« AnteriorContinuar »
counsel will sufficiently account for the subdued displeasure of the answer.
Whittingham succeeded in obtaining offers of a church at Basle and at Geneva ; and after his return, and some unpleasant bickering with their opponents, the Genevan party finally left Frankfort about the beginning of September. The name of John Foxe is affixed with those of Wittingham, Goodman, and fifteen others, to a quarrelsome valedictory paper, presented some days previously; and in fact he seems to have been a forward person in the party to which he had attached himself. He took up his quarters indeed shortly after at Basle, and not at Geneva, where Knox was, and where Goodman, Miles Coverdale, and Whittingham, found their most congenial asylum. But if it be true, as reported by Bale in Strype,* that the refugees at Basle were persons who “mocked at the rehearsal of God's Commandments, and of the Epistles and Gospels in the Communion," it can hardly be thought that John Foxe rejoiced in having found a more temperate latitude.
In short, the character of our venerated martyrs is one thing; that of our martyrologists another. For the authentic documents collected by Father Coverdale and Foxe, we owe them the respect due to painful compilers of valuable matter ; but the spirit of the man, who chose rather to make a new schism than to dwell with his brethren in exile, and join his voice with theirs in the English Liturgy, is not such as the sainted Ridley would have wished for in his faithful Chronicler.t I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
CANON OF THOULOUSE.
Sir,-Your correspondent, Mr. Evans, p. 296, quotes a constitution of Pius V., forbidding physicians to attend on a sick man who had neglected to call in a confessor. I believe he will find that this papal law did not originate with Pius V., however that pontiff's previous practice as an inquisitor might have recommended it to his notice. It is said to be contained in a decretal of Innocent III., and to have been revived by Paul III., at the instance of Ignatius Loyola. A reference to the collection of “ Innocentii III. Epistolæ," &c. will probably determine this fact.
If such a law, however, was enacted before the date of the council of Thoulouse, and on the authority of so eminent a pope as Ionocent III., it may account for similar enactments in the canons of later councils, without the necessity of referring them to the canon of Thoulouse; which certainly appears to me to admit only of Mr. Maitland's interpretation. Yours faithfully,
* Eccl. Mem. vol. iji. App. p. 107. + It ought to be observed, however, that in later times Foxe was reckoned among the moderate Puritans, and was made Prebendary of Salisbury, although he refused subscription.
REVERENCE TO CHURCHES.
Sir, I should feel obliged if you could insert the following extract from Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles, &c., p. 363 :
“ Constitutions and canons ecclesiastical, agreed on in the convocations at London and York, in the sixteenth year of King Charles the First, with the king's majesties licence," &c.
“ VII. A declaration concerning some rites and ceremonies.
“ Whereas the church is the house of God, dedicated to his holy worship, and therefore ought to mind us, both of the greatness and goodness of his divine majesty, certaiu it is that the acknowledgment thereof, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in itself, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others : We therefore think it very meet and behoveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people, members of this church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgment, by doing reverence and obeysance, both at their coming in and going out of the said churches, chancels, or chapels, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive church in the purest times, and of this church also for many years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The reviving, therefore, of this ancient and laudable custom, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the communion-table, the east, or church, or anything therein contained, in so doing, or to perform the said gesture in the celebration of the holy eucharist, upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in mystical elements, but only for the advancement of God's majesty, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and no otherwise ; and in the practice or omission of this rite, we desire that the rule of charity prescribed by the apostle may be observed, which is, that they which use this rite, despise not them who use it not; and that they who use it not, condemn not those that use it.” I have the honour to be, yours &c.
E. M. Oxford, March 4th, 1838.
THE MEANING OF THE BENEDICTION.
Sir, I observe in your Magazine for this month a letter on the Benediction, which appears so satisfactory to the writer's mind, that he recommends a new mode of reading it, and of stopping in the printing of it. I must refer to his letter in order to be understood. In my opinion, the present mode of reading it, and of printing it, is the cor. rect one; and indeed, before we venture to change anything which has been in common acceptation, and never understood in any other light than one by thousands, ought we not to ask ourselves, and very seriously, whether so many persons, and for so long a time, can have been under a mistake without perceiving it? A new proposition attracts, and for the moment startles us, and in the surprise we are apt to fancy that a discovery has been made: thus I remember a critic proposing that we should read," the deaf hear; the dumb speak; the blind see; the lame walk," omitting the usual stops, thus“ the deaf hear the dumb speak; the blind see the lame walk;" and for a moment, and when I was very young, I thought his emendation ingenious. Now let us refer to the alteration which this writer proposes in the benediction. He explains “ keep” as “causing to preserve;" let us use it as meaning “ preserve.” This may seem a very slight shade of difference, but I imagine that I see one; “preserve” is strictly within the meaning of the original Apovpɛw, to “guard” or “ defend."' With this explanation of “ keep,” which the writer will not dispute, I am of opinion, that “in” is not to be interpreted as “through," and that there is no ambiguity in the words “ keep” and “in," and that the peace of God is not the cause instead of the result, but is intended be both. * There are passages in scripture where in and through may be reciprocally used, but this does not appear to be one of them ; so far from it, that I think the whole drift (if I may use the expression) would be altered by adopting “ through.” The words,
The words, “peace, ' “ understanding," “ knowledge," " love," are connected in the terms of the blessing, referring each to the other as to the nature of it. “May the peace of God guard you through Christ,” is not the tenour of the blessing; the blessing has reference to understanding and knowledge, and the wish is that the peace of God, which excels all understanding, may from its blessed fruits and effects, which you must be sensible of, if you enjoy them, preserve your hearts and minds in that understanding-namely, the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The writer's mode of interpretation would make the benediction simply, “ May God guard your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ;" but the benediction is more affectionately explicit, and the words peace, understanding, and knowledge, have, as i have said, their referential, and, if I may so speak, their influential, meaning. There can be no objection to dropping the voice, as a preparatory breathing, for emphatic stress on the latter words, not with a view to their distinct meaning, but to their full explanatory meaning, of the blessing invoked or given. I am aware that in our translation of Phil. iv. 7, ev is translated “through ;" but with humility I think not judiciously, and I am pleased with finding that Whitby in his note thus paraphrases the verse, “ The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds (stedfast) in Christ Jesus.” When I sat down to write, I had not referred to Whitby, and I am pleased to find that he supplies the very word which in two syllables explains what I have been aiming at in a long letter. In translating tv “in," and not “through," I walk with Whitby, latere tecto. Read the 8th and 9th verses of the fourth of Philippians. The apostle says, “Those things which ye have learned, do; and the peace of God shall be with you." The benediction says, May the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep (preserve) your hearts and minds (stedfast) in that knowledge which passeth all understanding, in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord; and the blessing of God Almighty be on you so preserved in stedfastness. In reality, are not the latter words the benediction, and is not the first part a prayer? “In the peace of God may ye have peace.” “To be spiritually minded is peace," and to you « who have this joy and peace in believing,” in which I pray that you may continue stedfast, I (the priest having authority so to do) give the blessing of God. Accept these hasty observations, written in haste to
* “In the peace thereof ye shall have peace."-Jer. xxix. 7.
prevent the university printer's being too precipitate, (vide your correspondent's letter,) and am, Sir, your constant reader,
C. V. L. G. PS. The blessing, as given by St. Peter, epis. I. v. 14, “ Peace be with you all that are in Christ,” is given with the hope that, continuing stedfast in the joy and peace of believing, they may continue in Christ.
Penzance, Feb. 26, 1838.
MR. TROLLOPE'S ANALECTA THEOLOGICA. Sir,–I have read the letter of “R” with some surprise and much regret-surprise, at the interpretation he has put upon the passage he quotes—regret
, because he has, unthinkingly, cast a slur upon a book the general excellence of which he acknowledges, by attributing to the editor sentiments which are not his, and which, if they were, have nothing whatever to do with neology.
The passage quoted in “o's” letter is taken from an essay “ On the date of the Nativity, as connected with the taxing mentioned by St. Luke,” in which, according to the object and plan of the Analecta Theologica, Mr. Trollope has stated pretty nearly all that has been or can be said upon the subject by the writers whose names are appended at the end of the essay-viz., Benson, Middleton, Campbell, Macknight, Wetstein, [Scaliger, Allix, Casaubon, Whitby, Michaelis, &c. &c.] To one or other of these writers the sentiment expressed in “d's" quotation belongs. The essay begins with a statement of the difficulty respecting the chronology of the “ taxing,” mentioning the birth of Christ, as settled in a previous essay on Matt. i., (by reference to which it appears that that essay is altogether taken from Benson,) to have fallen on a day between Jan. 3. J.P. 4710, and Jan, 3, 4709, and that Cyrenius, according to Tacitus, Ann. iï. 22, 48, was not sent into Syria until J.P. 4720. The essay then proceeds. “ In order to reconcile this contradiction in chronology, various expedients have been devised.” Then follows the passage quoted by “0”. which is succeeded by others commencing," Hence some have supposed
“ the verse which is only parenthetically historical,” &c. &c. “ But the fact is, that,” &c. &c.
Now, is it not apparent that the editor is merely stating objections and offering explanations in refutation, as culled from the writers whose observations he has thrown together, agreeably to the following notice in his preface ?
“ The several interpretations of any disputed or doubtful passage have been arranged in the order of their respective merits, beginning with that which has the least, and ending with that which has the greatest degree of probability. Every argument of weight adduced in support of each opinion is concisely stated; objections are confuted or confirmed; and the principal authorities in favour of the adopted exposition are given at the end of the note.
But supposing “R” to be right in laying the sentiment he comments on at Mr. Trollope's door, the very same principle ought to compel him to include Campbell and others in the sweeping charge about 6 modern neological opinions," and the denial of “ INSPIRATION.”
Campbell has these words in his notes on Luke, ii, 2 :“ That which has principally given rise to the questions that have been agitated on this subject, is a passage in Josephus, (Ant. 18. 1.) from which it appears, that the tax levied by Cyrenius, which was the first imposed upon the people by the Romans, happened about ten or eleven years after the time here spoken of by L.
it is impossible to think that thut historian (Josephus) could either have erred through ignorance, or have attempted wilfully to misrepresent what must have been known to thousands then living. We cannot, therefore, with Maldonate and others, cut short the matter at once, by sacrificing the credit of the historian to the authority of the evangelist, BECAUSE this will be found, in the issue, to do a material injury to i he evangelist himself.”—(On the Gospels, iii. 255.)
Here we have an avowal of the condemned sentiment, in an argument from the evidence of Josephus, by Dr. Campbell; and I presume “Q” will not venture to charge him with “neology,” and “setting inspiration aside.” The reason Dr. Campbell urges is surely sufficient to justify Mr. Trollope, supposing he was not editing the remarks of Dr. Campbell himself.
I write this in Mr. Trollope's behalf, as he is not now in Eng. land, and cannot see the critique of “Q” in time to give what, I doubt not, would be a more satisfactory reply, in the April number. But I hope it will convince “0," that, before he gives way again to his zeal against neology so condemningly, he ought to ascertain whether there be any neology in the sentiment itself, and whether he is justified in charging it upon such a work as the Analecta.
THE SPECIAL SERVICES.
Sir,—The following extracts from the 24th Geo. II., c. 23, may be interesting to your readers, as serving to throw light upon the subject we have been discussing; which discussion I will not pretend to continue, as I must confess myself wholly at a loss to understand distinctly what your views upon the subject are : only one thing I rejoice to receive on your assurance, that they are not what your former articles had led me to believe. The only notice of what are commonly called “the State Holidays' which occurs in the body of the act, is as follows :
“ That from and after the said second day of September, all and every the fixed feast days, holydays, and fast days, which are now kept and observed by the church of England, and also the several solemn days of thanksgiving, and of fasting and humiliation, which by virtue of any act of parliament now in being are from time to time to be kept and observed, shall be kept and observed on the respective days marked for the celebration of the same in the new calendar; that is to say, on the same respective nominal days on which the same are now kept and observed, but which according to the alteration by this act intended to be made, as aforesaid, will happen eleven days sooner than the same now do." Gibson, 1257.
The reader must understand that there are only three solemn days of thanksgiving and fasting, which “ by virtue of any act of parliament are to be kept and observed;" namely, I., the 5th of November, appointed by 3 Jac. I., c. 1, in memory of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot; II., the 30th of January, appointed by 12 Car. II., Vol. XIII.-April, 1838.