« НазадПродовжити »
being an oratory. Moses and Aaron fell down upon their knees, at the door of the tabernacle. Hezekiah and the people bowed and worshipped ; as proved at large in my speech at the Star Chamber. • And oh! let us worship and fall down before the Lord our Maker' the common introitus in our own and other liturgies. I did so, and it is an ordinary and legal speech; there being a relative though not an inherent Holiness in churches dedicated to God's service. Whereas, it was said I threw up dust in the air; this I deny; and when it was alleged that this was in imitation of the Roman Pontifical, that” (said he) " is a mistake ; for the Pontifical prescribes (cinis) ashes, not dust, to be cast abroad. For my form of consecration, Bishop Andrews made it, from whom I desired a copy, and had it, which I observed. It was objected, that the form of prayer I used, is in the Mass Book and Roman Pontifical. so," (he replied, "and many other very good prayers are in it.”
After the Bishop had made his defence, a reply was made by a member of the House of Commons, appointed to manage the evidence :
“I. That Moses had an express command from God himself to consecrate the Tabernacle, with allthe vessels thereof, by anointing them with consecrated oil, (Exod. xl. 10, 12,) they being types of Christ to come; but we have no such command from God to consecrate churches, churchyards, chapels, altars, and vestments, which are no types of Christ already come.
“ II. The consecration was made by Moses, the temporal Magistrate (not by Aaron the high priest) without any other ceremony than mere anointing the Tabernacle, and its vessels and implements, with oil, therefore this was no warrant for the Bishop's
consecrating churches, churchyards, chapels, altars, vestments, with other ceremonies, and without any anointing them with oil.
“ III. The consecration was only a temporary jewish ceremonial abolished by Christ's death Col. ii. 14.
“IV. King Solomon did not consecrate the temple nor the vessels and court thereof, with oil, as Moses did the Tabernacle ; but after he had brought the Ark, Tabernacle, and all the holy vessels into it, with praises, thanksgivings, and instruments of music,—and after the cloud and glory of the Lord had filled the house, he made an heavenly prayer only, in the midst of the Court, not in the temple, before all the congregation of Israel.
“V. That the most holy place was so styled, though never consecrated : so Jerusalem is very frequently called the Holy City-Matt. iv. 5—and xxvii. 53, though never consecrated; and God told Moses “the place whereon thou standest is holy ground'—Exod. iii. 5, though never consecrated by a Bishop.
VI. Our Homilies inform us, that the church is counted and called holy, not of itself, (nor yet from its consecration by a Bishop,) but because God's people resorting thither, are holy, and exercise themselves in holy and heavenly things.
“VII. The hearing and preaching of God's word, prayer and receiving the sacrament therein, are sufficient of themselves to sanctify and make it holy, without any other consecration.
“ VIII. Sanctification in its own nature is nothing else but a sequestering of every thing from a common or ordinary use to a religious and sacred purpose; and this may be done without a Bishop's exorcism or consecration. For his throwing up dust,
two witnesses expressly depose to it,—which must overbalance his bare negation, and there is little difference between dust and ashes, as they are usually coupled together as synonymous, in Scripture and by authors.
“ That he took his form from Bishop Andrews is only averred by himself—not proved by any witness ; but that it agrees with that in the Pontifical, which we found in his study, is most clear; and, therefore, we cannot but presume that he derived it from thence. However, if Bishop Andrews borrowed it from the Pontifical, and he from Bishop Andrews, the charge is much alike."
CASE. The opinion of Dr. Addams is requested upon the following point :
A body being about to be removed from the parish in which it died, for interment in a distant parish, the Incumbent of the former parish claims to be paid the same amount of burial fees in respect of such corpse as if actually interred in the churchyard of his parish.
Is there any canon, or statute law, or general
legal custom, by which the incumbent of a parish, or other ecclesiastical or parochial authority can demand burial fees in respect of a corpse, removed from such parish, for interment in another parish ?
Opinion. I am of opinion, that there is no law or custom by which the incumbent or any other authority, of any one parish, can demand burial fees in respect of a corpse removed from such parish for interment in the churchyard of any other parish.
I believe, however, that some provision is made in the Acts establishing general cemeteries (such as that in the Harrow Road), for compensating clergymen, out of whose parishes corpses are removed for interment in such cemeteries. But the particular nature of that provision (if any), I am unable to point out, not having the acts themselves, or either of them, to refer to.
J. MASTERS, PRINTER, 33, ALDERSGATE STREET.