of Thomas à Becket's shrine is a tesselated pavement: but there are some large tiles with figures representing the signs of the Zodiac. On the northern side of Trinity Chapel is a Chantry. In the circular Chapel, called Becket's Crown, is a inarble chair, formerly used for the enthronization of the Archbishops of Canterbury.

From the northern arch are entered the Prebends’ Vestry, formerly St. Andrew's Chapel, the treasury and auditory. From the eastern transept a passage leads to the Baptistery, in which transept were formerly altars dedicated to St. Martin and St. Stephen. The broken fragments of the before mentioned old font, collected by Somner, the antiquary, are here preserved. To the castward of the Baptistery on the site of the Prior's Chapel, is the Cathedral Library. The northern transept is denominated the martyrdom ; and a marble slab in the pavement marks the exact spot before the altar of St. Benedict, where Thomas à Becket was murdered. On the eastern side of the martyrdom is our Lady's or Jesus Chapel, commonly known as the Dean's Chapel; its screen of


arches surmounted by canopies is beautiful, and its eastern window is surrounded by vine leaves and grapes.

The cloisters are on the northern side. The ambulatory is 134 feet in dimension. The eastern walk of the cloister leads to the lofty Chapter-house, 92 feet by 37 in measure, and has on each side a continued series of pillars and arches rising from the stone seats; at the eastern end is the Prior's throne. The western transept on the southern side of the Church has St. Michael's Chapel, and more to the eastern another transept and St. Anselm's Chapel.

The monuments are many and curious, the most remarkable of which are those of Edward the Black Prince in the Trinity Chapel, and of Henry IV. and Queen Joan of Navarre, his second wife, to which the kneeling figure of Dean Wotton may be added. In this very condensed description, only an outline is given of the things which the visitor of the Cathedral may expect to see. Our print represents the exterior, as the building strikes the eye ; and conveys an accurate idea of its magnificence. Of all our Cathedrals we know none associated with such various historical recollections as this ; none in which the interest of the spectator and antiquarian is so continuously excited. It recalls to our minds the arrival of Augustine, the persecution of the Christian Britons, the murder of Becket, the power of the priesthood, and the abject bondage with which it fettered the public. The changes and injuries, the repairs and improvements, which it has undergone, have been numerous : in one thing alone it has been uniform, viz. its connection with the Archiepiscopal Primacy of all England. Considered, as a whole, it cannot be surpassed by any other Cathedral in the kingdom.





TRAVELS IN TOWN.” MR. GRANT, from whose pen these volumes proceed, affects a most intimate acquaintance with every person and every thing, and would rather be considered some ubiquitous personage than a mere mortal confined by time and place. He seeks, as in a mirror, to display the public and private scenes of this vast metropolis, and hesitates not to unfold the impulses and secrets of its inhabitants; yet, like most others of supposed universal genius, he is very frequently wrong, where he would be thought most accurately right. He belongs not to those who judge not, lest they themselves be judged; but, estimating others by his own religious and political principles, he is foully vituperative and disgustingly intolerant when he writes of those who differ from himself. He seems to us a man of scraps and anecdotes, a purveyor



newspapers, a sort of restless Paul Pry, who is quite as likely to be deceived as to be correctly informed.

The volumes bear marks of that which is technically called bookmaking : and the author grasps at too much : he scarcely ever soars aloft without incurring the danger of an Icarian tumble. He would compress our metropolitan world into a few pages; but how much is lost or pressed out of shape in the torturing attempt! Defects and distortions continually meet the eye; wanton illiberality, and unjust attacks on individuals, by their names, occur so plentifully, that were the work weeded from its obnoxious parts, a full volume would be lost.

The Clergy are the constant subjects of Mr. Grant's rebuke: Dr. Shepherd, for instance, is chastised for having occasionally quoted Greek and Latin in his sermons at Gray's Inn: with Dr. Shepherd's particular audience, we really carinot see any serious fault in the act: but if the writer had proved him to have made inappropriate quotations, the charge might have been maintained. We abhor this straining at gnats and deglutition of camels or elephants, (as the proverb is differently read); the Pharisaical conceit and dictatorial decisions of Mr. Grant are insufferable. However we may disapprove of the doctrines of particular persons, ungentlemanly personality cannot be tolerated. Mr. Grant's opinions are Evangelical ; but he is a Dissenter, and exhorts the Evangelical Clergy to secede from the Church; and does not scruple to call the Clergy, whose sentiments differ from this portion of their brethren, Arians aud Socinians. The number of Clergy who hold Socinian views, in London, he states to be very considerable ; than which a more wilful falsehood never proceeded from the lips or from the


any one. We do not blame him for his remarks on the Oxford Tracts, which are in general keen and to the purpose ; but we require, that in attacking this most dangerous innovation, he should not include those among the party who are opposed to it; that ere he vilifies individuals with his obloquy, his information be correct. In this reckless random spirit, he intimates that the Editor of The Church af England Quarterly Review is attached to Puseyism: the calumny is foul and utterly untrue. We, who know the Editor, assert from our certain knowledge, posia

tively and unequivocally, that he is as hostile as ourselves to these near approaches to Popery, and that his pages are open to the defence of the Church and her forms, as they have been handed down to us through successive generations. Inferring from the description which he has given, that he is ignorant who the Editor really is, let us ask this professor of superior sanctity, and ready mote-extractor from his brother's eye, what right he has wantonly to asperse persons unknown to him? By what process he makes his bitter censures and fierce invectives coincide with the gentle spirit of Christianity and its inseparable charity?

But there are those whom he can puff and bespatter with praisemen distinguished with the title of orthodox Dissenters, who are really bound to present him with the plate which his continual races to hear them have won.

But even here he seems to penetrate the secrets of some of their hearts ; for he boldly decides, that some actually are not influenced by the principles of the denomination to which they belong, but, in fact, should be classed under some other. We suspect that few of these individuals will be obliged by this startling disclosure of his knowledge. The evangelical Clergy are blamed too, for not co-operating with these orthodox Dissenters; and we are amused with an account of the various opinions which prevail in the Church, and the remarkable unity of sentiment which may be found among all the various classes of Dissenters. Of this writer's inaccuracy we want no stronger proof.

It is not astonishing that the building of additional Churches in the metropolis should disconcert him, after what we have read; for he must view each new Church as an opposition to the Dissenters. When he asserts that the Dissenters cherish no hostile feeling towards the orthodox party in the Church, he asserts that which his own pages and and every day's experience refute; for, although we will not pretend to misunderstand his notion of orthodoxy, it is clear that most of the Dissenters hate the whole Church.

Hitherto, Mr. Grant has been only preparing himself for the general assault. False and cowardly accusations are now made against the Clergy without moderation; some of whom, “even having the appendage of D.D.," are affirmed to reject the idea of a divine revelation. Dr. Whately, the Archbishop of Dublin, is particularized as unsound ; and the clerical order is charged with being an intermixture of men possesing Swedenborgian, Moravian, Arian, and Socinian principles:-nay, he pronounces, that there is no creed from the highest Antinomianism down to the lowest Latitudinarianism that has not its patrons in the pulpits of our National Church.” Citing some person's observation, that the Church of England has a Calvinistic Creed, a Popish Ritual, and an Arminian Clergy, Mr. Grant declares his own inability to make any essential distinction between the ritual of the Church of Rome and that of the Church of England. As the absence of all idolatrous worship from the Anglican Ritual makes a most remarkable and essential distinction, the wilful mis-statements of this author are self-evident, and prove how little he is to be trusted on theological subjects; the venom which he pours out against the Church, blinds him to his own folly and weakness; and till scurrility be accepted in the place of argument, malicious hatred in that of pure and undefiled religion, the vehemence of his pages will be an antidote to the poison which he discharges. Let him disprove, if he pleases, the principles of the Oxford schism, for thus he will be conferring good upon the public; but let him not include more of the Clergy in it than those who can be shewu to favour it; and let him not asperse any of us, as if we were estranged from Christ.

The falsehoods to which this writer descends are numerous. He daringly asserts that not one of the Tory newspapers has condemned this party : have not the Times, the Record, and many newspapers in the provinces boldly and ably exposed their errors, and so opened the eyes of the public, that those who are fascinated by the delusion must have wilfully, and in opposition to all evidence, sought and courted it? Is it possible that he who πολλων ανθρωπων.....

...νοον έγνω, , the almost ubiquitous, the all-enquiring Mr. Grant, should not have read these papers ! But if he has read them, what must we think of his veracity? Professing to know more of the Bishop of Exeter than most men, he directly charges him with Lelonging to this party, and heaps on him fouler abuse than may probably be heard among the lowest grades-abuse as derogatory from the gentleman as it is inconsistent with Christianity. What right has he, a Dissenter, a man clearly incompetent to the nicer points of theological criticism, to intrude upon us his very inconsequential notions concerning Mr. Head? What right has he to interfere with the Bishop in the management of his diocese, and pour forth invectives on conduct, the principles of which he does not understand? The zeal with which the Bishop of Exeter defends the Church, and maintains his Episcopal authority, naturally exposes him to the hatred of her enemies; in proportion as they dread his talents and firmness, they basely and captiously defame him ; and despising dominion, speaking evil of dignities, foaming out as raging waves their own shame, they care not how they disturb the peace of Christendom, if they can but gratify their infuriate spleen. To the Bishop, individually, it must be a matter of contempt; for it is the nature of the ass to kick : what, then, if the kick be accompanied with a bray ?

Proceeding from abuse to abuse, this writer predicts the extinction of the Church, which “must, through these schisms within her own bosom, crumble to pieces.” This is false; for however the innovations of the Oxford party may perhaps incline some individuals to Popery, the great body of the Chureh will be found true to their religious principles : if in the apostate days of Israel there were seven thousand who bowed not the knee to Baal, how many seven thousands will be found among us who will continue to worship the God of their fathers, as their fathers worshipped him !

Occasion is again taken to designate The Church of England Quarterly Review as the organ of the Oxford confederacy : in disproof of the charge, we will only refer our readers to the Number which will appear simultaneously with this, in which those tenets are assailed. Not satisfied with these sweeping accusations, the author attaches a suspicion to ourselves, on the plea that the Rev. Mr. Irons is the Editor of The Churchman : this suspicion we have conceived it our duty to desire him to retract. It is scarcely requisite to recal the public attention to our former assertion in the notes to Correspondents in the Number for Nov. 1838, that Mr. Irons is not the Editor, and that he never wrote a line in our Magazine. We then inquire, should any one, so imperfectly informed as Mr. Grant is, be permitted causelessly to stigmatize others, without receiving a proper measure of chastisement ?

The Ministers of the Kirk of Scotland, especially Mr. Cumming, of Crown-street Chapel, and another whose name is concealed, on account of their denunciations of Dissenters, and powerful defence of the Church of England; and Dr. Chalmers, on account of his Lectures in the Hanoversquare Rooms, (which are subjected to a wretched and dismembering criticism), are scourged by the lash of this Sectarian cynic. Seated in the seat of the scornful with the Pharisee, he thanks God that he is not as other men; stand by, for I am more holy than thou ! should be his motto, as it is clearly his creed. Averring that the union, compact, and alliance, are like Irish reciprocity, all on the side of the Presbyterian Establishment, he describes the Kirk as seeking “ to embrace Episcopacy with a truly sisterly affection," whilst her tendered embrace is rejected by the Anglican Church; then launches out summis viribus into a helter-skelter assault on Episcopacy, and indulges in an unmeasured panegyric on the Scotch Covenanters and Cameronians, amidst which we read :

“ Could they have anticipated that in little more than 150 years, their descendants would have cherished and spoken of this prelacy as a sister church, how would it have grieved their noble spirits—their holy souls. The descendants of Samuel Rutherford, John Renwick..........strenuously defending and warmly eulogizing Black Prelacy! Tell it not in Gath ! publish it not in the streets of Askelon !”

A writer more prejudiced and illiberal, more coarsely personal, and more incorrect in the matter of his personalities—a greater bigot, and one more incompetent to depict the many shades of religious difference —can no where be found ; and his own words often refute him. Thus, when he carps at the incomes of the Clergy, and in a low and offensive style, animadverts on Dr. Spry, merely because he has a valuable preferment, he informs us that some of the Independent preachers have a salary of £800 per annum, and none less than £100; which, when the expense of clerical education, and the consideration in one way or another often given or ceded for livings, are taken in the account, makes the salary of these men more than equivalent to the incomes of the Clergy. A little more of humility, less of envy and Pharisaism, a little more of argument and truth, a little less of twaddle and perversion, a little more of accurate observation, and a little less of vituperation, may be safely recommended to Mr. Grant, to which he may beneficially add that charity which beareth all things, believeth all things, hopetli all things, endureth all things that charity which never faileth, without which his profession of religion is as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. We would also suggest that he may peruse James iii., from verse 13 to the end, with great practical advantage.

The Church cannot be injured by the misrepresentations of a writer

« 前へ次へ »