ST. BARNABAS' CROSSES. [From the "Britannia," April 26th.]

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 571, 4 October 1851, Page 3

ST. BARNABAS' CROSSES. [From the "Britannia," April 26th.]

Mr. Luard has published in the Times a new chapter of tie ecclesiastical history of St. Barnabas and Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of London, it seems, instructed the churchwardens to remove the large oak crosses so long conspicuous on the communion tables of St. Barnabas and St Paul, the two churches lately under the pastoral care of Mr. Bennett. One of the churchwardens, Mr. Briscoe, without consulting- the other, Sir John Harrington, executes the order of the diocesan. Sir John, hearing that the holy relics had been cast down, and awfully shocked at the iconoclastic spirit of this modem John Knox, submits the case to Mr. Badeley, the celebrated ecclesiastical counsel, and requests directions as to the course he ought to follow in so solemn a crisis. The Bishop, it appeals, sanctioned the crosses at the consecration of these churches, and now, with an inconsistency creditable to his feelings, or deference to public sentiment, but by no means complimentary to his episcopal judgment, ability or discretion, he insists on their instant removal. Sir John's case is briefly, whether the bishop has power to desecrate what he was pleased to consecrate, and whether he, as the only "Catholic" chuichwarden may not replace the ''holy cross" in spite of the mandate of the Bishop of London 1 We do not allege that Sir John gives the cross the worship of luti ia, for which he might quote St. Thomas of Aquin, or the reception of a king in the Pontificate Ro~ manum, in both of which the same worship is demanded for the rross which is due to the Redeeuaer ; but we do feel that this churchwarden of St. Paul and St. Barnabas must experience no ordinary fervour in his devotions from the sight, or smell, or touch of these precious relics, to be at so much trouble and expense on the one hand, and to be so contemptuous of the authority of the bishop and the reclamations of the puhlic on the other, in older to replace them. Like the Romanists in their Good Friday service, he no doubc '* adores the wood of the cross," and like them, in all probability, he thinks more of it than of the atonement of Him who bung on it. The controversy itself is of no momentous value. It is likely the last and dying struggle for a system of Romish rites in these parishes, which have alienated some and disgusted others, and driven numbers into the Romish Church. We turn to the phraseology of Sir John, as embodied in his case, for some evidence of his holding Romish doctrine as tenaciously as he cleaves to Romish rites. He begins by speaking of " the altar furniture of St. Paul's, in which was a flat cross inserted into a slit at the back of the super-altar." We ask of this zealous and intrepid churchwarden to lay his finger on the rubric in his Prayer-book in which the Communion Table 13 called an altar, or where that piece of Church furniture is quoted, described, or mentioned which he calls a super-altar 1 The Church of England requires the Communion Table to be placed in the middle of the congregation, or where it has been usually placed, but nowhere does she recognize an j altar, nor is any member of the Church wan anted in j designating the table by so unjust and unprotestant a title. But this name is vital in Tractarian theology. It is the basis of a great superstructure of Anglo-Catho-lic or Romish doctrine. If there be an altar in the congregation there must be a sacrificing priest and a propitiatory sacrifice or oblation offered up for the sins of the people. Conceding this, the mass is the natural and consistent development, and Rome the proper ' holy I home,' and the supremacy of PlO Nono the logical and unavoidable result. The secret and mischievous energy of the Trictarian system ia its geneiating a taste tor a sort of food which the Protestant Church cannot supply, an appetite for stimulants which pure religion abhors, and an admhation of a gorgeous ritualj and a pompous ceremonial utterly inconsistent with the pure, and simple, and spiritual worship retrieved from mediaeval obscuration in the sixteenth century. The Tractarians study to accustom the popular mind to certain Romish names, and calculate on the corresponding Romish doctrines coming in by-and-by. They well know that, in the minds of the multitude, names are things. We must resist the attempt. We may not tolerate the poisoned cup, if we desire not to taste the deleterious contents. The Protestant Church is not without a sacrifice, a priest, and an altar, while she repudiates those of St. Barnabas. Her sacrifice was perfected on Calvary — it is commemorated, not made or added to on Good Friday. Her priest is in " the holy place" — the heavenly chancel — without companion, and beyond comparison, possessed of an untransferable priesthood, which it is blasphemy to ape or assume; and her altar is no erection of stone which a mouse may undeimine, a hammer may beat down, or time wear and waste. He who is her Priest and her sacrifice, is also iier altar. Its stones are living, its cement is love, and the glory which is its "super-altar" is mercy and truth that have met together, and righteousness and peace that have embraced each other. We earnestly wish that Sir John Harington may see the beauty and splendour of the true sanctuary, and he will soon turn away in disgust, at least with strong disaffection from the trumpery of St. Barnabas.