Графични страници
PDF файл

“ They

only one company, and that Mary Magdalene alone out of that company received these divine manifestations, seem thus easily removed; there is an undesigned coincidence which, I think, establishes the fact. held him by the feet, and worshipped him," are the words of Matthew : “ Touch me not,” are the words of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, as recorded by St. John. Now the scholiast (Euripides, Phænissæ, 910) explains the word émiaußávouai (a word of kindred meaning with clasping the knees or feet,) by the verb ärtopal, to touch. I therefore think that. both Evangelists, though St. Matthew, as usual with him, speaks in the plural number, intended to mention the same event, viz. that of Mary clasping the feet or knees of Jesus, in token of deep veneration, or, perhaps, even of adoration. The prohibition of these acts of adoration amounted to the same command as that of the angels in the sepulchre, to go quickly; as if Christ had said, “ Lose not the time in these acts of affection and veneration : I am not going immediately to ascend to my Father, so that thou wilt see me again; but go at once to my sorrowing disciples, and bear to them the comfortable assurance of my resurrection, and my speedy assumption to the right hand of Power, as their Mediator and Advocate."

Relying on the principles of interpretation above laid down, I am inclined to suppose the following adjustment of the several appearances of our Lord after his resurrection, as exhibiting the greatest verisimilitude. The guards had, probably, been placed at the sepulchre so privately, that their presence there was unknown to the disciples; and in alarm at the resurrection, they had withdrawn previously to the arrival of the women. It appears that Peter and John also were near the sepulchre, otherwise Mary Magdalene would hardly have so quickly been able to summon them; and their presence was, without doubt, for the purpose of removing the stone from the entrance of the receptacle, by previous arrangement with the company. Mary Magdalene seems to have arrived first, either for the purpose of reconnoitring, or led on by the ardour of her zeal : she finds the sepulchre deserted, and immediately summons Peter and John. On their departure, she still stands at the sepulchre, weeping at the thought that “ they had taken away her Lord, and she knew not where they had laid him” (words which certainly imply, that neither herself, nor the two apostles, had as yet any thought of Jesus having arisen, whatever some expressions elsewhere, arising from the want of attention to the order of time by the Evangelists, may seem to imply). She, at length, “stooped down into the sepulchre," and then saw the two angels, and received their command; and, in confusion at the scene, and hardly in possession of herself, she, on turning round and beholding Jesus, supposing him to be the gardener, says, "Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." On the recognition taking place, she receives the command to the disciples of Jesus; and joining the other women, hastens to convey the glad tidings to them. Jesus next appears to the two disciples going to Emmaus; then to Peter ; then to the apostles, and the others assembled with them, on the evening of the first day. On the Sunday following, he again appears to the apostles, Thomas being now with them. Then follow the appearance to John and Peter, and five others of the apostles, at the lake of Galilee ; and probably at about the same time, the appear

“ After

ance to "above five hundred brethren at once.” (1 Cor. xv. 6.) that (or, perhaps, moreover) he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.” This last appearance I take to be that more especially intended to be recorded by St. Matthew; and which was the same as the one at Bethany, when, “While they (the apostles) beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight!"

I cannot undertake to say, how far the above arrangement of those events has been anticipated by others; but as far as my own recollection serves me, I do not remember to have seen in the commentators an attempt to reduce the women who were early at the sepulchre to one company, or the several appearances recorded by the Evangelist, to those vouchsafed to Mary Magdalene alone. Should you, Sir, think this humble attempt at removing some of the difficulties hanging over this part of holy writ, worthy a place in the REMEMBRANCER, its insertion will be esteemed a favour, by

G. C. P.S.-I have above mentioned four women, as being at the sepulchre ; I find, however, that many of the Commentators endeavoured to reduce the number to three. They suppose that, during the life-time of the Virgin Mary, the Evangelists suppressed her relation to Christ, in order to save her from persecution, under which at last it is probable she actually did fall, according to the saying of the holy Simeon, “ Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also !" According to this plan, “the mother of Jesus," in St. John, is the same person as the mother (i.e. the stepmother) of James and Joses," in St. Matthew and St. Mark; and Mary the wife of Cleophas is called in St. Mark, Salome, and was mother of the sons of Zebedee, and the sister of our Lord's mother. Now I willingly concede, that great care is necessary in steering clear of the difficulties arising from the variation of names belonging to the same person in the holy Scriptures; thus, even in the names connected with the college of Apostles, what variation exists! “ Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus,” is the same person with “Judas, brother of James," whose real (or reputed) father was “Cleophas," which is also pronounced and spelt in other places, “ Alpheus ;” or “Simon the Canaanite,” is the same as “ Simon Zelotes ;" whilst “ Bartholomew is almost universally conceded to be the same person with “Nathanael of Cana in Galilee." Yet, notwithstanding these considerations, I cannot but think that the attempt to reduce the number of the women named in Scripture as having gone early to the sepulchre, to three only, involves us in inextricable confusion. And here again we meet with some singular and undesigned coincidences; although St. Matthew names only two, “ Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary;" yet when our Lord appears to the women on their return from the sepulchre, he is represented as saying, All hail !" — words hardly consistent with the presence of only two women.

According to what I have before advanced, I am still, however, of opinion, that by some cause or other, Mary Magdalene was separated for a short time from her companions, and that the appearance was vouchsafed to her alone during such brief period of separation from the rest. There is here also a singular coincidence, amidst all these discrepancies, between the narratives of the Evangelists, tending to show that the first appearance of all to Mary Magdalene recorded by St. John, was the very same less circumstantially given by St. Matthew. In the latter Evangelist, Jesus meets the women on their going from the sepulchre ; in St. John, he appears to Mary Magdalene as “she turned back” from the sepulchre. In short, a careful attention to St. Mark's narrative easily clears up all difficulties ; for it shows that, though he mentions " Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (to whom St. Luke adds “ Joanna, and other women that were with them," suppressing, however, the name of “ Salome "), as all participating in the celestial vision of the angels in the sepulchre, yet to Mary Magdalene alone was the personal appearance of our Lord vouchsafed.


Reply to Observations, as given in The Christian REMEMBRANCER,

page 159, &c. upon the Use of Psalms and Hymns in the Public Ser vice of the Church.

I. We shall follow the order of the arguments as there given, and upon the first (p. 160) we shall observe, that we regard as of some importance the admitted fact, that the common law of the Church was such as we had contended for, and that long custom might authorize the very practice which we advocate.

The statement of Bishop Gibson, as quoted by our Right Reverend correspondent, requires some modification ; for the word Liturgy did not then extend to all the services of the Church, but simply to the eucharistic office; the more solemn part of which, in its general form, in the order of its parts, and its whole substance, was entirely, or nearly so, fixed and invariable. But in the introductory and concluding parts, which consisted chiefly of Psalms, Hymns, Lessons, Anthems, and Collects, each Bishop used the right of altering old, and introducing new forms from time to time. Much the same may be said of the other offices.

The right, however, was not confined to Bishops, as is supposed, but was exercised by Abbots, and the heads of religious institutions generally; many hymns, anthems, and collects, having come down to us as the compositions of men in an inferior station in the Church. Moreover, in the Act of Edward VI, quoted above, Parish Churches " are named as well as Cathedrals ;" from which we infer, that anterior to the Reformation, even the inferior clergy had the power--not, as Bishop Gibson states, of altering the Liturgy, but of beginning or ending it with such anthems, hymns, and collects, as in reality constituted the psalmody of that day, and which exactly answer to that, for the use of which we now contend.

His Lordship, however, for the sake of argument, seems willing to admit all this, but then in a very long series of observations contends that the Bishops and Clergy were, at the Reformation, deprived of their ancient custom and right.

II. Now in these observations we have an important admission ; viz. that Psalmody, in any way, over and above that contained in the “prescript form of Service,” was not contemplated. If so, the law of VOL. XX. NO. IY.


[ocr errors]


Edward does not apply to the Psalmody, which is the subject of the present discussion.

But inasmuch as this Law of Edward VI. was repealed, it is unnecessary to enter upon its meaning: we will at once therefore go to the Injunctions of Elizabeth which are now in force, and which allowed, not ordered, an Hymn, or such like Song," at those times.

We deny that the words Anthem and Hymn bear that restricted sense put upon them by our Right Reverend correspondent. In the Roman Services, which the Act of the second of Edward VI. abolished, Antiphons or Anthems were not confined to extracts from the Bible: and in the preface to a small volume of “ Ancient Hymns from the Roman Breviary," lately published by Messrs. Rivington, we have the admission, that the word Hymn was generally applied to those metrical compositions, such as the Veni Creator, with which the canonical hours of the Church, before the Reformation, abounded.

Moreover, the Bishop supposes that the words “ Hymn or such like Song,” in the Injunctions of Elizabeth, were confined to those which are so named in our Book of Common Prayer; such as the “Te Deum,' and the • Benedictus,' under the former name; and the 'Song of the Blessed Virgin Mary,' and the “Song of Simeon,' under the latter." This appears to us to be contradicted by the very words contained in the same injunction, where it is said that they may be sung" in the beginning or in the end of Common Prayers, either at Morning or Evening" Service ; since it is clear that these had been already appointed to be used in the middle of the Service, and could not be changed.

For the same reason, the caution that “the sentence of the said Hymn may be understood and perceived," cannot be supposed to refer to the abovementioned Hymns and Songs in the Prayer Book; for the understanding and perception of which sufficient care had previously been taken. It must, therefore, in our judgment, have been designed to apply to Psalmody over and above that contained in the prescribed offices of the Church.

We have little doubt that, were a question at any time to arise in the Ecclesiastical Courts, as to the meaning of the words Anthem and Hymn, they would be interpreted in the more enlarged, rather than in the restricted sense put upon them by his Lordship. For when we consider that these Courts still continue to acknowledge the validity of Lay-Baptism, because such was the ancient dogma of the Roman Church, notwithstanding that our present Prayer Book assigns the administration of the rite to a lawful minister only ; and notwithstanding such change in the Ritual was introduced in express condemnation of Lay-Baptism: we cannot admit the possibility, that those courts would depart from the ancient meaning of the words Anthem and Hymn, because a few sentences from the Bible happen, in the service for Easter-day, to be called Anthems,—which Anthems, by the way, have the Gloria Patri annexed. They may justly be called Anthems; but this circumstance does not decide that all other forms not taken from the Bible shall not be so called,

One favourite mode of arguing against the use of Psalms and Hymns at discretion is this,—that as none but the authorized version of the Holy Scriptures may be read in Churches, so no forms of singing, except similarly authorized, may be used. But here is an evident confusion of ideas. The Holy Scriptures form a necessary part of the "prescript Service ;" but the Psalmody, as appears from the Bishop's own admission, is no part thereof.

In arriving at these conclusions on this lengthened part of the argument, it appears to us that his Lordship reasons on the supposition that the Version of Sternhold and Hopkins can only be lawfully used in the Church, as being a part of the Bible, according to the practice which it is supposed was originally enjoined by the Law of Edward VI., whereby the “ forms of singing " were to be exclusively taken from the Holy Scriptures. But we have the authority of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the Revision of the Liturgy at the Restoration, as quoted by Mr. Todd himself, for saying that this version is not to be esteemed a part of Holy Scripture. Indeed, we do not see how any metrical version in a modern language can be thought a part of Holy Scripture. Such was certainly the opinion of Bishops Beveridge and Horsley, who, in their ardent defence of these ancient versifiers, recommend them, only from the fact, that they designed to give not a mere version, nor a mere manual for “ forms of singing,” but a spiritual adaptation and interpretation of the Psalms for the godly edification of the people : and that although the quaintness of their verse may excite ridicule in those who are rendered fastidious by education, yet they are to be retained because agreeable to the vulgar ; an admission which would require equally two Prayer Books,-one for the educated, and another for the common people.

We cannot at this moment, lay our hand on our authority for the fact that a part of the Old Version was used in Churches towards the end of King Edward's reign; yet we feel convinced such was the truth : and if so, the custom of extra singing was known to the framers of the Act of Uniformity in the first year of Elizabeth ; yet no notice was taken of it in that Act, nor in the Act after the Restoration, when the custom had become general. The revisers of the Prayer Book refused to consider this, or any other metrical version, therefore, a part of the Service, and, as such, left it open; though, according to Mr. Todd, the matter was pressed upon them.

Our original position, that the tacit consent of each Bishop in his own diocese was sufficient authority for the use of forms of singing at discretion, is fully borne out by the history of the way in which the New Version was introduced to the notice of the Church. Dr. Compton, Bishop of London, recommended this New Version to his Clergy, as if the mere royal allowance, unless backed by episcopal licence, was without authority; a fact which is confirmed by the custom on the transmission of Royal Letters, Forms for Days of Fasting or Thanksgiving, and Proclamations altering the style and title of the Royal Family, on the demise of the Crown. But what other Bishop did so ? For it is, we think, a gratuitous assumption that the New Version was thus recommended by the Bishops generally; and if it were not, except in the diocese of London, the New Version is itself illegal : and as the Old Version itself has never, on any other than implied evidence, been authorized, either by royal or episcopal authority, in each diocese (for in so important a matter we dare not conclude the mere assumption of

« ПредишнаНапред »