« ZurückWeiter »
two Clergymen officiate, the length of time requisite for a compliance with the letter of the rubric would interfere with the afternoon service. It may be objected that an alteration of the hours of service would remedy the evil; but those who so object are, perhaps, little aware how the whole Sunday, from nine o'clock in the morning till very late in the afternoon, is, in many populous parishes, completely filled up, between the public services and the other offices of marriage, baptism, and burial. Such cases are far from being unusual in the metropolis and other large towns.
In such cases, it is usual, I believe, for the Clergyman to administer the elements to two or more persons at a time, during a single repetition of the prescribed form; some retaining the singular number, others changing it into the plural. For the latter custom we have some countenance in the (I believe) universal custom of the Bishops in Confirmation, who thus change the words at the imposition of hands into the plural form, and use them for several persons at the same time.
I must confess that I adopt such method with great reluctance; there is an individuality of application designed by the Church in the separate distribution to each, which is violated by both the above modes. I have sometimes thought there would be less impropriety in repeating only the first half of each form to each individual, or only the first few words ; viz. “ The body of our Lord Jesus Christ ;" “ The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ;" which are the most ancient and primitive forms for the purpose, come down to us from the second century. It is not unusual, on many occasions, to let the first few words stand for the whole document whence they are taken, where the repetition of the whole would be inconvenient, as is commonly done in passing bills through Parliament; and in naming whole psalms and chapters from the first few words, as among the Hebrews, and Oriental nations; and a very solemn and affecting instance of the practice is generally supposed by commentators in our blessed Saviour's citing the beginning of the twenty-second Psalm, whereby he is supposed to have pointed out the application of the whole to himself; or that the Evangelist meant to intimate that he actually recited the whole, though only the first few words are recorded, but which are to be understood as standing for the whole. If, Sir, any of your correspondents could point out what is best, under my circumstances, I should be happy to hear their opinions. One objection, and perhaps the most important, seems to me to arise from such a mode being quite unusual ; on so solemn an occasion, we ought to pause ere we unsettle men's minds by departing from what is customary.
An attentive consideration of the rubrics in the Communion Service has convinced me that the minister who consecrates should himself receive the elements in silence; he is directed to receive first himself, and it is not till the mode of administering them to others is prescribed, that any form of words occur. I think this seems far the more reverend way, and more expressive of his own humility, and is (I believe) the more ancient practice. The adoption of it, however, or any innovations in such a matter upon ordinary practice, requires great judgment, and mature deliberation. Could any of your correspondents, Sir, inform me, whether such a mode any where prevails ?
THE ROMISH CHURCH IN IRELAND.
Parish Priests. Curates. Total.
111 Diocese of Derry . . .
Archbishops, 4. Bishops, 23. At Kilkenny and Thurles, where are the Romish cathedrals of Ossory and Cashel respectively, are Chapters, consisting of the Prelate, Dean, Archdeacon, Chancellor, Treasurer, Precentor; and at Ossory 7, at Thurles 5 Prebendaries.
The Bishops have parochial cures, and in some instances have two parochial chapels, with curates under them.
Dublin contains about 20 Romish chapels, 1 monastery, 14 convents, 5 institutions of the Sisters of Charity, 3 of the Sisters of Mercy, 10 schools by brothers of the christian schools, and 16 doctrine confraternities, &c.
Cork contains 9 chapels and 2 nunneries.
Drogheda contains convents of the Dominican, Franciscan, and Augustinian orders. In one is preserved the head of Dr. Oliver Plunkett in an ebony case.
Athlone has a convent of the Franciscan order. With two exceptions, every parish in the district called the Romish diocese of Ardagh, has one or more newly-built and well-slated chapels.
Newry has a recent convent of the order of St. Clare, second to none in Ireland.
Kilkenny has 2 convents, besides a Dominican convent, latterly vacant. There are presentation convents also at Castlecomer and Moincoin ; an Augustinian convent at Callan; and a Carmelite convent at Knocktopher. In this same diocese of Ossory some new chapels and convents are in a state of progress.
In the diocese of Cashel, are convents at Tipperary, Cashel, Fethard, and Thurles.
In the midst of a large group of buildings stands at Thurles the noble house appropriated to Dr. Slattery, their Archbishop. The cathedral is able to accommodate from 7000 to 8000 persons, with a magnificent altar, and an organ second to none in the kingdom. At either side of the cathedral stands a convent, one of Ursuline, the other of Presentation nuns. The chapel of the latter is a beautiful Gothic edifice. But by far the most remarkable of the public buildings in this town is the new college, on an eminence as you enter Thurles, It stands in a demesne of twenty-five acres, washed by the river Suire. The front is 255 feet long, with two large receding wings. The first stone was laid in that eventful, and to our empire, disgraceful year, 1829.
Galway has 3 convents and some nunnery chapels. There are also convents at Doneraile, Youghal, Middleton and Fermoy.
Besides the royal college of Maynooth, instituted by act of parliament 1795, to teach that very religion which the Protestant sovereign declares upon oath to be idolatrous and superstitious, there are those of Thurles, Wexford, Tuam, Carlow, Castlenock, Waterford, Birchfield college, near Kilkenny, and the Jesuit college of Clongowes Wood. There is also a college at Rome appropriated to the Irish.
In 1837 deceased Dr. Abraham, the titular Bishop of Waterford, Of this extraordinary individual there is an exposure in “The Letters of the Rev. M. H. Seymour and the Rev. W. B. Stoney; or Conclusive Evidence," &c. published by Cock, 21, Fleet-street. He was succeeded by a Dr. Nicholas Foran.
Also in October, Dr. Nolan, titular Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. His successor is to be Francis Healy, Vicar-General of that district.
TITULAR PRELATES IN IRÉLAND. Armagh, Dr. Colly, tr. April, 1835, from Down and Connor, 1825. Derry, Peter M.Laughlin, 1832, Coadjutor, John M.Laughlin, 1837. Clogher, Dr. Edward Kernan, 1818. Raphoe, Dr. Patrick M“ Gettigan, 1821. Down and Connor, Dr. Cornelius Denvir, 1835. Kilmore, Dr. James Browne, 1827. Ardagh, Dr. Wm. Higgins, 1829. Meath, Dr. Joh. Cantwell, 1830. Dromore, Dr. Michael Blake, 1833. Dublin, Dr. Daniel Murray, 1809. Kildare and Leighlin, Francis Healy, 1838, titular elect. Ossory, Dr. Wm. Kinsella, 1829. Ferns, Dr. James Keating, 1819. Cashel, Dr. Mich. Slattery, 1834. Cork, Dr. Joh. Murphy, 1815. Killaloe, Dr. Patrick Kennedy, 1836. Kerry, Dr. Cornelius Egan, 1824. Limerick, Dr. Joh. Ryan, 1825. Waterford and Lismore, Dr. Nich. Froran, 1837. Cloyne and Ross, Dr. Barth. Crotty, 1833. Tuam, Dr. Joh. Mac Hale, 1834, removed from Killaloe, 1825. Clonfert, Bp. Coen, 1816. Achonry, Dr. Patrick M‘Nicholas, 1818. Elphin, Dr. Patrick Burke, 1819. Kilmacdurgh and Kilfenora, Dr. Edmund French, 1825. Galway, Dr. G. J. P. Browne, 1831. Killala, Dr. Fra. J. O'Finan, 1895.
OBSERVATIONS ON ROMANS V. 12.
'ER' S Távtes fuaprov. . There is a difficulty in these words which the ordinary comments do not seem satisfactorily to have met or explained, though fully acknowledging its existence. 1. " Through him in whom all had so far sinned as to become equally obnoxious to death with him." (Whitby.) But “ no instance," well observes Terrot, “ can be brought of duaptávelvén Tivi, as signifying to sin in or by the transgression of another, while, even supposing this to be an allowable use of the word énì, still the words εφ' ώ πάντες ήμαρτον ought to have come immediately after di' évos à vdpúrov, not to be disjoined from it, as it is, and that not by one continued parenthesis, but by three distinct clauses ;" nor indeed have we any authority from the Greek to insert the antecedent “through him."--2. “ Because all have sinned: not sinned actually, for infants who have not sinned actually die, but that they have sinned in Adam as their federal head, that is, are involved in the consequences of his sin.” (Macknight.) But “all have sinned," and "all are involved in the consequence of Adam's sin," are two separate and distinct ideas, nor can be identified with each other without force. Thus a son has the gout from his father's indiscreet over-indulgences, and suffers the consequence of his previous sins, but who could therefore call him a sharer in those follies themselves ? “ Poverty comes into a family because of the extravagance of its head, and so poverty passes upon all the children, because all were extravagant!" Surely such a conclusion would be a direct contradiction of the reason previously alleged, and could never be construed so to mean, because not of their own extravagance, but their comprehension in the earlier folly of their common parent.—3. “ In that all have sinned, and therefore perish for their sins.” But this is contrary to the apostle's argument, which is, that we do not die for our own personal transgressions, but on account of Adam's. 4. “In that all men were made subject thereby, or through him, to original sin.” But, as the phrase distinctly seems to correspond with, “were made sinners," (ver. 19), if by Adam's sin it be here understood that we thus gained a corrupted nature, it would follow, that by Christ's death we should all be actually restored to original purity, and that this pollution no longer “would remain in them which be regenerate," since in Christ all are made righteous in a sense equivalent to that wherein they had been made sinners in Adam. 5. “Though they also have sinned.” (Terrot.) Confer 2 Cor. v. 4, Philip. iv. 10. But these texts hardly give authority to such a version, not being necessarily or even commonly so rendered themselves, and there being nothing to introduce or soften off so abrupt a transition, such as “ although,” “truly," " notwithstanding that indeed," &c.
But why now may not ģuaprov here be considered as exactly synonymous with a paprwloi katsotá Onoay of verse 19? of which Bishop Bull observes that the best and most learned men have always interpreted, “were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam," to mean, were treated as if we had actually sinned, i.e.“ were subjected to death,” citing 1 Kings i. 21; and as Collier, Sacred Interpreter, vol. ii. p. 197, remarks, “ Many shall be made righteous, (Rom. v. 19 ;) that is, not actually so, but placed in a state of, or dealt with as righteous, being justified and accepted in Christ ; so all have sinned, (ver. 12;) and made sinners, (ver. 19); that is, dealt with as sinners, or become mortal.” Thus sin is put for its consequence, punishment, &c. Gen. xix. 15. Num, xvi. 26. 2 Sam. xii. 13, (called 2 Kings.) Isa. liii. 4, 11. Lam. iv. 6. Zech. xiv. 19. Matt. ix. 2, 6. Heb. ix. 28. 1 Pet. ii. 24; and see Jonah i. 14. Matt. xxvii. 24, 25. Gal. iii. 13, &c.; and so also for a sin-offering, a thing treated and dealt with as a sinner, Levit. iv.21, 25, 34, v. 9, 12, et pas. and as bearing the sins, that is, the punishment of the sins of another; and thus the apostle explains ñuaprov, of ver. 12, by anélavov, ver. 15. If this then be admitted, the sense would run thus," and so mortality passed upon all men, in that all being created in his own likeness, after his image, (Gen. v. 3,) are subject to the same end of their common nature, death, the consequence of his sin. Not but that (yao, John ix. 30. Acts xvi. 37. 1 Cor. ix. 10) during the whole period previous to the entrance of the Mosaic law, actual sin was indeed abroad among mankind, but still it could not have been for these their own personal sins that each died, for the strength of sin being the law (1 Cor. xv. 56,) and there being then no law existent, such death could not have come upon them as the penalty of its violation; and yet it passed upon all who lived from the time of Adam to that of Moses,