Page images
PDF
EPUB

sought rather in the cupidity of their destroyers than in the enormity of their vices; but there is another view of such establishments which the boldest apologists of the monastic system seem hardly ever to have entertained; and that is, the desirableness and practicability of their restoration, to a limited extent, and in a modified form, as an appendage to the church of England. It appears to me that, in times of general excitement like those in which we live, when it is hardly possible to avoid being borne along in some line or other by the "movement," which is setting in so many directions at once, places of temporary, or even continued, but not compulsory, retreat, would be of incalculable benefit to persons of both sexes. What simple and humble-minded Christians want, under such circumstances, is, time, and place, and opportunity for devotion, study, and meditation; some situation where their thoughts may for a time have rest from disturbing impulses from without, where their daily actions may be "sanctified by the word of God and by prayer," and where they may be led profitably to meditate on what are emphatically called the four last things. From such a retreat those engaged in the business of the world would emerge with renovated strength, and calmness, and self-possession, to fulfil the various duties of active life; and in such a retreat those who had no active duties to discharge, or who had retired as emeriti from the service of their generation, might find it good for them to be there, and might realize a joy and peace which the world cannot give, but which its daily inroads may impair. Such was the famous institution of Port Royal des Champs, where spirits like those of Arnauld, Racine, Lancelot, Nicole, Pascal, &c. were braced for the highest intellectual exertions, and, at the same time, humbled, chastened, and made meet for heaven by the daily practice of devotion and contemplation of the cross.

It might, I think, be easily shewn that these advantages would nowhere be so well secured as in a voluntary community, subject to the frequent visitation of some high authority, under the direction of a respectable superior, and bound by a simple rule. But as I must not trespass too much upon your valuable pages, I will hasten to state what I humbly conceive might be the fundamental principles, and a few of the chief details, of such a foundation. The two main principles, then, upon which I would have such an institution founded, should be

1. To carry into full effect the provision made by the church of England for the daily service of God, including a due observance of the festivals, fasts, &c.

2. To afford the means of a regularly conducted, quiet, studious, devotional retreat, for a longer or shorter period, to those who might wish to become inmates of it.

In order to effect these purposes, so much might be borrowed from the rules and arrangements of the best regulated monastic institutions, that of Port Royal for instance, as could, mutatis mutandis, be applied to a protestant establishment. The respective institutions, whether for men or women, should be subject to the visitorial authority of the bishop and archdeacon of the diocese. The superior or super

intendents of the institutions for men should be a clergyman, with one or more assistants, and one or more chaplains should be regularly attached to every institution for women. With respect to ways and means, surely, at a time when such ready aid is given to objects not of superior importance, it would not be difficult to commence the plan by subscription; and when this should be done, the payments of the members would suffice to carry it forward.

Into further details it would not be worth while to enter at present, but it is my earnest wish and prayer that our church may not be long without institutions so well calculated to maintain and exemplify the beauty of holiness in her complete offices of devotion, and to promote that spirit of humble, practical, self-denying piety which is in such exact accordance with all her ministrations. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, F. K.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

SIR,-After I had published the pamphlet on the proceedings, &c. of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, (a copy of which is directed to be sent to you,) I was informed by Mr. Hodgson that a rule had been passed on the third of last March, of which a copy is subjoined. How far this rule may be considered as superseding the necessity of the regulations which I have ventured to suggest, I leave to the consideration of others. I would only observe, that the governors seem to be aware that some alterations were required, and I am confident that no exertions will be wanting on their part to secure the application of their funds, in the most effectual manner, towards supplying the urgent spiritual wants of populous parishes. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, J. ROGERS.

Mawnan Parsonage, July 21st, 1836.

RULE PASSED BY THE GOVERNORS OF QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY,

March, 3rd, 1836.

"THAT the said Governors may appropriate, if they shall think fit, the whole or any part of the monies of which they may have the disposal, in each year, in respect of the Royal Bounty Fund, in grants of 2007., to livings and cures not exceeding the improved yearly value of 2007., fixed and certain, where any person or persons, in order to obtain the Bounty, will give a benefaction of 2001., or a greater sum, in money, or the value thereof in lands or tithes, or a clear yearly rent-charge or annuity of 15.; but, nevertheless, that the said governors shall not be restricted from the exercise of the power which they may now have of augmenting, without lot, any such livings and cures, being fitly qualified, as do not exceed 501. per annum; and, by lot, any such livings and cures as do not exceed 601. per annum, if the said governors shall, in any cases, think fit so to augment the said livings and cures respectively."

READING-DESKS, &c.

SIR, There is, I think, reason to hope that there exists at the present time a greater disposition to conduct the services of our church with appropriate solemnity, and with a strict adherence to the ritual (? En.)

than was unhappily the case in the last two centuries. May I therefore be allowed to make a few remarks on one or two matters connected with the service of the church; and most respectfully to solicit the attention of those of your readers who are in any way connected with the erection of new edifices for divine worship.

In most of our old churches, I believe, the reading-desk and pulpit were placed on one side of the church; by which arrangement, the view of the altar was left open, and the minister was enabled, at proper times, to look towards it. Of late years, however, there has been an increasing propensity to place the pulpit in the middle aisle of the church, with the reading-desk immediately below it. This arragement is, I consider, liable to several important objections:-1. The clergyman cannot comply with the ancient and approved custom of turning to the altar at the repetition of the creed. 2. He has, during the whole service, his back towards the communion, a position at once irreverend and opposed to ancient practice. 3. From this (and some other usual incongruities in the form and fitting up of the reading-desk) arises a sort of notion in the congregation, that the minister is reading prayers to them, instead of praying with and for

them.

I think I may truly say, that if any person had studied how to render the service of the church ungraceful and indecorous, he could not have invented anything more adapted for that purpose than the modern reading-desk. In most of the new churches, however, another arrangement has been made, equally (as it appears to me) devoid of grace or propriety. This arrangement consists in erecting two immense boxes, one on each side of the church, equal in height, and in most respects similar to each other; one of these serves for the pulpit, the other is called the reading-desk. In behalf of this most clumsy contrivance I have frequently seen adduced an expression of the excellent George Herbert, to the effect, that he approved of the two desks being of equal, height, that preaching might not seem to be esteemed above praying. No one can feel a greater esteem and veneration for that estimable man than myself. In this instance, however, with all deference, I think he was wrong. By no means would I put the sermon on a level with the liturgy; but let it be remembered that, in preaching, the minister is giving instruction to the people, and therefore is elevated, that he may be seen to greater advantage. In prayer, the minister is speaking to God. There is no reason, therefore, why he should be so raised up; nay, the character of the greater portion of the service renders it more suitable that his situation and position should be as humble as the solemn words of confession and prayer he is instructed to utter. Nor is the circumstance of the minister's being seen by the congregation during prayer of such importance that propriety need be sacrificed to accomplish it. What then, it may be asked, do I suggest as a remedy for the evil? This is the point, Mr. Editor, to which I desire to call the attention of your readers, and to request some of your correspondents, skilled in ritual matters, to examine the propriety of one or two suggestions I will venture to offer. Let me premise, that I greatly prefer the ancient

system of having the desk on one side of the church to the modern system of placing it in the centre. I prefer a low reading desk to a lofty one. But I would ask, whether there is any absolute necessity for a clergyman to read the whole of the service in the desk? I believe the proper place for reciting the litany is on a falled, or low stool, at the entrance of the chancel, or before the altar rails. Allow me to ask, is there any law, or injunction, to prevent the restoration of this practice? Could a clergyman become obnoxious to punishment or censure for so doing? Supposing further, the clergyman were, at the commencement of the service, to place himself just outside the rails of the altar, and from this place to read the sentences and exhortation; then, turning round from the people, kneel down to repeat the confession; then rise, and turning to the people, pronounce the absolution; then again turn, and kneel for the Lord's Prayer; then repair to the reading-desk for the venite, the psalms, lessons, and hymns; then, after the jubilate, return again to the altar rails, and there proceed with the service; could such a mode of performing divine service be called irregular or uncanonical? If the service were performed in this way, the huge box of the new churches might be tolerated, or the middle aisle affair of the last century. Allow me also to ask whether, supposing the minister of one of these churches objected to such unbecoming elevation during prayers, he could be compelled to mount the lofty seat of professed humility?

One more observation I will throw out-Why need the clergyman be put in a box at all? Why need he be walled up to his throat? When he reads the service, why would not a desk for the books, supported by a pillar, or eagle-as is the case in some of our cathedrals be sufficient? Surely the appearance would be more graceful, and less cumbersome. As it is, the congregation can scarcely discern the difference when the minister stands or kneels; and thus the beauty of the service is lost, or disfigured. The different changes of position and manner which ought to be observed during the service would render several portions much more interesting and intelligible than they now are, to the uninstructed portion of the people. Once more— Why are the two lights, enjoined by Edward VI., not placed on the altar? If you can find room for these hasty remarks, you will greatly oblige a constant reader and admirer.

A LOVER OF ANCIENT CUSTOMS.

CHARACTER OF LOT.

SIR,-As you have already promised to insert a letter of mine in your next number, I will only say a few words to " E. B. P.” (1.) The mention of the fertility of the Jordan is made parenthetic by Dathe. I did not mean to say that the region was not chosen by Lot for its fertility, but only that the fertility might be dwelt upon for another reason than the one generally assigned. (2.) As to the note in page 175, is my "allows" more faulty on the side of defect than "E. B. P.'s" "insists" is on the side of excess? If I was guilty of any unfairness,

I heartily beg Mr. N.'s pardon. (3.) St. Chrysostom does say, both in the original and in "E. B. P.'s" translation, "the highest pitch of virtue." The assertion is general; the hospitality but a particular, though remarkable instance; and the passage is followed by other general assertions, and particular commendations; e. g., he is praised for forbearance and humility.* (4.) The teaching of the Fathers does not seem to me to be so strikingly in agreement with Mr. N. as « E. B. P." would lead us to suppose. St. Chrysostom ascribes the preservation of Lot to his own righteousness, as well as to the intercession of Abraham.† St. Clement to his hospitality and godliness, and with him Lot's wife is the example of that double-mindedness which Mr. N. imputes to Lot himself.-(p. 13.) Could Mr. N. adopt the passage of St. Augustine, which, as "E. B. P." thinks, singularly coincides with his views? "Lot, pure and free (integer) from all contamination from the Sodomites, deserved (meruit) to go forth in safety," &c., &c.§ Does Mr. N. make him "like some spark that shines in the middle of the sea, and yet is not only not extinguished, but even exhibits a brighter flame" ? Again, "E. B. P." himself, neglecting the principle of the old presbyter,¶ not to accuse where Scripture simply nar rates, differs in his judgment of the daughters from Irenæus, from St. Chrysostom, (who calls it "a piece of extreme folly and madness" to condemn them,)** and in part from St. Augustine,++ who, without acquitting them, extenuates their crime. That very naming of the children, which, with "E. B. P.," is apparently a proof of shameless guilt, is alleged by St. Chrysostom to prove that the thing was not done for lasciviousness.++ Let it be remembered that I do not argue that Messrs. N. and "E. B. P." are certainly wrong, but that they are not certainly right. I do not wish to remonstrate earnestly against the too common practice of going beyond the certain indications of Scripture, and interpreting doubtful actions to an unfavourable meaning. I cannot, however, end without expressing a feeling of very sincere respect both for Mr. Newman and for "E. B. P."

I am, &c., T. K. A.

CONFIRMATION.

SIR,-A correspondent, under the signature of " W. D.," in November last, animadverted upon the low view (as he seemed to think) held by our church of the present day, on the subject of Confirmation, maintaining that it was "an apostolic rite, enjoined under immediate inspiration from Heaven, as a special mean and instrument of communicating to the faithful the gift of the Spirit, and that we have to expect in the use of it a blessing different from that which would attend any becoming ceremony whereby our youth might renew their vows, and dedicate

* At v. vi. P. 352. ed. Sav.

Ep. i. ad Cor. chap xi. ed. Wotton.

St. Chrys. ad. v. i. p. 349.

** Ad. v. xxxiii. p. 363.

+ At v. xxix. p. 360. § Cont. Faust. lib. xxii. c. 41. ¶ Vid. Iren. c. hæer. xxxi. p. 268. ed. Massuet. tt Loc. cit. Ad. v. xxxviii. p. 364.

« EelmineJätka »