« AnteriorContinuar »
2521. 17s. 71d. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge have also a flourishing branch in the town, but the amount contributed I have not been able to ascertain. These slandered inhabitants. also contribute liberally towards the support of the national and Sunday-schools, the Tract Society, and the District Visiting Society of the town.
The public may now be left to judge of the truth of the statements of the Congregational,” furnished, I have every reason to believe, by an agent of the Home Missionary Society, who is stationed at Richmond for the purpose of propagating the principles of dissent. The course generally adopted by these strolling preachers is to represent the places they enter as destitute of the “ gospel,”-in great want of a “gospel ministry,” and of religious instruction ; and this they do in order to excite public sympathy, that an “appeal to the Christian public” may not be unsuccessful. Thus by gross exaggeration, and very frequently sheer falsehood, they sometimes succeed in drawing money out of the pockets of their dupes to build a meetinghouse, and thus an “interest” becomes established in the place; and the teacher affords a rallying point for all the disaffected, and becomes the promoter, if not the leader, of all the opposition to every thing at all connected with the welfare of the church. Nor is be backward in “ creeping into houses," and insinuating what may prove injurious to the church and the clergy, and advantageous to the “ interest.” I humbly think that it is high time to expose the manæuvres of these Home Missionary gentry in sowing division and disturbance in our towns and villages, and to caution the people to beware of them, and to keep their money in their pockets, or to devote it to some pious purpose connected with the church, when they may rest satisfied that it will be spent in furtherance of the object for which it was given, which is not always the case as it regards some dissenting societies. I remain, yours, Mr. Editor, most respectfully,
Sir,-It has often happened in my parish, that among two or three children brought to the font together, one has been already baptized. Now, though there is much that is common to the offices of public baptism, and reception into the church, (as the gospel, the Lord's prayer, the abrenunciation, the last prayer, and the exhortation,) yet they are distinct offices, and are clearly intended to be separately administered. I should be much obliged if any of your correspondents would kindly furnish me with any suggestions, as to the best manner of proceeding in such a case, where the baptisms are solemnized after the second lesson; for if one child is to be baptized, and another re
The proper use to be made of this and similar valuable statements is to circulate them in the newspapers of the county to which they relate. Unless the friends of the church will take the trouble to give every publicity to these contradictions of slander, they are comparatively useless. Detector's future letters will be most acceptable.
VOL. VIII- August, 1835.
ceived into the church, the performing of these two offices separately, from beginning to end, would seem like the baptismal service twice repeated, and would occasion an interruption of about forty minutes in the evening service.
I remain, yours very truly,
RUSTICUS. 14th July, 1835.
CRANMER AND LATIMER'S EXPENSES IN CONFINEMENT. MR. EDITOR,—I had occasion lately to examine a curious old MS. in the Corpus Library, at Cambridge, being a bill for the expenses of Cranmer and Latimer during their confinement at Oxford after they had been condemned; and I am tempted to give some account of it, not only as interesting in an antiquarian point of view, but as bearing, in some degree, upon the subject of fasting, so admirably handled in a late letter in the British Magazine.
It is true that, from their mode of living as prisoners, we can form no certain judgment of what it might have been when they were not so; and that, even if they were left to themselves in this respect, they might have been guided by the principle of giving no offence even to their persecutors, and have fasted as Romanists * then, as a matter of indifference, in which compliance was therefore right, without having been used to do so before. It may be observed, however, that there seems to be ground from other documents for believing that the mode of fasting adopted by the reformers themselves did agree with that sanctioned by the previous use of the Roman church, and that during Lent, for instance, they abstained very generally from meat, &c.
The following is an accurate account of the expenses of Bishop Latimer during the last week of his life, beginning from Thursday, the 10th October, 1555 .
• This would account, perhaps, for the observance of the 7th December, 1555, by Cranmer, as a day of abstinence, which I noted in the MS. This day was not a Friday, nor is it a fast of our own church, but, as being the vigil of the Conception of the Virgin, is observed as a fast by the Romanist.
Here it will be observed, that on Friday and Saturday no food was served up, but that which the church of Rome prescribes upon days of abstinence, and that whereas, on ordinary days, dinner and supper constitute the two meals of the day, on Friday supper is commuted for what is called “Bever.” The word is not found in Johnson, but
• So in the MS., in which there are other mistakes, as below.
occurs in other dictionaries, and is explained to mean an afternoon draught, the derivation being perhaps berere, the Italian for “to drink,” from which Johnson derives “beverage.” The substitution in the bill of bever for supper every seven days first drew me to remark that the days on which it occurred were, in fact, fast days. The bever seems to have consisted of fruit and cheese, wine and ale, neither of which last seems to have been prohibited on any of their fasts. On one occasion only, a dish of fish was, I think, also added to the bever. *
The account as regards Cranmer is much longer than that of Latimer, and so lets us into more particulars. On Saturday, the 26th of October, for example, bever is substituted for supper, as well as on the 25th. This is, no doubt, on account of the Vigil of St, Simon and St. Jude, which could not be observed on the 27th, being Sunday. The 31st of October is a day of abstinence, though a Thursday, as the Vigil of All Saints. Throughout Lent, beginning the 19th of February in the following year, up to the period of his death, nothing but fish is found charged in the account, and that even on Sundays. Every Wednesday and Friday, bever is substituted for supper, consisting of fruit, cheese, wine, and ale alone (no fish). On Monday, the 24th February, St. Matthias's day, I found dinner and bever only charged, which is not so easy to account for, except it were to make up for an omission on Saturday, which should have been kept as a vigil, and on which dinner and supper are charged as usual.
I remain, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant, O.R. H.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CONTROVERSY ON THE DISPUTED VERSE OF ST. JOHN AS REVIVED BY MR. GIBBON, ETC.
BY THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY. SIR,—This book consists of two short treatises, with a preface of twenty-seven pages and an appendix. “ Christian Theocracy,” the last of the two, will be read with gratification and improvement by all whose sentiments are not confuted by it. It meets the audacious assertion of those who deny the catholic doctrine of the Trinity, that it is not to be found in Scripture, as well as the thoughtless admission of the believer, that it is only the man of learning who would have discovered it there without previous aid. The author accompanies the humble, unlearned inquirer through all parts of the New Testa. ment, and lays before him, in the simplest form, evidence everywhere, of which he himself is left to be the judge. I may, therefore, recommend it to every one who would either establish his faith on the only real foundation, or, having established it, would be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh
In a trial in the North, a few days ago, the word occurred, and was explained to be“ luncheon," which is its common use there.-Ed.
+ This review of the Bishop of Salisbury's book (which the Editor has not seen) is communicated by an excellent friend, and is given as the opinion of an individual only. The Editor will, at any time, be glad to receive notices of other books in the same way, and, whenever he has room, and the book is one of consequence, will insert them. It is very often, as in the case of Mr. Knox, better to discuss a book by various opinions being offered than to give merely a short tranchant notice of it.
a reason of the hope that is in him. I am persuaded, from a delightful circumstance that has been communicated to me, that it will be received with peculiar satisfaction by Mrs. Joanna Baillie, to whom it is addressed. *
The first tract concerns the origin of the second grand controversy respecting the two disputed verses of St.
John. The first was excited by Mr. Emlyn, in 1715. When I call this the first, I am perfectly aware that the world has been drilled into the belief of there having been a decided controversy occasioned by Erasmus having given at first only that portion of the two verses that is retained by Griesbach. Nothing, however, can be farther from the fact. No one will venture to give that name to Erasmus's exposure of Lee's puling over his two favourite texts, 1 John, iv. 3, (qui solvit Jesum,) and v. 7, for he is equally concerned for them both. And it is a pretty considerable abuse of language to give it to the very little which passed between him and Stunica here. Each of the combatants stands repressed on this particular passage with a consciousness that the high ground which he had assumed could not be maintained, and that he was in presence of an adversary who would be ready to take advantage of that false position. Now, if the question had been left as the first controversy did leave it, the critics alone would have been concerned in it. We might all have read our New Testaments in comfort, whatever would be the issue of their debate. But the enemies of the Heavenly Witnesses were too highly triumphant over the imbecility of Martin to be contented with saying that improved versions ought to eject them. The passage must be held out as a distinct and separate act of forgery in every one of the numerous Greek documents in which it has appeared. In this view, the question is of the greatest importance to every man, woman, and child that uses the received text and the authorized version. And great thanks are due to Bishop Burgess for his examination of Mr. Gibbon, and of Mr. Gibbon's decision in his celebrated pote, which is set up as the brief rule of faith on the point, that must be professed by every one who would aspire to the character of a critical scholar. Though you, sir, have held the scales with blind justice, you have shewn throughout your deep feeling of the momentous consequence of the general question, whether Robert Stephens was as honest an editor of the New Testament as he confessedly was of classical authors. Under this impression, you refused, at vol. vi. p. 120, to attend to the call you had received to put a stop to the discussion which was then proceeding, and afterwards spoke in the strong terms that may be seen, vol. vii. p. 60, note. With respect to the controverted passage of St. John, as Mr. Oxlee had laid down that " for the original text of the Heavenly Witnesses, no authority can be alleged than that of a printer of the sixteenth century, who must have translated it from the corrupted Latin version;" his language at your vol. vii. P. 302, cannot be much wondered at—viz., "could the printed text have been supported by one single Greek MS., however humble its pretensions to antiquity, .
we should have been compelled to blush less, when required to say whence we have that passage.” But what does this say for all those who hold with him, and yet read, as the word of God, whether in Greek or English, the text that is given upon the authority of the collations of this printer of the sixteenth century? If Mr. Porson's second Cloten left him who does this publicly to be suffused with blushes, he may stand forth as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, when he sees at pp. 21 and 23 of the bishop's little book the exposure of Mr. Gibbon's assertion, even as it appears corrected by his mighty defender, (Porson, p. 132,) that the passage owes its place in our printed copies to the typographical error of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet, and the strange misapprehension of Theodore Beza. The crotchet, as the historian was pleased to call it, was used in the folio edi
I have been assured, upon authority which I cannot doubt, that this highly respectable lady received the sacrament at Hempstead Church, last Trinity Sunday.