Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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 be come 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 B. G.

servant,

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

administering the sacraments" the minister should wear a surplice, over which, if a graduate, his hood, and, if a priest, the scarf over both shoulders, (as is usual,) but if a deacon, over the left shoulder only. I think that they are in error who suppose that it is necessary to be a B.D., or a qualified chaplain, to be entitled to wear the scarf. In the pulpit, some wear the gown of their degree, others, the full-sleeved gown; again, some wear their hood over the gown, others do not. I am not speaking of the practice in the universities, for Oxford and Cambridge differ on this point, but in parish churches; my own practice is to wear the gown of my degree without the hood, but I know that some, who are great sticklers for "all things being done in a seemly and due order," maintain that the hood should be worn over the gown. Who shall decide?

2. I am inclined to think that the full-sleeved gown was adopted by "literates," by preachers who had never graduated, and therefore could not assume the graduate's gown; if so, why is it not confined to such persons; and why do graduates, and especially dignitaries of the church, so often adopt it in preference to the gown proper to their degree? I am, Sir, yours, &c. B. D. OxON.

ON PREACHING IN GOWNS.

SIR,-A letter, signed "Presbyter," appeared in your Magazine for October, animadverting, and that justly, on the neglect of the first rubric at the end of the communion service; and certainly there does not seem to be the slightest reason for so strange a practice. The rubric orders the sermon after the Nicene Creed. Will any of those clergy who omit the prayer for the church militant stop at the creed and omit their sermon? I fear not.

I should be glad to know whether preaching in gowns be correct; and if it be, by what canon sanctioned or commanded? If it be an innovation, when did it creep into the church ? I am, I confess, ignorant of the whole subject, and write merely for information; but if my suspicions be correct, the gown in the pulpit is a "rag of presbyterianism." Hooker, b. v. c. 29, 8, puts these words into the mouths of the puritans:-"Rather than that (preaching what they called 'gospel') shall be taken from us, we are resolved to take this filth (the surplice!) and to put it on; although we judge it to be so unfit and inconvenient, that as oft as ever we pray or preach so arrayed before you," &c.

If the clergy were to read their sermons in surplice, I am inclined to think that the rubric, now neglected, would be observed, and then the people would come to church to pray, and not to hear sermons. Whether, also, preaching in gowns be not symbolical of a system of theology distinct from, and adverse to, the liturgy? and that the surplice marks the church system, as opposed to private judgment and to human traditions? MILTOPAREOS.

VoL. XIV.Dec. 1838.

51

[ocr errors]

THE OFFICE OF A DEACON.

SIR, My attention has been recently directed to a seeming anomaly in the Book of Common Prayer, or rather, a seeming disagreement between the rubric and the practice of the church. I find there, invariably, a distinction preserved between the "minister," or "him that readeth," and the "priest," in the morning and evening services of the church. For example, it is prescribed in the rubric, at the commencement of the daily service, that the introductory sentences, the exhortation and confession, should be read by the "minister;" while the absolution is to be read by the "priest alone." Again, several other parts of the service are apportioned to the "minister," including certain of the suffrages; while other parts of the service, and several of the suffrages, are directed to be performed solely by the priest. In the American episcopal church, the word 'minister' is adopted throughout the service, and the word priest' is on no occasion employed. Not so, however, in our Book of Common Prayer, which preserves invariably a distinction between two persons supposed to be employed in the performance of divine worship, by the terms, so commonly interchanged, of minister and priest. It has been usual to regard these terms as synonymous, and at all events, for various reasons, this presumption has been invariably acted upon. I am not, Sir, one of those, if such there be in our venerable establishment, who make it my study to find out anomalies, or to propose useless alterations in our admirable form of public worship; but I must own that I am one of those who are much opposed, both on principle and also because I hold the rubric in the highest veneration, to anything like an open or even tacit disregard to what our venerable reformers by the rubric have directed or approved. Referring to the practice of the primitive church, I believe it will be found that certain parts of the service were generally, if not invariably, performed by a reader, a minister, or deacon, all which terms we find mentioned, and undoubtedly denoting the same ecclesiastical office. I am led accordingly to believe that the church in her formularies, as at present constituted, did not mean to make the above-mentioned terms, minister' and deacon,' synonymous, but presupposed the presence of both a priest and a deacon during the celebration of divine service, each of whom took the several parts allotted to them by the church rubric. If in place of the word minister, therefore, that of deacon (which is of the same signification) had been substituted, the common and long prevalent opinion upon this subject would have either never existed or been at least more easily refuted.

6

Now, Sir, I have been induced to make a few remarks upon this apparent discrepancy between our principle and practice, simply for this reason, that all my experience goes to prove that the "good old paths" of the first Christians and our venerable reformers are, both in theory and in practice, undoubtedly the best. Closely connected, how. ever, with this disagreement between the rubric and our systematical neglect of it, is another very glaring anomaly in our church, whereby the divinely-instituted office of a deacon is nearly, if not entirely,

superseded. We contend, and justly contend, that our orders are of divine origin and appointment, and that these orders are threefold— viz., bishop, priest, and deacon. To the two former we certainly assign their proper place and importance, and their separate functions are readily and universally recognised. But who, let me inquire of the laity, ever hears or knows anything defined of the office and the peculiar duties of a deacon? Frequently, no doubt, that office is to a certain degree known by such parishes as have been committed solely to the care of this inferior order in the ministry, and the nature of its duties is unhappily but sensibly experienced by the loss of the advantages which the priestly office alone can bestow. Thus, in short, the deacon's office is almost wholly dispensed with, and its existence is only known to the laity by their being deprived of the blessings of the priesthood, to which they are at all times most assuredly entitled. Is this, however, I would inquire, a state of things which can be defended? is such an anomalous proceeding either dignified or proper? or is there any good reason why this anomaly should be suffered to exist? If, as we believe, the office of a deacon is of divine institution, then are we not highly blameable in permitting it to fall into disuse? Every divine institution must undoubtedly be good; assuredly, therefore, the office of a deacon would, if allowed its just and proper place and influence, be productive of the most important advantages to the church. If, in place of employing so generally, as curates or assistant curates, members of the priesthood, it were incumbent upon every parish priest (being an incumbent) to employ the services of a deacon to assist in the celebration of divine worship, according to the rubric, both in the morning and evening services, and at the holy communion-to assist in visiting and relieving the sick and needy-to wait, in short, upon the priest, and other such services as are prescribed to his office, we should not only come infinitely nearer the practice of primitive and apostolical times, but do an immeasurable service to the church, by ministering in a peculiar and appropriate capacity to the wants of an over-numerous population, perishing in many instances for lack of knowledge. I have good hopes that some more particular attention will be paid to this subject, to which we would humbly but earnestly call attention, more especially at a time when a curate's fund is forming for the maintenance of an additional (assuredly much needed) number of labourers in the Lord's vineyard. If in thus augmenting the number of her instruments we were at the same time to revive (for revival it would certainly be) this long-lost, or nearly obsolete, order in the church, whose origin is, equally with the office of a bishop or a priest, divine, we might better, I cannot but feel, calculate upon the blessing of that mighty Being who worketh by what means soever he pleaseth, and who is best satisfied with that service which is paid to him in the manner which he has directed, and by the means which it has been his Divine pleasure originally to appoint. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

1.

« AnteriorContinuar »