The last, that to Laodicea: "Thus saith the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the Creation of God: I know thy works; that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. . . . As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Grow zealous, therefore, and repent. . . . . . Whoever overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with Me in my throne, as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne. Hear, whosoever hath an ear, what the Spirit saith to the churches." Should the surface for receiving the inscription be confined, the abstract might be still further abridged, as is shown in the italics of the first extract.

The wheel-window brings us to a species of Symbolism which has not yet passed under review-the historical. But it is not a memorial of Scripture history: the window is said to be conspicuous in the Norman style. There are instances peculiarly curious, yet marked by that peculiar bad taste which in that style often reminds us of its barbarous era. One, at Castle Hedingham, is divided by small shafts for the spokes, with an arcade springing from their capitals. Of course, the arcade is of the straddling order, and the shafts in disorder, tumbling or topsy-turvy. So rude, and often so ridiculous, are the first imaginings of a new style. Yet who has not been astonished at the beauty of subsequent wheel-windows? During the developement of the future style, to which, of course, we cannot yet assign a name, perhaps this kind of window may find a place which it alone is capable of adequately filling. In the roof, how beautiful would be its effect! and there being in that situation no relative up or down, figures might be introduced into its compartments without standing on their heads, or any absurdity as regards taste; particularly if this skylight, as it would be nicknamed, were somewhat conical or concave. To be sure, an absurdity or impropriety might possibly arise upon higher principles; as already is the case, if the Symbolism in the Introduction to Durand, p. lxvi., be correct. For these windows represent "an historical fact-namely, the martyrdom of St. Catherine.' It was in 305 that the virgin of Alexandria, educated in all the learning of that second Rome, as became the daughter of Costa of Cyprus, one of such consequence that the story calls him king, openly rebuked heathenism, and the Emperor Maxentius's cruelty, to his face. She experienced it. A spiked wheel was rolled over her; or she was bound on an engine of four such wheels. At its first movement her bands broke, and the wheels fell asunder. She was delivered from that death. Hone, at Nov. 25, erroneously dates her in the third century. He has given a copy from the chancel-window of West Wickham, Kent, of her effigy, with Maxentius beneath her feet. His sceptre bears the form of a mace; and he catches idly at the nave of the wheel, to raise himself. The foreshortened figure is bad; but the other was not above the powers of the artist or the age. She stands calmly upon him, her eyes intent upon her open book, as befits "the patroness and model of Christian philosophers." It is supported against her waist by the wrist of the same hand which lightly bears a huge two-handed sword,

high as herself. She is vested in ermine: and ermine lines her embroidered mantle. Her hair falls luxuriantly over her from beneath her crown and the glory of the saint. And are these the ornaments of Churches which some would gladly see restored? Would we Protestants? No. The wedding of Christ with Catherine! what a subject for a painter now! Will he blush with shame or indignation at receiving it? Who will rise in either House of Legislature, to laud the good old custom of some sturdy fellow with a cartwheel by his side, being carried round the town in a female dress, to make a speech in the character of the Bride of Christ? And, if Catherining should be revived in honour of the patroness of spinsters, shall it be by a fast as in Ireland, or a feast as in England; that she shall be propitiated by girls for good husbands, and by wives for better ones? Is the age to have more such saints? or more infidels? or both? But to return: What brought Catherining to England? If she were so many centuries before our Norman era, and in so distant a land, whence her celebrity even on our sign-posts and in our fire-works, of which the Introduction to Durandus speaks? How comes her Symbolism in our churches? It was certainly for above five hundred years, at least, that her mangled corpse reposed in obscurity and quiet. Meanwhile, the faith for which she suffered became no longer an object of persecution. The Emperor Justinian, in 527, built upon Sinai a convent and a church, with Corinthian columns, and paved with black and white marble. About one hundred and forty years after it was in possession of the Greeks, and towards the end of the eighth century, a monk dreamed that the martyr's body had been brought by angels to the mountain-top, where it had been three hundred years. The next morning presented the invention of a corpse there, and its translation thence by him and his fellow-monks. Many greater marvels than this invention are told in connexion with dreams. We cannot cross-examine the witnesses: therefore, need not deny these bare facts, while we disbelieve their miraculousness. The reverence paid to Ai-Katerina was spread over all Greece at the beginning of the tenth century. In 1036, at the age of eight, William, afterward Conqueror of England, succeeded his father, Robert, Duke of Normandy, and a crusader who died at Nice, in July, returning from Jerusalem. Three years before the conquest, and one year after it, was begun and established a community of defenders of the tomb of St. Catherine on Sinai, pilgrims to which had been laid under toll by the Turks. It was through the crusaders of the age of Robert the Norman, that Catherine became so noted in the west. And about the twelfth century her defenders became an order of knighthood, received at her tomb with the same rites as the knights of the Holy Sepulchre; and submitted to the rule of St. Basil. Their garb and banner are said to have been white; and their bearing upon it a Catherine wheel, armed with blades, and either whole or broken in half, with a bloody sword. On the other side the banner was the saint between two such wheels. On the conquest of the Holy places by the infidels, the order grew dim. But the receiving of the Eucharist

at the hands of Greek monks seems always to have been against it; and it appears never to have received the approval of the See of Rome. How altogether slight the causes-and unaccountable the changes, of the fashions which have brought saints into favour, even in the farthest foreign lands. The east has always furnished the west with idols:

Holy Writ is our mound against every such torrent-flood: as it was in Becon's days, in whose "Pathway to Prayer,' c. viii., we find that straightforward, indignant, yet somewhat humorous passage, in which he maintains, that we are to make prayer to God-" not to Jupiter, &c. .. as the ethnics . . . nor unto Baal, &c. . . . as the old idolaters the Jews. . . nor yet as our new idolaters were wont to do, as unto Luke for the ox, &c. in which Catherine is mentioned as the patroness" for learning," and another saint "for a husband:" from something of the same cause, an indiscreet use of the figurative expression, that she was espoused to Christ. How vile a view of our nature is presented by the fact that Scripture language is so commonly thus misapplied, by a transfer from generals to particulars, as that the misapplication becomes venial through the inadvertence of the abuse. Nor are Protestants without their share in this blame.

The wheel-window is not by Durand himself associated with St. Catherine's martyrdom. Yet the glory of the French Churches is their windows of this form. The wheel itself Durand gives as a common attribute of patriarchs and prophets, as an emblem of their "imperfect knowledge" before the advent of Christ. And, because some of the Apostles wrote nothing which has been received into the Canon of the Church, "their preaching" is also symbolised by wheels in their hands instead of books. These certainly are somewhat unintelligible Symbols: nor will a reference to the mysterious chapter of the chariot (as the Jews call it) in Ezekiel, make them much more intelligible, though it is there written that "the Spirit of the Living Being was in wheels." To revert, however, for a moment to St. Catherine, one would rather believe the story of her martyrdom to have had a groundwork of fact, than interpret her wheel of her preaching, bold as it is said to have been-or her book of her writings, since no one has ever received them.

But this leads us to certain other general characteristics of Symbolism, the discussion of which we must defer at the close of so long an article. Neither reader nor writer would tie himself too long to windows any more than doors; and what else have our last two papers treated of?

753

4

IV. MISCELLANEOUS LITERATURE.

I. MODERN CONTROVERSY.

Some Remarks on the Sermon of the Rev. Dr. Pusey, lately preached and published at Oxford. In a Letter addressed to that Gentleman, by SAMUEL LEE, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, &c., &c. London: Seeley, Burnside, & Seeley. 1843.

Objections to the Doctrine set forth in Dr. Pusey's Sermon, preached before the University of Oxford, on the fourth Sunday after Easter, 1843, and entitled, "The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent." By the Rev. R. W. BOSANQUET, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford. Edinburgh: John Johnstone. London: R. Groombridge. 1843.

THESE two very excellent publications should have been much earlier reviewed at large, but for the press of matter on the same topic with which our pages have been occupied. Dr. Lee's pamphlet is perhaps the ablest that has appeared on the subject. If he insists on his own right of private judgement on the question, it is because, in some way or other, private judgement is unavoidable. "Those," he says, "who declaim most loudly against such an application of our reason, never do this without evincing, at the same time, a most abundant reliance on their own." That the whole body of the Fathers has advocated the claims of the Pontificate in the way in which Dr. Pusey has asserted, Dr. Lee, in the exercise of his own private judgement, reasonably and with plenitude of proof disputes. He suggests, indeed, that Dr. Pusey has "both misunderstood and misrepresented them, and. with them, the Holy Scriptures, and the formularies of the Church." He proceeds, therefore, to invalidate his vouchers. Now, Dr. Pusey tells us, that he had learned from Bishop Andrewes and Archbishop Bramhall to receive in their literal sense our Lord's words, "This is My body," &c. Dr. Lee demonstrates, in the most clear and convincing manner, that neither Bishop Andrewes nor Archbishop Bramhall has so written as to justify Dr. Pusey in asserting the authority of either in his favour.

Of Bishop Andrewes, Dr. Lee thus writes:

"I do not find that he has anywhere discussed the question, whether the terms of Institution are to be taken literally, or not: but I do find him speaking of the Holy Eucharist in such a way as to show, that he could not have taken them literally: e.g., For, requisite it was, that, since we drew our death from the first Adam, by partaking his substance; semblaby, and in like sort, we should partake the substance of the second Adam, that so we might draw our life from Him; should be ingrafted into Him, as the branches into the vine, that we might receive His sap (which is His Similitude); should be flesh of His flesh, not He of ours, as before, but we of His now; that we might be vegetate with His Spirit, even with His Divine Spirit. now in Him the spirits are so united, as partake one, and partake the other withal.' (Sermon 2: Of the Resurrection.)

For

"We have here the partaking of His substance, which might be supposed to intimate a kind of consubstantiation, as in some of the extracts given in your Appendix; but then it is added, We should be ingrafted into Him, as the branches into the vine, that we might receive His sap should be flesh of His flesh. . . . that we might be vegetate with His Spirit, even with his Divine Spirit, which showsas I think-beyond all doubt, that a figurative interpretation of the terms of Institution must have been taken: and when it is said, 'that we might be vegetate with His Spirit, even with His Divine Spirit, it is as plain as words can make it, that it was not from the flesh, nor from any supposed consubstantiation of it, that any benefit VOL. I.

CCC

was believed to be derived, but from the influences of the Divine Spirit alone." Again: If we aske, What shall be our meanes of this consecrating? the Apostle telleth us (Heb. x. 10), we are sanctified, by the Oblation of the bodie of Jesus: that is the best meanes to restore us to that life. He hath said it, and showed it Himselfe : Hee that eateth Me shall live by Me. The words spoken concerning that are both Spirit and Life; whether we seeke for the Spirit, or seeke for Life. Such was the meanes of our death, by eating the forbidden fruit, the first-fruits of death: and such is the meanes of our life, by eating the flesh of CHRIST, the first-fruits of life.' And it is said, a little lower down: become branches of the Vine, and partakers of His nature, and so of His life and verdure both.' And again (ib.), By these meanes obtaining the first-fruits of His Spirit, of that quickening Spirit.' (Ib. Serm. 2: Of the Resurrection.)

"Here, as before, the becoming branches of the Vine is quite sufficient to show, that no literal interpretation could have been urged by this writer: and, as the Elements are spoken of as means only, it is obvious that no literal reality of the flesh and blood of Christ could have been intended. Again: "There wee tast, and there wee see..... There we are made to drinke of the Spirit. There our hearts are strengthened and stablished with grace. There is the bloud which shall purge our consciences from dead works, whereby we may die to sinne. There, the bread of GOD, which shall endue our soules with much strength; yea, multiply strength in them, to live unto God.'. . . . In CHRIST, dropping upon us the anointing of His grace. In Jesus, who will be readie, as our SAVIOUR, to succour and support us, with His auxilium speciale, His special helpe.' (Serm. 1: Of the Resurrection.)

'Here, the drinking in of the Spirit, and the strengthening and establishing with grace, as well as the anointing grace of Christ, must powerfully remind us, the bread of God, here spoken of, could have been taken in no literal sense; and that the Element considered in itself alone, contained no saving power. Again, speaking of Christ as the Vine, he says: "And the gathering or vintage of these two, in the blessed Eucharist, is (as I may say) a kind of hypostaticall union of the Signe, and the thing signified, so united together, as are the two natures of CHRIST . . . . That even as, in the Eucharist, neither part is evacuate or turned into the other, but abide each still in His former nature and substance; no more is either of CHRIST'S natures annulled, or one of them converted into the other," &c. (Serm. 16: Of the Nativitie.)

:

"Whence it appears, that this Divine did not believe the Elements became, or were turned into, the real Body and Blood of Christ: and, accordingly, that he did not take the terms, 'This is My body,' &c. literally. Again: And there is in it a perfect representation of the substance of this verse and text set before our eyes. Wherein, two poor Elements, of no great value in themselves, but that they might well be refused, are exalted by GOD to the estate of a Divine Mysterie, even of the highest Mysterie in the Church of CHRIST. . . . . First uniting us to CHRIST the Head, whereby we grow into one frame or building, into one body mysticall, with Him. And againe, uniting us also, as living stones, or lively members, omnes in id-ipsum, one to another, and altogether in one, by mutuall love and charitie.'. 'And againe Unum corpus omnes sumus, qui de uno Pane participamus. All wee that partake of one Bread, or Cup, grow all into one Bodie mysticall.' (Serm. 6: Of the Resurrection.) Where it must be evident, that although the Elements are spoken of as elevated into the estate of a Divine Mystery, this mystery is of a spiritual nature, and such as to afford purely spiritual privileges. The union which it affords in Christ is also spiritual, as is that of Believers with one another. These Elements are made to represent the Body and Blood, or the Flesh and Blood, of the Redeemer; but the union is not fleshly, it is purely spiritual. Whenever, therefore, our Author speaks of the flesh as the means of union, he must be understood as intending an union in the Spirit. He could not here, therefore, have taken the terms of Institution in their literal sense. Once more: Christ Himselfe touched upon this point (John vi. 62), when at Capernaum they stumbled at the speech of eating His flesh: What, (saith He) finde you this strange, now? How will you finde it, then, when you shall see the Sonne of man ascend up where He was before? How then? And yet, then