« PreviousContinue »
the holy vestments, and the adornment of ministers therein, and the carrying of relics and sacred vessels, either in procession or in other rites? The greatest external beauty is necessary in this; and the greatest internal beauty answereth thereto; wherefore these rites are of great beauty throughout, and therefore most greatly worthy of the Most Great GOD. For it is manifest to the very sense, and none can deny it, save he that will deny snow to be white, that there never was a worship of perfect beauty save this, in which GOD is honoured by the Christian Church. For although the Hebrew worship had some beauty, it was small and only initial. So manifest are these things to sense that whosoever beholdeth the external beauty of the House of the LORD amongst us must admire Him incredibly, and cONFESS FROM HIS HEART THAT THESE CEREMONIES WERE NOT INVENTED BY THE CRAFT OF MEN, BUT ARE A DOCUMENT OF DIVINE REVELATION, AND CELESTIAL MASTERY."
In his treatise on the Collation of Benefices,1 William of Paris devotes a chapter to the consideration of a Prelate's duty, as Father, Governor, and Spiritual Architect.
"The office," he says, " of a Prelate, in so far as he is an architect, is to build the House of God; and that of cedar and squared stones, as we read in Isaiah, not of thorns and straw. Oh what is then their deceit against GoD, to whom they ought to build a most glorious palace and magnifical, when in its stead they make a pie's or a sparrow's nest! when, in such glorious buildings, instead of mighty rafters of cedar they use the infirm props of wretched nephews, who could not both laugh at them and weep for them?" And in the fifth chapter of the same treatise we have the complaint that Prelates too often build up a Babylon instead of a church. The sixth chapter of the Treatise de Moribus, where Piety is describing her dignities, and the ninetyfourth sermon, that on the dedication of a church, are based on the same principle.
To William of Paris follows GUISBERT or GUIBERT, who deceased about 1270, and left a treatise de functionibus Episcopi, et de Carimoniis ecclesia, which is said to be, for I never saw it, a mine of symbolism.
We proceed to the Seraphic Doctor, S. BONAVENTURA, who lived from 1221 to 1274. In his three sermons on the dedication of a church, he fully carries out the symbolical principle. To quote various passages would be to do little more than to repeat what is more clearly and formally stated by Durandus. I may notice, however, that in describing the writing by the Bishop of the letters of the alphabet, S. Bonaventura affirms what Durandus, Remigius, and other authors deny, that Hebrew characters were also employed. He observes in another place, that a wall without cement is interpreted of CHRIST; a wall, properly so called, of virtue; a perpeyn wall, of good works, bound together by the cement of charity. The Pastoral Staff, in his exposition on the 44th Psalm, is more fully symbolised than in the
1 Suppl. ad Opp. p. 248.
Ed. Venet. 1755.
3 Tom. II. 301-316. Tom. VIII. p. 265.
usual medieval verses on it. "It hath great length1; it is set upright; it hath a pricket at the lower end; it is curved in the upper part; the middle is smooth; it is girt with a knop. It hath great length, because a Bishop ought to preach everywhere, as it is written, Their sound is gone out into all lands. It is set upright, because he preacheth concerning heavenly things. It hath a sharp pricket, because it pertaineth to his duty to correct and chastise evil doers. It is curved in the upper part, because what he preacheth he must bring back to himself, practising what he teaches. It is smooth, and hath yet a knop, because he should practise both mercy and justice."
The observations, in the commentary on Psalm 21, on the nature and necessity of allegory, are well deserving attention, and corroborative of our theory; as also those, in the exposition of Psalm 14,3 concerning the moveable and spiritual Tabernacle, which is the Church Militant, and the fixed and supersubstantial Tabernacle, which is the Church Triumphant. In his Exposition of the Mass the Seraphic Doctor explains, though not quite in the usual manner, the sacred vestments. The humeral or amice signifies, according to him, the Divinity of CHRIST as hidden by His Humanity; the alb, the Purity of our LORD; the girdle, His Virginity; the maniple, His Humility; the stole, His Obedience; the chasuble, Heaven and Earth filled by the Glory of GOD. I may also refer to the plate entitled Arbor Vitæ Christi 5 as a good commentary on Jesse windows.
After S. Bonaventura follows the Oracular Doctor, JOHN PECKHAM, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1292. Among the numerous works, which mostly remain MS., of this great Theologian, the Speculum Ecclesiæ sets him in a foremost rank among symbolical writers.
I need only name WILLIAM DURANDUS, Bishop of Mende, who died in 1296. And with that work, which probably coincides in date with the full developement of the Middle-Pointed style, I close the silver period of hieratic art.
I shall very briefly hurry through the last epoch.
Doctor ROBERT HOLKOT, of Northampton, who died in 1349, in his Allegoria in Sacras Scripturas, and HERMAN DE SCHILD, an Augustinian hermit, who flourished in the fourteenth century, in his Exposition of the Mass and of the Canonical Hours, may be produced as witnesses.
But the author of this period, who is most to our purpose, is MICHAEL AYGUAN, the Carmelite, who flourished about 1380. His work on the Psalms, which usually goes under the title of the Opus Authoris Incogniti, because the writer was long unknown, is truly worthy of an earlier period, for Ayguan stands out among hieratic, as Claudian among classical, writers, as belonging to an earlier age rather than to his own. I will quote his symbolisms of precious stones, which may perhaps give some clue to their use in shrines and the like.
Each foundation stone of the New Jerusalem symbolises that article of the Creed, beginning from the first, with which it corresponds in number, thus:—
1 Expos. in Psalm 44. 3 Tom. VIII. 187.
Tom. VIII. pp. 126, 7.
2 Tom. VIII. 196, 7.
5 Tom. VIII. ad init.
4 Tom. IX. 128.
The Jasper, the first foundation, stone, which promotes fecundity and causes unity, symbolises the first article: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
The Sapphire, which reconciles, consoles, heals, gives sight, and is the king of stones, represents-And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord. The Chalcedony,3 which is pale, sets forth humility, and typifies-Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary.
The Emerald, which heals, gives eloquence, riches, conquest, clears sight, strengthens memory, banishes luxury and sorrow, presents to us, Suffered under Pontius Pilate.
The Sardonyx is a stone of which the lower part is dark, the middle white, the upper red. The first signifies the sorrow of Good Friday ; the second, the rest of Easter Eve; the third, the triumph of Easter Day. The whole stone therefore is a type of-Was crucified, dead, and buried: the third day He rose again from the dead.
The Sardius, a bright stone, sets forth the triumph of-He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
The Chrysolite shines as gold in the day, as fire in the night. By the day, the good are understood, and the gold represents their reward; by the night the wicked, and the fire is their punishment. The chrysolite then figures: From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
The Beryl, which gives love, power, and healing, is a symbol of-I believe in the Holy Ghost.
The Topaz, which receives, as in a vessel, the sunlight, of—the Holy Catholic Church.
The Chrysoprasus, which (1) shines like fire, and (2) communicates its virtues without diminishing them, is expounded of (1) the Communion of Saints, and (2) the forgiveness of sins.
The Hyacinth, which invigorates, sets forth the Resurrection of the body.
The Amethyst, which gives a clear sight, symbolises the Beatific Vision, and thus-the life everlasting.
The symbolism of stones, I may remark, seems to have been pretty closely kept to. Thus Bernard, of Cluny, in his beautiful verses on the New Jerusalem, says, addressing it,—
"Hinc tibi Sardius, inde Topazius, hinc Amethystus;
I will next mention JOHN DU BOURG, Rector of Cottingham and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, for his very symbolical work de Officiis Ecclesiarum. He died in 1385.
To him succeeds WILLIAM LINDWOOD, Bishop of S. David's. He died in 1436. His Collection of Canons contains much that justifies our principle, though from the very nature of the subject it would be impossible to quote, within my limits, the passages most confirmatory
HENRY GORCOMIUS, Vice-Chancellor of Cologne, who died in 1460, may be referred to for his treatise, de Ceremoniis Ecclesiæ.
Next I come to the Dominican Martyr JEROME Savonarola (1452— 1498), who bears good testimony to symbolism in his work de Sacrificio Missæ.
I quote ANTONY MARGALETTA, a converted Jew, who embraced the Catholic faith at Wasserburg, in Bavaria, in 1522, and died in 1541, for his treatise on the Ceremonies of Palm Sunday.
We proceed to S. THOMAS A VILLA NOVA,1 Archbishop of Valentia, who lived from 1488 to 1555. In so late and so practical a writer, we cannot expect to find many traces of the symbolical spirit which belonged to the earlier ages of the Church. But still there are some, while it is remarkable that, so far as I am acquainted with them, in the writings of S. Charles Borromeo, nearly his contemporary, there are none to be discovered. "What is understood," he asks, "by a corner wall, but the duplicity of an impious mind? For there is always a double wall at an angle." Again, "By the twelve gates3 be understood the twelve Apostles and Patriarchs, who therefore are called gates, because by their teaching they open the door unto life eternal." Again, "A tower is the glory of the blessed." Once more, "As a column, which stands upright, is the more strengthened by an imposed weight, so it behoved the lofty and upright of the minds of the Apostles not to yield to, but to struggle with, adversities."
MALDONATUS (1514-1580) is an excellent witness from his hitherto MS. work de Cæremoniis Ecclesiæ.
TO STEPHEN DURANTUS, at the same period, I need only refer.
The Explanation of the Mass by NICOLAS DE THOU, Bishop of Chartres, is full of symbolical teaching (1528-1598).
I shall next quote LANCELOT ANDREWES, Bishop of Winchester (1555 -1626), not only for the general symbolical spirit of his writings, but for one remarkable passage: For, indeed, solutum est Templum hoc, this Temple of His Body; the Spirit from the Flesh, the Flesh from the Blood was loosed quite. The roof of it, His Head, loosed with Thorns : the Foundations, His Feet, with Nails: the side aisles, as it were, His Hands both, likewise." I may remark by the way, that so early an use, and by such an author, of the phrase, side aisles, is curious. I may also produce as witnesses,
AUGUSTINE DE FERRARA, a Jesuit of Seville, in his Origin and Progress of the Rites and Ceremonies of Mass, published in 1649.
FRANCOIS DE HARLAI, Archbishop of Rheims, in the work composed by him for the use of his diocese, and entitled La manière de bien entendre la Messe de paroisse (1651). His explanations are admirable.
J. B. THIERS, in his works on bells, porches, and roodlofts (1636— 1703).
GABRIEL DE HENAO, Doctor of Salamanca (1613-1704), in his work in three volumes, folio, de Sacrificio Missa.
And JOSEPH PIERRE DB Houtre, in his Spirit of the Ceremonial of Aix, in the Celebration of Corpus Christi, which was published in 1736.
I thus close the Catena which I have been enabled to bring forward.
1 Ed. Milan, 1760.
4 Tom. I. 579 E.
2 Tom. II. 905, B.
3 Tom. II. 409 D.
5 Ed. Anglo-Cath. Vol. II. 355.
My aim has been to render it as short as possible; and I only fear lest while, on the one hand, it may have been tedious to the Society, on the other it may not have done justice to the various authors whom I have cited.
THE HYMNAL NOTED.
We have been more than once asked, why, with so many already existing translations of the Breviary Hymns, we have found it necessary to attempt one more in the work of which we have now issued two parts? In the following paper we purpose to reply, as briefly as we can, to this very reasonable question.
And, first, we will say, that we do not bring forward a new version, because we think all that have hitherto been published unworthy of the original. Still less, because we hope to make so decided an improvement on all as, by means of superior excellence, to make ours the standard version. If we really believed either of these things, we might justly be charged with the most insufferable arrogance.
Notwithstanding, a new version was necessary, and that on the following grounds :
1. We profess to give the only hymns which we believe the English Church, without the act of a general Synod, to have a right to, those namely of the older English office books, and principally that of Sarum. Now, to say nothing of the many translations afloat from the Paris Breviary with which we, as English Churchmen, can have nothing to do, except as matter of curiosity, the hymns that have been translated into English are from the modern Roman Breviary. But the hymns contained in this are--it can never be too often repeated—a mere revision of the older compositions, common for the most part both to Rome and to Sarum, made by the literati of the court of Urban VIII. These men bound themselves down to those classical chains, which the Church had deliberately flung away, and sacrificed beauty, piety, fervour, poetry, to cramp the grand old hymns into the rules of prosody. With much against which we should protest most warmly in Mr. Trench's "Sacred Latin Poetry," we are rejoiced that he has, in sufficiently vivid language, shown "how well nigh the whole grace and beauty and even vigour of the composition has disappeared in the process" of reformaIn fact, the hymns of the modern Roman Breviary, are, em
The translations then of the Roman are not translations of Sarum hymns. Very few of the latter have appeared in English. And the occasional wide difference between the two may be judged of by the fact, that we can point to a modern collection in which the Tibi Christe Splendor Patris of the Sarum, and the Te Splendor et Virtus Patris of the Roman Breviary, are actually given as two different hymns, though the latter is, in reality, merely a rifaccimento of the former.
This then is our first reason, that no translation has yet appeared of