unostentatious parts of the clerical dress-the scarf, having myself been often asked whether I was a chaplain to a nobleman or bishop, because I wear over my surplice, in addition to a M.A's. hood, a black silk scarf, which by the canon is recommended to be worn by those who are not graduates, with this restriction, "so it be not silk,"-implying, as I conceive, that graduates are alone permitted to wear the scarf made of that material. It is indeed true that what we now call the scarf is in the canon termed the tippet; but by referring both to Bingham and Palmer, it will be found that the terms are synonymous-authorities which are confirmed by Bishop Jebb, who, in his Primary Charge, mentions the tippet as being the same thing as the scarf. The scarf is well known to be the stole of the primitive church, and from a very early period has been considered a part of the clerical dress. Latterly, except in large towns, it has been in general worn by chaplains and dignitaries alone; but I think that every person who will read the canon, and consult the authorities I have named, on the subject, will readily grant that every presbyter of the church of England is entitled, and in conformity, or rather obedience, to canonical order, ought to wear during the performance of divine service the tippet or scarf. "Believe me," says Bishop Jebb, "my reverend brethren, it is in your power to do incalculable good by attention to particulars which at the first view may appear unimportant, but which, by the wisest men, most deeply versed in human nature, have been pronounced of the utmost moment.".... "The senses and imagination are constituent parts of our nature; these, no less than the reason and affections, are to be enlisted in the service of religion; and if through any neglect of ours they fail to become the auxiliaries, it is but too probable they will become the active and successful foes of our most holy faith." I am, Sir, your faithful

servant,

B. G.

ON THE ORNAMENTS OF "THE MINISTERS" OF THE CHURCH.

SIR, I shall be glad to elicit from some of your correspondents information on the following points:-1. What is the dress proper to be worn by "ministers saying the public prayers," and by preachers? 2. What is the origin of the full-sleeved gown?

1. According to the 58th canon, and Palmer's Origines Liturgicæ, vol. ii. p. 322, I apprehend that when "reading divine service and

« PreviousContinue »