Holy Family and St Michael, Kesgrave, Ipswich, Suffolk

 

A new entry on the Suffolk Churches site.

 

There are ages of faith which leave their traces in splendour and beauty, as acts of piety and memory. East Anglia is full of silent witnesses to tides which have ebbed and flowed. Receding, they leave us in their wake great works from the passing ages, little Norman churches which seem to speak a language we can no longer understand but which haunts us still, the decorated beauty of the 14th Century at odds with the horrors of its pestilence and loss, the perpendicular triumph of the 15th Century church before its near-destruction in the subsequent Reformation and Commonwealth, the protestant flowering of chapels and meeting houses in almost all rural communities, and most obvious of all for us today the triumphalism of the Victorian revival.

 

But even as tides recede, piety and memory survive, most often in quiet acts and intimate details. The catholic church of Holy Family and St Michael at Kesgrave is one of their great 20th Century treasure houses.

 

At the time of the 1851 census of religious worship, Kesgrave was home to just 86 people, 79 of whom attended morning service that day, giving this parish the highest percentage attendance of any in Suffolk. However, they met half a mile up the road at the Anglican parish church of All Saints, and the current site of Holy Family was then far out in the fields. In any case, it is unlikely that any of the non-attenders was a Catholic. Today, Kesgrave is a sprawling eastern suburb of Ipswich, home to about 10,000 people. It extends along the A12 corridor all the way to Martlesham, which in turn will take you pretty much all the way to Woodbridge without seeing much more than a field or two between the houses.

 

Holy Family was erected in the 1930s, and serves as a chapel of ease within the parish of Ipswich St Mary. However, it is still in private ownership, the responsibility of the Rope family, who, along with the Jolly family into which they married, owned much of the land in Kesgrave that was later built on.

 

The growth of Kesgrave has been so rapid and so extensive in these last forty years that radical expansions were required at both this church and at All Saints, as well as to the next parish church along in the suburbs at Rushmere St Andrew. All of these projects are interesting, although externally Holy Family is less dramatic than its neighbours. It sits neatly in its trim little churchyard, red-brick and towerless, a harmonious little building if rather a curious shape, of which more in a moment. Beside it, the underpass and roundabout gives it a decidedly urban air. But this is a church of outstanding interest, as we shall see.

 

It was good to come back to Kesgrave. As a member of St Mary's parish I generally attended mass at the parish's other church, a couple of miles into town, but I had been here a number of times over the years, either to mass or just to wander around and sit for a while. These days, you generally approach the church from around the back, where you'll find a sprawling car park typical of a modern Catholic church. To the west of the church are Lucy House and Philip House, newly built for the work of the Rope family charities. Between the car park and the church there there is a tiny, formal graveyard, with crosses remembering members of the Rope and Jolly families.

 

Access to the church is usually through a west door these days, but if you are fortunate enough to enter through the original porch on the north side you will have a foretaste of what is to come, for to left and right are stunning jewel-like and detailed windows depicting St Margaret and St Theresa on one side and St Catherine and the Immaculate Conception on the other. Beside them, a plaque reveals that the church was built to the memory of Michael Rope, who was killed in the R101 airship disaster of 1930.

 

Blue Peter-watching boys like me, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, were enthralled by airships. They were one of those exciting inventions of a not-so-distant past which were, in a real sense, futuristic, a part of the 1930s modernist project that imagined and predicted the way we live now. And they were just so big. But they were doomed, because the hydrogen which gave them their buoyancy was explosive.

 

As a child, I was fascinated by the R101 airship and its disaster, especially because of that familiar photograph of its wrecked and burnt-out fuselage sprawled in the woods on a northern French hillside. It is still a haunting photograph today. The crash of the R101 put an end to airship development in the UK for more than half a century.

 

Of course, this is all ancient history now, but in the year 2001 I had the excellent fortune to be shown around Holy Family by Michael Rope's widow, Mrs Lucy Doreen Rope, née Jolly, who was still alive, and then in her nineties. She was responsible for the building of this church as a memorial to her husband. We paused in the porch so that I could admire the windows. "Do you like them?" Mrs Rope asked me. "Of course, my sister-in-law made them."

 

Her sister-in-law, of course, was Margaret Agnes Rope, who in the first half of the twentieth century was one of the finest of the Arts and Craft Movement stained glass designers. She studied at Birmingham, and then worked at the Glass House in Fulham with her cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, whose work is also here. But their work can be found in churches and cathedrals all over the world. What Mrs Rope did not tell me, and what I found out later, is that these two windows in the porch were made for her and her husband Michael as a wedding present.

 

Doreen Jolly and Michael Rope were married in 1929. Within a year, he was dead. Mrs Rope was just 23 years old.

 

The original church from the 1930s is the part that you step into. You enter to the bizarre sight of a model of the R101 airship suspended from the roof. The nave altar and tabernacle ahead are in the original sanctuary, and you are facing the liturgical east (actually south) of the original building, and what an intimate space this must have been before the church was extended. Red brick outlines the entrance to the sanctuary, and here are the three windows made by Margaret Rope for the original church. The first is the three-light sanctuary window, depicting the Blessed Virgin and child flanked by St Joseph and St Michael. Two doves sit on a nest beneath Mary's feet, while a quizzical sparrow looks on. St Michael has the face of Michael Rope. The inscription beneath reads Pray for Michael Rope who gave up his soul to God in the wreck of His Majesty's Airship R101, Beauvais, October 5th 1930.

 

Next, a lancet in the right-hand side of the sanctuary contains glass depicting St Dominic, with a dog running beneath his feet and the inscription Laudare, Benedicere, Praedicare, ('to praise, to bless, to preach'). The third window is in the west wall of the church (in its day, the right hand side of the nave), depicting St Thomas More and St John Fisher, although at the time the window was made they had not yet been canonised. The inscription beneath records that the window was the gift of a local couple in thankfulness for their conversion to the faith for which the Blessed Martyrs Thomas More and John Fisher gave their lives. A rose bush springs from in front of the martyrs' feet.

 

By the 1950s, Holy Family was no longer large enough for the community it served, and it was greatly expanded to the east to the designs of the archtect Henry Munro Cautley. Cautley was a bluff Anglican of the old school, the retired former diocesan architect of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, but he would have enjoyed designing a church for such an intimate faith community, and in fact it was his last major project before he died in 1959. The original sanctuary was retained as a blessed sacrament chapel, and the church was turned ninety degrees to face east for the first time. The north and south sides of the new church received three-light Tudor windows in the style most beloved by Cautley, as seen also at his Ipswich County Library in Northgate Street, and the former Fosters (now Lloyds) Bank in central Cambridge.

 

Although the Rope family had farmed at Blaxhall near Wickham Market for generations, Margaret Rope herself was not from Suffolk at all, and nor was she at first a Catholic. She was born in Shrewsbury in 1882, the daughter of Henry Rope, a surgeon at Shrewsbury Infirmary, and a son of the Blaxhall Rope family. The largest collection of Margaret Rope's glass is in Shrewsbury Cathedral. When Margaret was 17, her father died. The family were received into the Catholic church shortly afterwards. A plaque was placed in the entrance to Shrewsbury Infirmary to remember her father. When the hospital was demolished in the 1990s, the plaque was moved to here, and now sits in the north aisle of the 1950s church. In her early days in London Margaret Rope designed and made the large east window at Blaxhall church as a memorial to her grandparents. It features her younger brother Michael, and is believed to be the only window that she ever signed.

 

In her early forties, Margaret Rope took holy orders and entered the Carmelite Convent at nearby Woodbridge, but continued to produce her stained glass work until the community moved to Quidenham in Norfolk, when poor health and the distances involved proved insurmountable. She died there in 1953, and so she never saw the expanded church. Her cartoons, the designs for her windows, are placed on the walls around Holy Family. Some are for windows in churches in Scotland and Wales, one for a window in the English College in Rome. Among them are the roundels for within the enclosure of Tyburn Convent in London. "They had to remove the windows there during the War", said Mrs Rope. "Of course, with me, you have to ask which war!"

 

Turning to the east, we see the new sanctuary with its high altar, completed in 1993 as part of a further reordering and expansion, which gave a large galilee porch, kitchen and toilets to the north side of the church. The window above the new sanctuary has three lights, and the two outer windows were made by Margaret Rope for the chapel of East Bergholt convent to the south of Ipswich. They remember the Vaughan family, into which Margaret Rope's sister had married, and in particular one member, a sister in the convent, to celebrate her 25 year jubilee.

 

The convent later became Old Hall, a famous commune. They depict the prophet Isaiah and King David.

 

The central light between them is controversial. Produced in the 1990s and depicting the risen Christ, it really isn't very good, and provides the one jarring note in the church. It is rather unfortunate that it is in such a prominent position. It is not just the quality of the design that is the problem. It lets in too much light in comparison with the two flanking lights. "The glass in my sister-in-law's windows is half an inch thick", Mrs Rope told me. "In the workshop at Fulham they had a man who came in specially to cut it for them". The glass in the modern light is simply too thin.

 

Despite the 1990s extension, and as so often in modern urban Catholic churches, Holy Family is already not really big enough, although it is hard to see that there could ever be another expansion. We walked along Munro Cautley's south aisle, and at that time the stations of the cross were simple wooden crosses. However, about three months after my conversation with Mrs Rope, the World Trade Centre in New York was attacked and destroyed, and among the three thousand people killed were two local Kesgrave brothers who were commemorated with a new set of stations in cast metal.

 

Here also is a 1956 memorial window by Margaret Rope's cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, to Mrs Rope's mother Alice Jolly, depicting the remains of the shrine at Walsingham and the Jolly family at prayer before it. Another MEA Rope window is across the church in the galilee, a Second World War memorial window, originally on the east side of the first church before Cautley's extension. It depicts three of the English Martyrs, Blessed Anne Lynne, Blessed Robert Southwell and Blessed John Robinson, as well as the shipwreck of Blessed John Nutter off of Dunwich, with All Saints church on the cliffs above.

 

The galilee is designed for families with young children to play a full part in mass, and is separated from the church by a glass screen. At the top of the screen is a small panel by Margaret Rope which is of particular interest because it depicts her and her family participating in the Easter vigil, presumably in Shrewsbury Cathedral. This is hard to photograph because it is on an internal window between two rooms.

 

A recent addition to the Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope windows here is directly opposite, newly installed on the south side of the nave. It was donated by her great-nephew. It depicts a nativity scene, the Holy Family in the stable at Bethlehem, an angel appearing to shepherds on the snowy hills beyond. It is perhaps her loveliest window in the church.

 

Finally, back across the church. Here, beside the brass memorial to Margaret Rope, is a window depicting the Blessed Virgin and child, members of the Rope family in the Candlemas procession beneath. The inscription reminds us to pray for the soul of Sister Margaret of the Mother of God, mistress of novices and stained glass artist, Monastery of the Magnificat of the Mother of God, Quidenham, Norfolk, entered Carmel 14th September 1923, died 6th December 1953. Sister Margaret of the Mother of God was, of course, Margaret Rope herself. She was buried in the convent at Quidenham, a Shrewsbury exile at rest in the East Anglian soil of her forebears. The design is hers, and the window was made by her cousin Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope.

 

Back in 2001, we were talking about the changing Church, and I asked Mrs Rope what she thought about the recently introduced practice of transferring Holy Days on to the nearest Sunday, so that the teaching of them was not lost. Mrs Rope approved, a lady clearly not stuck in the past. She had a passion for ensuring that the Faith could be shared with children. As we have seen, her church is designed so that young families can take a full part in the Mass. But she was sympathetic to the distractions of the modern age. "The world is so exciting for children these days", she said. "I think it must be difficult to bring them up with a sense of the presence of God." She smiled. "Mind you, my son is 70 now! And I do admire young girls today. They have such spirit!"

 

She left me to potter about in her wonderful treasure house. As I did so, I thought of medieval churches I have visited, which were similarly donated by the Mrs Ropes of their day, perhaps even for husbands who had died young. They not only sought to memorialise their loved ones, but to consecrate a space for prayer, that masses might be said for the souls of the dead. This was the Catholic way, a Christian duty. Before the Reformation, this was true in every parish in England. It remained true here at Kesgrave.

 

And finally, back outside to the small graveyard. Side by side are two crosses. One remembers Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, artist, 1891-1988. The other remembers Lucy Doreen Rope, founder of this church, 1907-2003.

19.9.10: Cofton Park, Birmingham

 

Lead, Kindly Light, amidst th'encircling gloom, lead Thou me on,

The night is dark, and I am far from home, lead Thou me on.

Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see

The distant scene; one step enough for me.

 

I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou shouldst lead me on,

I loved to choose and see my path; but now lead Thou me on.

I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,

Pride ruled my will. Remember not past years!

 

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still will lead me on,

O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till the night is gone.

And with the morn those angel faces smile,

Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

 

- John Henry Newman, The Pillar of Cloud, 1833

 

The Beatification of John Henry Newman by Pope Benedict XVI

 

We were at Cofton Park for Newman as much as we were for the Pope. I'm not the biggest fan of Benedict XVI or of the cult of hero worship, but Newman is for me one of the outstanding figures of the 19th Century; along with Darwin and Marx, he is one of the three great thinkers of that century. The three of them changed the way we understand the world, how we got here and where we are going.

 

What Darwin, Marx and Newman all had in common was that they devoted their lives to arguing theories of development. All three had a profound effect on how we lived our lives in the 20th century. Newman's theory was a theory of theological development. His starting point was to say: if we are imperfect, how can we possibly claim to truly know the mind of God?

 

As a young man, Newman had been an evangelical, believing in the literal truth of the Bible. As he matured, and realised this was not a possibility, he asked himself the big question: if we are literally incapable of posessing a knowledge of the mind of God, if we cannot understand exactly what it is that God is asking us to do, but we are still called on to seek perfection, then how does the revelation of that knowledge come about?

 

Newman decided it was the duty of the Church to be open to unfolding revelation, for each generation to continue the journey towards God in its own way. Some traditionalist Catholics are uncomfortable with the uncertainty of this, and ask the question "does this mean that some things we used to think were sinful are no longer sins?" In the words of the great Cardinal Hume, the answer is yes, I am afraid it does, because understanding of how sin may be realised is ultimately in the mind of imperfect man. Rather confusingly, Newman used the word 'Tradition' to explain the way the Church develops in response to this unfolding revelation.

 

Some of Newman's well-known sayings were projected on to the big screens at Cofton Park on Sunday, and one of my favourites went up just as the Pope was getting out of his helicopter: To grow is to change, and to become perfect is to change often. A little ironic perhaps, as one of the charges often levelled against this Pope by his fellow-Catholics is that he is intransigent and dogmatic - was it the spirit of Newman sending him a message, perhaps?

 

I think English Catholics have a love-hate relationship with Benedict XVI. He is a northern European, he's one of us, he thinks like us - but on the other hand he is such a deep intellectual that he doesn't engage in ordinary people's lives in the way that John Paul II did, even though John Paul II was in many ways a much more conservative Pope. JP2 is increasingly seen by history as providing a steady hand on the tiller at a time when the ship was entering uncertain waters, and I expect history's view of Benedict to be similar, that he kept the Conservatives on board at a time when the great outcry for change might have led to fragmentation.

 

I am also glad that there is at last a wider, public debate about the role of Faith in a civilised and secular society, and the relationship between Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason, although it needs to be conducted without hysteria. While I think the Church and the Pope are certainly patriarchal and authoritarian, I do not believe that either is homophobic. This seems to me a very serious charge, and quite inappropriate when addressing the real issues involved in the Catholic Church's understanding of homosexuality. The Church's teaching in the matter (with which I find much to disagree) is against non-creative sexual acts, and also against sexual acts outside of marriage. Thus, homosexuality is not taught to be sinful, but it is taught to be a disordered state. While I think this teaching is wrong, I also think that to describe it as 'homophobic', that is, the fear of homosexuality or the promotion of a hatred of homosexuality, is just plain wrong. I am not saying that homophobic Catholics do not exist, but I am not aware of ever having met one. Indeed, several of my openly gay friends are Mass-attending Catholics. This obviously isn't enough, but it is a better starting point.

 

Secondly, while I think that condoms have a role to play in fighting AIDS and other diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is a very complex one. Respect needs to be given to the Church's preference for other methods, and the resources it commits to employing them: education, building up respect for women, fighting to raise the social conditions in which the abuse of women thrives. To describe the Catholic Church's work in Africa as 'genocide', as one banner at the 'Protest the Pope' rally in London on Saturday did, is just plain daft.

 

The Catholic Church is crying out for change. Under John XXIII and Paul VI in the Sixties and Seventies there was a real sense of a pilgrim church on the move and open to the Holy Spirit. But I do not think this is currently the case. Perhaps Newman's beatification will open up the eyes of the Church again to the reality of its journey, who knows? Where there are difficulties with official Church teaching, most Catholics I know follow their prayerful consciences, as Newman said we must, in a spirit of loyal dissent. We think the Church's teaching on contraception and homosexuality is wrong - not because we think we are right, but because we think that ongoing revelation will lead to the teaching being developed and changed - to grow is to change, to become perfect is to change often.

 

It is good to see dissent, and it is good to see a public debate. It is right and proper that those protesting against the visit of the Pope in London on Saturday had the chance to make thier voices heard. Vatican officials are said to be amazed that 80,000 pilgrims and 10,000 protestors were able to go about their business in the same area of central London and there only be one arrest! I'd like to think it is a good example of English tolerance and fair play. But I am afraid that I do not like their leader, Professor Dawkins, at all. I think he is a fundamentalist, and I abhor fundamentalism in all its forms, whether Christian, Moslem, Socialist, Fascist or Atheist. He's an intelligent man, and really ought to know better. His spiteful and angry speech on Saturday - he was literally shaking with anger - was a world away from the spirit of peace, love and reconciliation that I felt around me at Cofton Park yesterday. Ultimately, it's all about Love.

 

Clifford Longley, in The Tablet this week (25.9.10), caught the mood of the Pope's visit to Britain perfectly:

 

There were two fifth columns that nobody had bargained for: ordinary British Catholics who decided spontaneously to stand up and be counted; and ordinary British people with open minds and sense of fair play. The former bought tickets for the set-piece events, some even giving up a night’s sleep to stand for hours in a wet and muddy field on the outskirts of Birmingham. The latter let curiosity and a desire to be touched by history move them to join Catholic crowds on the streets of Edinburgh, Glasgow and London to wait, watch and wave. The Catholic masses and the broader public formed a resonating feedback loop via the media, learning how to behave as bystanders on a papal route from what they saw others doing and feeling on television the night before. It was Diana moment.

 

By then there was nothing the protesters or the media could do to blow the Pope off course. They began to seem deaf to the zeitgeist. What could have been a papal disaster and national disgrace became for Pope Benedict, for the organisers, and above all for the ordinary people of Britain, Catholics included, a significant and memorable victory.

 

First prize goes to those feisty Catholic teenagers who seemed to be everywhere, laughing, having the time of their lives. Catholic, yes. But typical teenagers, very normal. “Pope Benedict, we love you more than beans on toast,” said one of their banners. They were loving it and saying so, with joyous exuberance at being near the Pope and being on the telly simultaneously. Whatever they were on, I wanted some.

 

Completely by chance, the TV cameras cut between these appealingly giddy young people in Hyde Park and the grim and serious business of “protesting the Pope”, as the opposition marchers called what they spent Saturday afternoon doing. It was Cavaliers versus Roundheads, and, televisually, no contest. No doubt the protesters spoke for many more, as the polls had suggested. But if voting was by one’s feet, the Cavalier party seemed to win by a factor of 20 or more. If I were Peter Tatchell, I would be a little bit embarrassed.

 

Their fundamental mistake, in order to correct the earlier error of sounding like bigoted anti-Catholics, was to try to separate Catholics from their Pope. It wasn’t the majority they were against, they said, just this one man and his outrageous opinions – which many Catholics disagreed with. That last bit may be half true, though this Pope’s teachings differ hardly at all from the last one’s. And when it comes to the list of anti-Pope grievances drawn up by Mr Tatchell – though not those of the ludicrous Richard Dawkins – there are bits here and there with which I can sympathise.

 

But the effect on me of their general nastiness was to want to go and join the Swiss Guard. Yet Pope Benedict himself is surely a bit of a Roundhead, a touch Puritan. His addresses were utterly serious, though brilliantly calculated to connect with many of the things the British are worried about. But if his thoughts didn’t appeal directly to the senses, the gorgeous sights and sounds certainly did. It was Charles II’s time again, rumbustious and slightly irreverent. Thank you, God, for teenagers.

 

More here.

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

Pūjā is a prayer ritual performed by Hindus to host, honour and worship one or more deities, or to spiritually celebrate an event. Sometimes spelled phonetically as pooja or poojah, it may honour or celebrate the presence of special guest(s), or their memories after they pass away. The word pūjā (Devanagari: पूजा) comes from Sanskrit, and means reverence, honour, homage, adoration, and worship. Puja rituals are also held by Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.

 

In Hinduism, puja is done on a variety of occasions, frequency and settings. It may include daily puja done in the home, to occasional temple ceremonies and annual festivals, to few lifetime events such as birth of a baby or a wedding, or to begin a new venture. The two main areas where puja is performed are in the home and at temples to mark certain stages of life, events or some festivals such as Durga Puja and Lakshmi Puja. Puja is not mandatory; it may be a routine daily affair for some Hindus, periodic ritual for some, and infrequent for other Hindus. In some temples, various pujas may be performed daily at various times of the day; in other temples, it may be occasional.

 

Puja varies according to the school of Hinduism. Within a given school, puja may vary by region, occasion, deity honored, and steps followed.[5][6] In formal Nigama ceremonies, a fire may be lit in honour of deity Agni, without an idol or image present. In contrast, in Agama ceremonies, an idol or image of deity is present. In both ceremonies, a diya or incense stick may be lit while a prayer is chanted or hymn is sung. Puja is typically performed by a Hindu worshipper alone, though sometimes in presence of a priest who is well versed in procedure and hymns. In temples and priest-assisted event puja, food, fruits and sweets may be included as offerings to the deity, which, after the prayers, becomes prasad – blessed food shared by all present at the puja.

 

Both Nigama and Agama puja are practiced in Hinduism in India. In Hinduism of Bali Indonesia, Agama puja is most prevalent both inside homes and in temples. Puja is sometimes called Sembahyang in Indonesia.

 

ETYMOLOGY

Puja (Sanskrit: पूजा) is an ancient word, with unclear origins. Joshi claims the word puja was first used in vedic times when Sūtra were composed, to describe prayers and worship before yajna or homa – fire deity, Agni. Charpentier suggests the origin of the word Puja may lie in the Dravidian languages. Two possible Tamil roots have been suggested: Poosai "to smear with something" and Poochei "to do with flowers".

 

ORIGINS

According to scholars, one of the earliest mentions of pūjā is in the Grihya Sutras, which provide rules for domestic rites. These Sutras, dated to be about 500 BC, use the term puja to describe the hospitality to honor priests who were invited to one’s home to lead rituals for departed ancestors. As Hindu philosophy expanded and diversified, with developments such as the bhakti movement, the vedic puja ritual were modified and applied to the deities. As with vedic times, the general concept of puja remained the same, but expanded to welcoming the deity along with the deity's spiritual essence as one's honored guest. The Puranic corpus of literature, dating from about 6th century CE, contain extensive outline on how to perform deity puja (deva pūjā). Deity puja thus melds Vedic rites with devotion to deity in its ritual form. As with many others aspects of Hinduism, both Vedic puja and devotional deity puja continued, the choice left to the Hindu.

 

As a historical practice, pūjā in Hinduism, has been modeled around the idea of hosting a deity, or important person, as an honored and dearest guest in the best way one can, given one's resources, and receiving their happiness and blessing in return. Paul Thieme suggests from passages in the Rāmāyaṇa that the word pūjā referred to the hospitable reception of guests and that the things offered to guests could be offered to the gods and their dwellings. The rituals in question were the "five great sacrifices" or pañcamahāyajña recorded in the Gṛhyasūtra texts (for this literature, see Kalpa). The development of pūjā thus emerged from Vedic domestic traditions and was carried into the temple environment by analogy: just as important guests had long been welcomed in well-to-do homes and offered things that pleased them, so too were the gods welcomed in temple-homes and offered things that pleased them. Copper-plate charters recording grants of lands to temples show that this religious practice was actively encouraged from the mid-4th century.

 

SIGNIFICANCE OF PUJA

In the earliest texts describing Vedic puja, the significance of puja was to host the priest so that he could make direct requests to the gods. An example petition prayer made during a Vedic puja, according to Wade Wheelock, is:

 

Indra-Agni, slayers of Vrtra with the beautiful thunderbolt, prosper us with new gifts;

O Indra, bring treaures with your right hand;

O Agni grant the enjoyments of a good household;

Give (us) vigor, wealth in cattle, and possession of good horses.

– ÄsvSü

 

In contrast to Vedic pujas, the significance of deity pujas shifted from petitions and external goals to the experience of oneness with the deities and their spiritual essence. It became a form of yoga whose final result aimed to be the consciousness of god through homage to god. Nevertheless, even with this evolved theoretical spiritual significance, for many people, puja continued to be a vehicle to petition desires and appeals, such as for good health of one's child, speedy recovery from illness, success in venture envisioned or such. In the structure and practice of puja, the mantras and rituals focus on spirituality, and any petitions and appeals are tacked only to the end of the puja.

 

Zimmer relates puja to yantras, with the rituals helping the devotee focus on the spiritual concepts. Puja in Hinduism, claims Zimmer, is a path and process of transformation of consciousness, where the devotee and the spiritual significance of the deity are brought together. This ritual puja process, in different parts of India, is considered to be liberating, releasing, purifying and a form of yoga of spirit and emotions.

 

Puja in Hinduism sometimes involves themes beyond idols or images. Even persons, places, rivers, concrete objects or anything is seen as manifestations of divine reality by some Hindus. The access to the divine is not limited to renunciatory meditation as in yoga school of Hinduism or idols in bhakti school. For some the divine is everywhere, without limit to its form, and a puja to these manifestations signifies the same spiritual meaning to those who choose to offer a prayer to persons, places, rivers, concrete objects or anything else.

 

TEMPLE PUJA

Temple (Mandir) pūjā is more elaborate than the domestic versions and typically done several times a day. They are also performed by a temple priest, or pujari. In addition, the temple deity (patron god or goddess) is considered a resident rather than a guest, so the puja is modified to reflect that; for example the deity is "awakened" rather than "invoked" in the morning. Temple pujas vary widely from region to region and for different sects, with devotional hymns sung at Vaishnava temples for example. At a temple puja, there is often less active participation, with the priest acting on behalf of others.

 

STRUCTURE, SERVICES & STEPS OF PUJA

ELABORATE PUJA

A full home or temple puja can include several traditional upacaras or "attendances". The following is an example puja; these steps may vary according to region, tradition, setting, or time particularly in ways the deity is hosted. In this example, the deity is invited as a guest, the devotee hosts and takes care of the deity as an honored guest, hymns and food are offered to the deity, after an expression of love and respect the host takes leave and with affection expresses good bye to the deity. Indologist Jan Gonda has identified 16 steps (shodasha upachara) that are common in all varieties of puja:

 

1. Avahana (“invocation”). The deity is invited to the ceremony from the heart.

2. Asana. The deity is offered a seat.

3. Padya. The deity’s feet are symbolically washed.

4. Water is offered for washing the head and body

5. Arghya. Water is offered so the deity may wash its mouth.

6. Snana or abhisekha. Water is offered for symbolic bathing.

7. Vastra (“clothing”). Here a cloth may be wrapped around the image and ornaments affixed to it.

8. Upaveeda or Mangalsutra. Putting on the sacred thread.

9. Anulepana or gandha. Perfumes and ointments are applied to the image. Sandalwood paste or kumkum is applied.

10. Pushpa. Flowers are offered before the image, or garlands draped around its neck.

11. Dhupa. Incense is burned before the image.

12. Dipa or Aarti. A burning lamp is waved in front of the image.

13. Naivedya. Foods such as cooked rice, fruit, clarified butter, sugar, and betel leaf are offered.

14. Namaskara or pranama. The worshipper and family bow or prostrate themselves before the image to offer homage.

15. Parikrama or Pradakshina. Circumambulation around the deity.

16. Taking leave.

 

Sometimes additional steps are included:

1. Dhyana (“Meditation”). The deity is invoked in the heart of the devotee.

2. Acamanıya. Water is offered for sipping.

3. Aabaran. The deity is decorated with ornaments.

4. Chatram. Offering of umbrella.

5. Chamaram Offering of fan or fly-whisk (Chamara).

6. Visarjana or Udvasana. The deity is moved from the place.

 

There are variations in this puja method such as:

1. Pancha upachara pooja (puja with 5 steps).

2. Chatushasti upachara puja (puja with 64 steps).

 

The structure of elaborate puja also varies significantly between temples, regions and occasions.

 

QUICK PUJA

A quick puja has the same structure as acts ordinary people would perform for a quick reception, hospitality and affectionate interaction with a beloved guest. First the deity is greeted, acknowledged by name and welcomed, sometimes with a diya or lighted incense stick. The devotee proceeds to connect with the spiritual manifestation by meditating (a form of darshan), or chanting hymns and mantras, then personal prayers follow. After prayer is finished, the spiritual visitor as guest is affectionately thanked and greeted good bye. A quick meditative puja is sometimes offered by some Hindus without an idol or image. According to Fuller, Hindu texts allow flexibility and abbreviated puja according to occasion, needs and personal preferences.

 

PUJA IN BALINESE HINDUISM

In Hinduism of Bali Indonesia, puja is sometimes called Sembahyang. The word originates from two words in old Javanese: sembah and hyang. Sembah means to respect and bow down; Hyang means divine, God/Shang Hyang Widhi, holy man, and ancestors. So to pray means to respect, bow down, surrender to the divine and ancestors.

 

Sembahyang (Puja) is an obligation for Balinese Hindus, the prayers and hymns are derived from the Vedas. A family typically offers prayers everyday, with Kewangen and other offerings. Kewangen means aromatic, and it is made from leaves and flowers in form of auspicious Vedic symbols. Balinese use kewangen to worship the divine, both in form of Purusha (soul) and Pradana (body). As with India, Balinese make offerings, including symbolic inclusion of fire, incense and mantras.

 

GURU PUJA

In the case of great spiritual masters, there is also a custom to perform puja for a living person. Gurus are sometimes chosen as objects of puja and honored as living gods or seen the embodiment of specific deities. Gurus are sometimes adorned with symbolic clothes, garlands and other ornaments, and celebrated with incense, washing and anointing their feet, giving them fruits, food and drinks and meditating at their feet, asking for their blessing.

 

PUJA AS A SOCIAL, HUMAN RIGHTS EVENT

As with Church services in Christianity, Pūjā in Hinduism has served as a means for Hindu communities outside India to gather, socialize, discover new friends and sometimes discuss ways to address social discrimination of Hindus. For example, Marion O'Callaghan reports that the Hindu diaspora brought as indentured laborers to Trinidad by the British colonial government, suffered discriminatory laws that did not recognize traditional Hindu marriages or inheritance rights of children from a traditional Hindu marriage, nor did the non-Hindu majority government allow pyre cremation or construction of crematorium. These Hindu rituals were considered pagan and uncivilized. Pujas offered a way for Hindus to meet, socially organize and petition their human rights. Over time, pujas became as much as social and community recreational event, as a religious event.

 

CRITIQUE OF PUJA IN THE PURVA MIMAMSAKA SCHOOL

Although pūjā is accepted as a valid religious activity by Hindus at large, it has long been criticised by Mīmāṃsā thinkers. The foundational work of this school is the Karmamīmāṃsāsūtra or "Aphorisms for Enquiry into the Act," composed by Jaimini. The earliest surviving commentary is by Śabara who lived around the end of the fourth century. Śabara's commentary, known as Śabarabhāṣya holds pride of place in Mīmāṃsā in that Sabara's understanding is taken as definitive by all later writers. In his chapter entitled Devatādikaraṇa (9 : 1: 5: 6–9), Śabara examines the popular understanding of the gods and attempts to refute the belief that they have material bodies, are able to eat the offerings made to them, and are capable of being pleased and so able to reward worshippers. Basing himself on the Vedas (he refused to accept the Mahābhārata, Purāṇa texts or even the Smṛti literatures as valid sources of authority), Śabara concludes that the gods are neither corporeal nor sentient and thus unable to enjoy offerings or own property. For this he appeals to empirical observation, noting that offerings do not decrease in size when given to the gods; any decrease is simply due to exposure to the air. Likewise he argues that substances are offered to gods not according to the wishes of the gods, but that "what is vouched for by direct perception is that the things are used according to the wishes of the temple servants (pratyakṣāt pramāṇāt devatāparicārakāṇām abhiprāyaḥ). In the course of his discussion, Śabara's asserts that "there is no relation between the case of guests and the sacrificial act." This incidental remark provides sound historical proof that pūjā was built on analogy with atithi, the ancient Vedic tradition of welcoming guests. What Śabara is maintaining is that this analogy is not valid.[38] While the Mīmāṃsakas continued to maintain this interpretation for centuries, their defeat in debate at the hands of Śaṅkarācārya led to theirs being a minority view. It is a remarkable testament to the plurality and tolerance of Indian civilization that Mīmāṃsakas flourished even into the 17th century, as evidenced by the commentaries of Nīlakaṇṭha.

 

REGIONAL NAMES

Puja, sometimes spelled pooja, is called பூஜை in Tamil, and bucha (บูชา) in Thai.

 

SHORT LIST OF PUJA FESTIVALS

Diwali/Deepavali/Lakshmi Puja

Durga Puja

Ganesh Chaturthi

Holi

Kali Puja

Maha Shivaratri

Rath Yatra/Jagannath Puja

Raksha Bandhan

Saraswati Puja

 

WIKIPEDIA

 

There was never any doubt I would go to Rob's funeral. Rob was born just two weeks before me, and in our many meetings, we found we had so much in common.

 

A drive to Ipswich should be something like only two and a half hours, but with the Dartford Crossing that could balloon to four or more.

 

My choice was to leave early, soon after Jools left for work, or wait to near nine once rush hour was over. If I was up early, I'd leave early, I said.

 

Which is what happened.

 

So, after coffee and Jools leaving, I loaded my camera stuff in the car, not bothering to program in a destination, as I knew the route to Suffolk so well.

 

Checking the internet I found the M2 was closed, so that meant taking the M20, which I like as it runs beside HS2, although over the years, vegetation growth now hides most of it, and with Eurostar cutting services due to Brexit, you're lucky to see a train on the line now.

 

I had a phone loaded with podcasts, so time flew by, even if travelling through the endless roadworks at 50mph seemed to take forever.

 

Dartford was jammed. But we inched forward, until as the bridge came in sight, traffic moved smoothly, and I followed the traffic down into the east bore of the tunnel.

 

Another glorious morning for travel, the sun shone from a clear blue sky, even if traffic was heavy, but I had time, so not pressing on like I usually do, making the drive a pleasant one.

 

Up through Essex, where most other traffic turned off at Stanstead, then up to the A11 junction, with it being not yet nine, I had several hours to fill before the ceremony.

 

I stopped at Cambridge services for breakfast, then programmed the first church in: Gazeley, which is just in Suffolk on the border with Cambridgeshire.

 

I took the next junction off, took two further turnings brought be to the village, which is divided by one of the widest village streets I have ever seen.

 

It was five past nine: would the church be open?

 

I parked on the opposite side of the road, grabbed my bag and camera, limped over, passing a warden putting new notices in the parish notice board. We exchange good mornings, and I walk to the porch.

 

The inner door was unlocked, and the heavy door swung after turning the metal ring handle.

 

I had made a list of four churches from Simon's list of the top 60 Suffolk churches, picking those on or near my route to Ipswich and which piqued my interest.

 

Here, it was the reset mediaeval glass.

 

Needless to say, I had the church to myself, the centuries hanging heavy inside as sunlight flooded in filling the Chancel with warm golden light.

 

Windows had several devotional dials carved in the surrounding stone, and a huge and "stunningly beautiful piscina, and beside it are sedilia that end in an arm rest carved in the shape of a beast" which caught my eye.

 

A display in the Chancel was of the decoration of the wooden roof above where panels contained carved beats, some actual and some mythical.

 

I photographed them all.

 

I programmed in the next church, a 45 minute drive away just on the outskirts of Ipswich, or so I thought.

 

The A14 was plagued by roadworks, then most trunk roads and motorways are this time of year, but it was a fine summer morning, I was eating a chocolate bar as I drove, and I wasn't in a hurry.

 

I turned off at Claydon, and soon lost in a maze of narrow lanes, which brought be to a dog leg in the road, with St Mary nestling in a clearing.

 

I pulled up, got out and found the air full of birdsong, and was greeted by a friendly spaniel being taken for a walk from the hamlet which the church serves.

 

There was never any doubt that this would be open, so I went through the fine brick porch, pushed another heavy wooden door and entered the coolness of the church.

 

I decided to come here for the font, which as you can read below has quite the story: wounded by enemy action no less!

 

There seems to be a hagioscope (squint) in a window of the south wall, makes one think or an anchorite, but of this there is little evidence.

 

Samuel and Thomasina Sayer now reside high on the north wall of the Chancel, a stone skull between them, moved here too because of bomb damage in the last war.

 

I drove a few miles to the next church: Flowton.

 

Not so much a village as a house on a crossroads. And the church.

 

Nothing so grand as a formal board outside, just a handwritten sign say "welcome to Flowton church". Again, I had little doubt it would be open.

 

And it was.

 

The lychgate still stands, but a fence around the churchyard is good, so serves little practical purpose, other than to be there and hold the signs for the church and forthcoming services.

 

Inside it is simple: octagonal font with the floor being of brick, so as rustic as can be.

 

I did read Simon's account (below) when back outside, so went back in to record the tomb of Captain William Boggas and his family, even if part of the stone is hidden by pews now.

 

I had said to myself, that if I saw signs for another church, I might find time to visit. And so it was with Aldham, I saw the sign pointing down a narrow lane, so I turned and went to investigate.

 

First it looked like the road ended in a farmyard, but then I saw the flint round tower of the church behind, so followed the lane to the church gate.

 

There was a large welcoming sign stating, proudly, that the church is always open.

 

St Mary stands on a mound overlooking a shallow valley, water stand, or runs slowly, in the bottom, and it really is a fine, fine location for a church.

 

I pushed through the gate and went up the path to the south porch, where the door swung open once again.

 

The coolness within enveloped me.

 

An ancient font at the west end was framed by a brick-lined arch, even to my untrained eyes, I knew this was unusual.

 

There were some carved bench ends, some nice fairly modern glass, but the simplicity of the small church made for a very pleasant whole.

 

I no longer watch TV much, so was unaware of the view and indeed church being used in the TV show, The Detectorists.

 

One of Suffolk's hidden treasures, for sure.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

I cycle past this church often - or, at least, the top of the lane that leads down to it. Traffic rushes along the busy Ipswich to Sudbury road not far off, but there is a quieter, parallel road which not many people seem to know about. It leaves Ipswich through Sproughton and will take you all the way to Sudbury, visiting the likes of Burstall, Kersey and Little Waldingfield on the way. Aldham as a village is little more than a straggle of houses, but they lie along this road, and just beyond a cluster of houses you take a sudden turn to the left, on to a pretty track to Aldham Hall. Down through fruit trees you descend, until the walls become older, and there at the end are the farm buildings. Beyond them, is this pretty church.

 

If the church is pretty, the view from it is doubly so - to the south, the land drops away alarmingly, into a valley full of sheep. You may even think you recognise it, and you could well be right, for the second season of the popular TV series The Detectorists was filmed here, as a small display in the porch of the church reminds you. The church appeared in the opening credits of each programme, the two main characters searching for buried treasure in Aldham Vale below the churchyard.

 

This is lovely, and splendidly English. Nothing could be more peaceful. But beyond, the land rises to a dark sea of trees, the mysteriously named Wolves Wood, now an RSPB reserve. Looking along to the right, the other hilltop is where the Protestant preacher Roland Taylor was burned at the stake in the 1550s, a site of pilgrimage for his many American descendants. Whatever your reading of the English Reformation, Taylor's burning was a terrible event. One imagines the villagers gathered outside this church, watching the flames and smoke rise.

 

I remembered the first time I came here, back in the 1990s. We arrived on one of those humid, overcast summer days, on our way to the Bildeston Beer Festival. My young children scattered off to play hide and seek with their mother in the precipitous graveyard. An elderly man was pottering about, looking at 19th Century graves, so I apologised for my family (as you do). But he seemed genuinely pleased that they were running about like mad things. He was tracing his family, and had come down from Norfolk to look for a particular grave of an ancestor. And he'd found it. He was pretty pleased about that, too. He was also following up a theory that his ancestor had been a Rector of this parish. His address had been Aldham Rectory. Did I have any idea how he could find out? I suggested that the church might have a board of 'Rectors of this Parish'. Many do. These are a pleasant Victorianism, intended to overcome the 16th Century breach by claiming a history of the CofE that extended back before the Reformation. We could go inside, and take a look. And we did - the church was militantly open, the inner door wedged wide. We found the board - but the name wasn't there. So, the mystery remained unsolved.

 

This church was pretty well derelict by the mid 19th Century, and underwent a fairly late restoration, in 1883. The tower was rebuilt, as was the south wall of the nave. The roofs were replaced, giving an overwhelmingly Victorian appearance, although Sam Mortlock detected the Norman, and possibly Saxon, ancestor. The hill itself suggests a very early foundation, perhaps on a site of pagan worship.

 

The architect was WM Fawcett, and there was another restoration of the inside in the early 20th Century under the eyes of diocesan surveyor and renowned antiquarian H Munro Cautley. The resulting interior is one of those neat and shiny jobs that is certainly grand, and pleasant enough, but rather dated now. Our early 21st Century spirituality seems to respond more to dusty, ancient interiors than to these High Church ritualisations. But you get a sense of a church that is still much loved, well-cared for, and used regularly.

 

Aldham parish have gone one further than a wedged-open door, and a big sign has been erected at the bottom of the lane proclaiming that Our Church is Always Open, and so it is easy to step inside. And it is not without survivals, some of them fascinating. The benches are mostly Cautleys from the 1920s, but he incorporated a couple of earlier ones. These are unlike anything else I've seen in Suffolk, and their primitive quality suggests a local origin. The one to the west apparently shows a bear, or possibly a lion. My first impulse was that it was some kind of heraldic device, but what is the shaved off object it holds in its mouth, and is the pattern emerging from beneath the head really fur? Back in 1999, my six year old took one look at it and decided that the creature isn't eating the bird, but the bird is flying out of its mouth. Could it be a dove? And could the three objects issuing from beneath the head actually be tongues of fire? In which case, could this be some strange composition representing Pentecost, and the descent of the Holy Spirit?

 

In the spandrel above the bear, or whatever it is, there is a lily, the symbol of the Annunciation. But it is also a symbol of the crucifixion. It calls to mind the rare lily crucifixes, of which just two are known to survive in Suffolk, at Long Melford and Great Glemham. Could this be an unrecorded third? The other bench end is probably easier to read. The crown is obvious enough. The star and crescent are familiar from representations of the crucifixion. The pike is a familiar instrument of the Passion. And, if you look in the spandrel above, you'll see a crown of thorns, so this may well be a composition representing the Passion.

 

A third bench end, to the east, shows just a simple spiked tool, that looks as if it might have been used in thatching. So, what's it all about? They are all a bit of a mystery, really.

And what of the font? This is curious too. It appears to be Norman, but a second glance finds it too elegant, too finely detailed. The pillars are almost Classical in design, and the whole piece has a touch of the 18th Century about it. Was it brought here from somewhere else in the 1880s? Or is it a Victorian recutting of a Norman predecessor? Whatever, the revealed brickwork of the late medieval tower arch looks most fitting behind it.

 

To see Cautley's work in its full glory, step up into the chancel for the reredos and its flanking niches, as grand as a side-chapel in a French cathedral. Cautley was usually a safe pair of hands in these churches he loved so well, but I wonder what he had been thinking to impose this triumphalism on this pretty little country church. Alfred Wilkinson's contemporary glass above it suits it well, but even so it is rather hard to imagine the same thing happening today. Postdating it by a few decades is a set of arms for Elizabeth II above the south doorway. East Anglia has no more than half a dozen sets, and these ones are rather good.

 

Standing in the nave and looking east to the splendour of the reredos, it is hard to imagine the real glory that once was here. But John Nunn contacted me, to tell me about a will he has a copy of. In 1525, his ancestor Robert Clifford declared: I bequeath I will have the rood there upon the candlebeam set up higher and Mary & John and two new angels and the breast under the rood korvyn and when that is done I will have all this painted and guilt whatsoever the cost. I will have bought two standards of brass stand in the choir and I will my executors bestow therein 40/-. I will my executors shall buy four candlesticks of brass for the candlebeam, I give six kine unto the church of Aldham to keep my obit with as long as the world stand.

 

What does all this mean? Firstly, you have to remember that England was a devoutly Catholic country in 1525, and the fittings of the church were for the actions of the Catholic liturgy. In the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, all Suffolk churches had a rood in place. This was a representation of the crucifixion, set above the chancel arch. On the left hand side of the cross always stood the Virgin Mary, and on the other side stood St John. Often, the wall behind was painted. The rood either hung on the wall, or was supported by a beam. However, there was always a beam that ran below it for candles to be lit on. This was called the candlebeam, or rood beam. The candles were placed on it by individuals or guilds as part of the process of prayer, particularly prayer for the souls of the dead. A rood loft ran beside it for access, and the space beneath was infilled with a rood screen. To make the rood even more glorious, the roof above was panelled, and the panels were painted blue, with gold stars, and perhaps Marian monograms. This was called the canopy of honour, or more simply, the coving (rendered delightfully in Suffolk dialect as Korvyn above.)

 

Robert Clifford was paying for a simple rood to be made more glorious. He was going to have it placed higher, with a new canopy of honour. He was paying for brass candlesticks to replace wooden candlestocks.

 

Why? Simply, the medieval economy of grace depended upon the living praying for the dead, and the dead praying for the living. In donating glorious things to his church, Clifford was ensuring that he would be remembered. The roodscreen would have a dedicatory inscription with his name on. He was saying - I won't forget you, don't you forget me. The Catholic liturgy formalised prayers for the dead in the form of obit masses.These were said on the anniversary of someone's death in perpetuity. The proceeds of the sale of the six cows (kine) would be invested, probably in land to be rented, to pay a priest to say these masses - as long as the world shall stand; that is, for ever.

 

Unfortunately, 'for ever' didn't last very long. Prayers for the dead were declared illegal by the protestant reformers in the late 1530s. By 1547, every single rood in the land had been toppled and burned. The rood lofts were hacked down, along with many of the candle beams (although about ten beams survive in Suffolk) and most of the rood screens were also destroyed (about 50 survive in Suffolk).

 

Nothing of Robert Clifford's gifts survive at Aldham. All the gilt would have been stripped, the brass candlesticks melted down, and the proceeds sequestered by the King's commissioners. The collected glory of all the churches of England was squandered by Henry VIII on high living, and on the expensive and pointless siege of Boulogne. A sad thought.

 

When I first came here in 1999, I remember the graveyard was full of wild thyme and especially sorrel, which we gathered in handfuls and ate later in the day with fresh trout and new potatoes. Twenty years have passed since then, and it was too early for the sorrel this year. Instead I just stood, and looked out across the gentle valley, the sheep cropping their way slowly westward. It was easy to recognise the opening of The Detectorists in the vale below. And I looked beyond to Wolves Wood, and the site of Roland Taylor's martyrdom. Hard to imagine such history happening to such a modest little parish.

  

Simon Knott, March 2019

 

www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/aldham.htm

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama,[note 3] Shakyamuni,[note 4] or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[web 2] He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 5]

 

The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "the enlightened one". "Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being in an era. In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Pali sammāsambuddha, Sanskrit samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age.[note 6] Gautama taught a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism found in the Sramana (renunciation) movement[5] common in his region. He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[4][6]

 

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era in India during the reign of Bimbisara, the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatshatru who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a younger contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain teacher.[7] Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of other influential sramana schools of thoughts like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jain, and Ajñana. It was also the age of influential thinkers like Mahāvīra, Pūraṇa Kassapa , Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, whose viewpoints Buddha most certainly must have been acquainted with and influenced by.[8][9][note 7] There is also evidence to suggest that the two masters, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, were indeed historical figures and they most probably taught Buddha two different forms of meditative techniques.[10] While the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true,[11] most scholars do not consistently accept all of the details contained in traditional biographies.[12][13]

 

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][14] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][15][note 5] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.[20][21][note 9]

 

The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born into the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[23] It was either a small republic, in which case his father was an elected chieftain, or an oligarchy, in which case his father was an oligarch.[23] According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may either be in present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India.[note 1] He obtained his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, gave his first sermon in Sarnath, and died in Kushinagara.

 

No written records about Gautama have been found from his lifetime or some centuries thereafter. One edict of Emperor Ashoka, who reigned from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE, commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to the Buddha's birthplace in Lumbini. Another one of his edict mentions several Dhamma texts, establishing the existence of a written Buddhist tradition at least by the time of the Mauryan era and which may be the precursors of the Pāli Canon.[34][note 11] The oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts are the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, reported to have been found in or around Haḍḍa near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan and now preserved in the British Library. They are written in the Kharoṣṭhī script and the Gāndhārī language on twenty-seven birch bark scrolls, and they date from the first century BCE to the third century CE.[web 10]The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sūtra, Mahāvastu, and the Nidānakathā.[35] Of these, the Buddhacarita[36][37][38] is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[35] The Lalitavistara Sūtra is the next oldest biography, a Mahāyāna/Sarvāstivāda biography dating to the 3rd century CE.[39] The Mahāvastu from the Mahāsāṃghika Lokottaravāda tradition is another major biography, composed incrementally until perhaps the 4th century CE.[39] The Dharmaguptaka biography of the Buddha is the most exhaustive, and is entitled the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra,[40] and various Chinese translations of this date between the 3rd and 6th century CE. Lastly, the Nidānakathā is from the Theravāda tradition in Sri Lanka and was composed in the 5th century CE by Buddhaghoṣa.[41]

 

From canonical sources, the Jātakas, the Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), and the Achariyabhuta Sutta (MN 123) which include selective accounts that may be older, but are not full biographies. The Jātakas retell previous lives of Gautama as a bodhisattva, and the first collection of these can be dated among the earliest Buddhist texts.[42] The Mahāpadāna Sutta and Achariyabhuta Sutta both recount miraculous events surrounding Gautama's birth, such as the bodhisattva's descent from Tuṣita Heaven into his mother's womb.Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[43][44][45] Nevertheless, some of the more ordinary details of his life have been gathered from these traditional sources. In modern times there has been an attempt to form a secular understanding of Siddhārtha Gautama's life by omitting the traditional supernatural elements of his early biographies.

 

Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human:[46]

 

It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.

 

The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist.[47] British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.[48] Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.[11]The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, present-day Nepal, to be the birthplace of the Buddha.[49][note 1] He grew up in Kapilavastu.[note 1] The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown. It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, present-day India,[32] or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal.[50] Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart from each other.[50]

 

Siddharta Gautama was born as a Kshatriya,[51][note 13] the son of Śuddhodana, "an elected chief of the Shakya clan",[4] whose capital was Kapilavastu, and who were later annexed by the growing Kingdom of Kosala during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[53][54] and ten months later[55] Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree.

 

The day of the Buddha's birth is widely celebrated in Theravada countries as Vesak.[56] Buddha's birth anniversary holiday is called "Buddha Purnima" in Nepal and India as Buddha is believed to have been born on a full moon day. Various sources hold that the Buddha's mother died at his birth, a few days or seven days later. The infant was given the name Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha), meaning "he who achieves his aim". During the birth celebrations, the hermit seer Asita journeyed from his mountain abode and announced that the child would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a great holy man.[57] By traditional account,[which?] this occurred after Siddhartha placed his feet in Asita's hair and Asita examined the birthmarks. Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day, and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave a dual prediction that the baby would either become a great king or a great holy man.[57] Kaundinya (Pali: Kondañña), the youngest, and later to be the first arahant other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[58]

 

While later tradition and legend characterized Śuddhodana as a hereditary monarch, the descendant of the Solar Dynasty of Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka), many scholars think that Śuddhodana was the elected chief of a tribal confederacy.

 

Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition.[59] The state of the Shakya clan was not a monarchy, and seems to have been structured either as an oligarchy, or as a form of republic.[60] The more egalitarian gana-sangha form of government, as a political alternative to the strongly hierarchical kingdoms, may have influenced the development of the Shramana-type Jain and Buddhist sanghas, where monarchies tended toward Vedic Brahmanism.[61]Siddhartha was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati.[62] By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.

 

When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal.[62]According to the early Buddhist texts,[web 11] after realizing that meditative dhyana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[web 11]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification, or the Noble Eightfold Path, as was identified and described by the Buddha in his first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.[web 11] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[web 12] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[web 12]

 

Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree—now known as the Bodhi tree—in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth.[70] Kaundinya and four other companions, believing that he had abandoned his search and become undisciplined, left. After a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment.[70][web 13] According to some traditions, this occurred in approximately the fifth lunar month, while, according to others, it was in the twelfth month. From that time, Gautama was known to his followers as the Buddha or "Awakened One" ("Buddha" is also sometimes translated as "The Enlightened One").

 

According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the "Four Noble Truths",[web 13] which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that's free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states,[web 13] or "defilements" (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the "end of the world", in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha.

 

According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach.After his awakening, the Buddha met Taphussa and Bhallika — two merchant brothers from the city of Balkh in what is currently Afghanistan — who became his first lay disciples. It is said that each was given hairs from his head, which are now claimed to be enshrined as relics in the Shwe Dagon Temple in Rangoon, Burma. The Buddha intended to visit Asita, and his former teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, to explain his findings, but they had already died.

 

He then travelled to the Deer Park near Varanasi (Benares) in northern India, where he set in motion what Buddhists call the Wheel of Dharma by delivering his first sermon to the five companions with whom he had sought enlightenment. Together with him, they formed the first saṅgha: the company of Buddhist monks.

 

All five become arahants, and within the first two months, with the conversion of Yasa and fifty four of his friends, the number of such arahants is said to have grown to 60. The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, with their reputed 200, 300 and 500 disciples, respectively. This swelled the sangha to more than 1,000.For the remaining 45 years of his life, the Buddha is said to have traveled in the Gangetic Plain, in what is now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and southern Nepal, teaching a diverse range of people: from nobles to servants, murderers such as Angulimala, and cannibals such as Alavaka. Although the Buddha's language remains unknown, it's likely that he taught in one or more of a variety of closely related Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, of which Pali may be a standardization.

 

The sangha traveled through the subcontinent, expounding the dharma. This continued throughout the year, except during the four months of the Vāsanā rainy season when ascetics of all religions rarely traveled. One reason was that it was more difficult to do so without causing harm to animal life. At this time of year, the sangha would retreat to monasteries, public parks or forests, where people would come to them.The first vassana was spent at Varanasi when the sangha was formed. After this, the Buddha kept a promise to travel to Rajagaha, capital of Magadha, to visit King Bimbisara. During this visit, Sariputta and Maudgalyayana were converted by Assaji, one of the first five disciples, after which they were to become the Buddha's two foremost followers. The Buddha spent the next three seasons at Veluvana Bamboo Grove monastery in Rajagaha, capital of Magadha.

 

Upon hearing of his son's awakening, Suddhodana sent, over a period, ten delegations to ask him to return to Kapilavastu. On the first nine occasions, the delegates failed to deliver the message, and instead joined the sangha to become arahants. The tenth delegation, led by Kaludayi, a childhood friend of Gautama's (who also became an arahant), however, delivered the message.

 

Now two years after his awakening, the Buddha agreed to return, and made a two-month journey by foot to Kapilavastu, teaching the dharma as he went. At his return, the royal palace prepared a midday meal, but the sangha was making an alms round in Kapilavastu. Hearing this, Suddhodana approached his son, the Buddha, saying:

 

"Ours is the warrior lineage of Mahamassata, and not a single warrior has gone seeking alms."

 

The Buddha is said to have replied:

 

"That is not the custom of your royal lineage. But it is the custom of my Buddha lineage. Several thousands of Buddhas have gone by seeking alms."

 

Buddhist texts say that Suddhodana invited the sangha into the palace for the meal, followed by a dharma talk. After this he is said to have become a sotapanna. During the visit, many members of the royal family joined the sangha. The Buddha's cousins Ananda and Anuruddha became two of his five chief disciples. At the age of seven, his son Rahula also joined, and became one of his ten chief disciples. His half-brother Nanda also joined and became an arahant.

 

Of the Buddha's disciples, Sariputta, Maudgalyayana, Mahakasyapa, Ananda and Anuruddha are believed to have been the five closest to him. His ten foremost disciples were reputedly completed by the quintet of Upali, Subhoti, Rahula, Mahakaccana and Punna.

 

In the fifth vassana, the Buddha was staying at Mahavana near Vesali when he heard news of the impending death of his father. He is said to have gone to Suddhodana and taught the dharma, after which his father became an arahant.

 

The king's death and cremation was to inspire the creation of an order of nuns. Buddhist texts record that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women. His foster mother Maha Pajapati, for example, approached him, asking to join the sangha, but he refused. Maha Pajapati, however, was so intent on the path of awakening that she led a group of royal Sakyan and Koliyan ladies, which followed the sangha on a long journey to Rajagaha. In time, after Ananda championed their cause, the Buddha is said to have reconsidered and, five years after the formation of the sangha, agreed to the ordination of women as nuns. He reasoned that males and females had an equal capacity for awakening. But he gave women additional rules (Vinaya) to follow.Dhyana and insight[edit]

A core problem in the study of early Buddhism is the relation between dhyana and insight.[82][95][84] Schmithausen, in his often-cited article On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism notes that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the Rupa Jhanas, is a later addition to texts such as Majjhima Nikaya 36.[85][81][82]

And so to the weekend again. And what might be the last orchid-free weekend until well into June or even August.

 

So, enjoy the churches while you can.

 

Saturday, and not much really planned. We get up at half six with it fully light outside. The cloud and drizzle had not arrived, instead it was pretty clear and sunny.

 

No time for thinking about going out to take shots, as we had hunter-gathering to do.

 

In fact, we didn't need much, just the usual stuff to keep us going. That and the car was running on fumes. So we will that up first, and then into Tesco and round and round we go, fully the trolley up. It being Mother's Day on Saturday, we were having Jen round on Sunday, we were to have steak, so I get mushrooms.

 

And once back, we have breakfast then go to Preston for the actual steak, three ribeyes, all cut from the same stip. Jools had gone to look at the garden centre for ideas as we're going to dig up the raspberries, so just wondering what to put in their place.

 

By then the rain had come, and so we dashed back to the car, and on the way home called in at two churches.

 

First off was Goodnestone, just the other side of Wingham.

 

Its a fine estate church, covered in wonderfully knapped bricks, giving it an East Anglian feel. Before we went in, we sheltered under a tree to much on a sausage roll I had bought at the butcher, that done, we go to the church, which is open.

 

I have been here quite recently, five years back, and in truth no much glass to record, but I do my best, leave a fiver of the weekly collection and we drove over the fields to Eastry.

 

St Mary is an impressive church, with carved and decorated west face of the Norman tower, at its base an odd lean-to porch has been created, leading into the church, which does have interest other than the 35 painted medallions high in the Chancel Arch, once the backdrop to the Rood.

 

I snap them with the big lens, and the windows too. A warden points out what looks like a very much older painted window high among the roof timbers in the east wall of the Chancel.

 

I get a shot, which is good enough, but even with a 400mm lens, is some crop.

 

I finish up and we go home, taking it carefully along nearly flooded roads.

 

Being a Saturday, there is football, though nothing much of interest until three when Norwich kick off against Stoke: could they kick it on a wet Saturday afternoon in the Potteries?

 

No. No, they couldn't.

 

Ended 0-0, City second best, barely laid a glove on the Stoke goal.

 

And then spots galore: Ireland v England in the egg-chasing, Citeh v Burnley in the Cup and Chelsea v Everton in the league, all live on various TV channels.

 

I watch the first half of the rugby, then switch over when England were reduced to 14, so did enjoy the lad Haarland score another hat-trick in a 6-0 demolition.

 

And that was that, another day over with.....

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Set away from the main street but on one of the earliest sites in the village, flint-built Eastry church has an over restored appearance externally but this gives way to a noteworthy interior. Built in the early thirteenth century by its patrons, Christ Church Canterbury, it was always designed to be a statement of both faith and power. The nave has a clerestory above round piers whilst the east nave wall has a pair of quatrefoils pierced through into the chancel. However this feature pales into insignificance when one sees what stands between them - a square panel containing 35 round paintings in medallions. There are four deigns including the Lily for Our Lady; a dove; Lion; Griffin. They would have formed a backdrop to the Rood which would have been supported on a beam the corbels of which survive below the paintings. On the centre pier of the south aisle is a very rare feature - a beautifully inscribed perpetual calendar or `Dominical Circle` to help find the Dominical letter of the year. Dating from the fourteenth century it divides the calendar into a sequence of 28 years. The reredos is an alabaster structure dating from the Edwardian period - a rather out of place object in a church of this form, but a good piece of work in its own right. On the west wall is a good early 19th century Royal Arms with hatchments on either side and there are many good monuments both ledger slabs and hanging tablets. Of the latter the finest commemorates John Harvey who died in 1794. It shows his ship the Brunswick fighting with all guns blazing with the French ship the Vengeur. John Bacon carved the Elder this detailed piece of work.

 

www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Eastry

 

------------------------------------------

 

Above the Chancel Arch, enclosed within a rectangular frame, are rows of seven "medallion" wall paintings; the lower group was discovered in 1857 and the rest in 1903. They remained in a rather dilapidated state until the Canterbury Cathedral Wall Paintings Department brought them back to life.

 

The medallions are evidently of the 13th Century, having been painted while the mortar was still wet. Each medallion contains one of four motifs:

 

The trefoil flower, pictured left, is perhaps a symbol of the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom the church is dedicated; or symbolic of Christ.

 

The lion; symbolic of the Resurrection

  

Doves, either singly, or in pairs, represent the Holy Spirit

  

The Griffin represents evil, over which victory is won by the power of the Resurrection and the courage of the Christian.

 

www.ewbchurches.org.uk/eastrychurchhistory.htm

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

EASTRY,

THE next parish north-eastward from Knolton is Eastry. At the time of taking the survey of Domesday, it was of such considerable account, that it not only gave name, as it does at present, to the hundred, but to the greatest part of the lath in which it stands, now called the lath of St. Augustine. There are two boroughs in this parish, viz. the borough of Hardenden, which is within the upper half hundred of Downhamford, and comprehends the districts of Hardenden, Selson and Skrinkling, and the borough of Eastry, the borsholder of which is chosen at Eastry-court, and comprehends all the rest of the parish, excepting so much of it as lies within that part of the borough of Felderland, which is within this parish.

 

THE PARISH OF EASTRY, a healthy and not unpleasant situation, is about two miles and an half from north to south, but it is much narrower the other way, at the broadest extent of which it is not more than a mile and an half. The village of Eastry is situated on a pleasing eminence, almost in the centre of the parish, exhiblting a picturesque appearance from many points of view. The principal street in it is called Eastrystreet; from it branch off Mill street, Church-street and Brook-street. In Mill street is a spacious handsome edisice lately erected there, as a house of industry, for the poor of the several united parishes of Eastry, Norborne, Betshanger, Tilmanstone, Waldershare, Coldred, Lydden, Shebbertswell, Swynfield, Wootton, Denton, Chillenden and Knolton. In Churchstreet, on the east side, stands the church, with the court-lodge and parsonage adjoining the church-yard; in this street is likewise the vicarage. In Brook-street, is a neat modern house, the residence of Wm. Boteler, esq. and another belonging to Mr. Thomas Rammell, who resides in it. Mention will be found hereafter, under the description of the borough of Hernden, in this parish, of the descent and arms of the Botelers resident there for many generations. Thomas Boteler, who died possessed of that estate in 1651, left three sons, the youngest of whom, Richard, was of Brook-street, and died in 1682; whose great-grandson, W. Boteler, esq. is now of Brook-street; a gentleman to whom the editor is much indebted for his communications and assistance, towards the description of this hundred, and its adjoining neighbourhood. He has been twice married; first to Sarah, daughter and coheir of Thomas Fuller, esq. of Statenborough, by whom he has one son, William Fuller, now a fellow of St. Peter's college, Cambridge: secondly, to Mary, eldest daughter of John Harvey, esq. of Sandwich and Hernden, late captain of the royal navy, by whom he has five sons and three daughters. He bears for his arms, Argent, on three escutcheons, sable, three covered cups, or; which coat was granted to his ancestor, Richard Boteler, esq. of Hernden, by Cooke, clar. in 1589. Mr. Boteler, of Eastry, is the last surviving male of the family, both of Hernden and Brook-street. Eastry-street, comprizing the neighbourhood of the above mentioned branches, may be said to contain about sixty-four houses.

 

At the south-east boundary of this parish lies the hamlet of Updown, adjoining to Ham and Betshanger, in the former of which parishes some account of it has been already given. At the southern bounds, adjoining to Tilmanstone, lies the hamlet of Westone, formerly called Wendestone. On the western side lies the borough of Hernden, which although in this parish, is yet within the hundred of Downhamford and manor of Adisham; in the southern part of it is Shrinkling, or Shingleton, as it is now called, and the hamlet of Hernden. At the northern part of this borough lie the hamlets and estates of Selson, Wells, and Gore. Towards the northern boundary of the parish, in the road to Sandwich, is the hamlet of Statenborough, and at a small distance from it is that part of the borough of Felderland, or Fenderland, as it is usually called, within this parish, in which, adjoining the road which branches off to Word, is a small seat, now the property and residence of Mrs. Dare, widow of Wm. Dare, esq. who resides in it. (fn. 1)

 

Round the village the lands are for a little distance, and on towards Statenborough, inclosed with hedges and trees, but the rest of the parish is in general an open uninclosed country of arable land, like the neighbouring ones before described; the soil of it towards the north is most fertile, in the other parts it is rather thin, being much inclined to chalk, except in the bottoms, where it is much of a stiff clay, for this parish is a continued inequality of hill and dale; notwithstanding the above, there is a great deal of good fertile land in the parish, which meets on an average rent at fifteen shillings an acre. There is no wood in it. The parish contains about two thousand six hundred and fifty acres; the yearly rents of it are assessed to the poor at 2679l.

 

At the south end of the village is a large pond, called Butsole; and adjoining to it on the east side, a field, belonging to Brook-street estate, called the Butts; from whence it is conjectured that Butts were formerly erected in it, for the practice of archery among the inhabitants.

 

A fair is held here for cattle, pedlary, and toys, on October the 2d, (formerly on St. Matthew's day, September the 21st) yearly.

 

IN 1792, MR. BOTELER, of Brook-street, discovered, on digging a cellar in the garden of a cottage, situated eastward of the highway leading from Eastrycross to Butsole, an antient burying ground, used as such in the latter time of the Roman empire in Britain, most probably by the inhabitants of this parish, and the places contiguous to it. He caused several graves to be opened, and found with the skeletons, fibulæ, beads, knives,umbones of shields, &c. and in one a glass vessel. From other skeletons, which have been dug up in the gardens nearer the cross, it is imagined, that they extended on the same side the road up to the cross, the ground of which is now pretty much covered with houses; the heaps of earth, or barrows, which formerly remained over them, have long since been levelled, by the great length of time and the labour of the husbandman; the graves were very thick, in rows parallel to each other, in a direction from east to west.

 

St. Ivo's well, mentioned by Nierembergius, in Historia de Miraculis Natureæ, lib. ii. cap. 33; which I noticed in my folio edition as not being able to find any tradition of in this parish, I have since found was at a place that formerly went by the name of Estre, and afterwards by that of Plassiz, near St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire. See Gales Scriptores, xv. vol. i. p.p. 271, 512.

 

This place gave birth to Henry de Eastry, who was first a monk, and then prior of Christ-church, in Canterbury; who, for his learning as well as his worthy acts, became an ornament, not only to the society he presided over, but to his country in general. He continued prior thirty-seven years, and died, far advanced in life, in 1222.

 

THIS PLACE, in the time of the Saxons, appears to have been part of the royal domains, accordingly Simon of Durham, monk and precentor of that church, in his history, stiles it villa regalis, quæ vulgari dicitur Easterige pronuncione, (the royal ville, or manor, which in the vulgar pronunciation was called Easterige), which shews the antient pre-eminence and rank of this place, for these villæ regales, or regiæ, as Bede calls them, of the Saxons, were usually placed upon or near the spot, where in former ages the Roman stations had been before; and its giving name both to the lath and hundred in which it is situated corroborates the superior consequence it was then held in. Egbert, king of Kent, was in possession of it about the year 670, at which time his two cousins, Ethelred and Ethelbright, sons of his father's elder brother Ermenfrid, who had been entrusted to his care by their uncle, the father of Egbert, were, as writers say, murdered in his palace here by his order, at the persuasion of one Thunnor, a slattering courtier, lest they should disturb him in the possession of the crown. After which Thunnor buried them in the king's hall here, under the cloth of estate, from whence, as antient tradition reports, their bodies were afterwards removed to a small chapel belonging to the palace, and buried there under the altar at the east end of it, and afterwards again with much pomp to the church of Ramsey abbey. To expiate the king's guilt, according to the custom of those times, he gave to Domneva, called also Ermenburga, their sister, a sufficient quantity of land in the isle of Thanet, on which she might found a monastery.

 

How long it continued among the royal domains, I have not found; but before the termination of the Saxon heptarchy, THE MANOR OF EASTRY was become part of the possessions of the see of Canterbury, and it remained so till the year 811, when archbishop Wilfred exchanged it with his convent of Christchurch for their manor of Bourne, since from the archbishop's possession of it called Bishopsbourne. After which, in the year 979 king Ægelred, usually called Ethelred, increased the church's estates here, by giving to it the lands of his inheritance in Estrea, (fn. 2) free from all secular service and siscal tribute, except the repelling of invasions and the repairing of bridges and castles, usually stiled the trinoda necessitas; (fn. 3) and in the possession of the prior and convent bove-mentioned, this manor continued at the taking of the survey of Domesday, being entered in it under the general title of Terra Monachorum Archiepi; that is, the land of the monks of the archbishop, as follows:

 

In the lath of Estrei in Estrei hundred, the archbishop himself holds Estrei. It was taxed at Seven sulings. The arable land is . . . . In demesne there are three carucates and seventy two villeins, with twenty-two borderers, having twenty-four carucates. There is one mill and a half of thirty shillings, and three salt pits of four shillings, and eighteen acres of meadow. Wood for the pannage of ten hogs.

 

After which, this manor continued in the possession of the priory, and in the 10th year of king Edward II. the prior obtained a grant of free-warren in all his demesne lands in it, among others; about which time it was valued at 65l. 3s. after which king Henry VI. in his 28th year, confirmed the above liberty, and granted to it a market, to be held at Eastry weekly on a Tuesday, and a fair yearly, on the day of St. Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist; in which state it continued till the dissolution of the priory in the 31st year of king Henry VIII. when it came in to the king's hands, where it did not remain long, for he settled it, among other premises, in the 33d year of his reign, on his new created dean and chapter of Canterbury, part of whose possessions it continues at this time. A court leet and court baron is held for this manor.

 

The manerial rights, profits of courts, royalties, &c. the dean and chapter retain in their own hands; but the demesne lands of the manor, with the courtlodge, which is a large antient mansion, situated adjoining to the church-yard, have been from time to time demised on a benesicial lease. The house is large, partly antient and partly modern, having at different times undergone great alterations. In the south wall are the letters T. A. N. in flint, in large capitals, being the initials of Thomas and Anne Nevinson. Mr. Isaac Bargrave, father of the present lessee, new fronted the house, and the latter in 1786 put the whole in complete repair, in doing which, he pulled down a considerable part of the antient building, consisting of stone walls of great strength and thickness, bringing to view some gothic arched door ways of stone, which proved the house to have been of such construction formerly, and to have been a very antient building. The chapel, mentioned before, is at the east end of the house. The east window, consisting of three compartments, is still visible, though the spaces are filled up, it having for many years been converted into a kitchen, and before the last alteration by Mr. Bargrave the whole of it was entire.

 

At this mansion, then in the hands of the prior and convent of Christ-church, archbishop Thomas Becket, after his stight from Northampton in the year 1164, concealed himself for eight days, and then, on Nov. 10, embarked at Sandwich for France. (fn. 4)

 

The present lessee is Isaac Bargrave, esq. who resides at the court-lodge, whose ancestors have been lessees of this estate for many years past.

 

THE NEVINSONS, as lessees, resided at the courtlodge of Eastry for many years. They were originally of Brigend, in Wetherell, in Cumberland. They bore for their arms, Argent, a chevron, between three eagles displayed, azure. Many of them lie buried in Eastry church. (fn. 5)

 

THE FAMILY of Bargrave, alias Bargar, was originally of Bridge, and afterwards of the adjoining parish of Patrixbourne; where John Bargrave, eldest son of Robert, built the seat of Bifrons, and resided at it, of whom notice has already been taken in vol. ix. of this history, p. 280. Isaac Bargrave, the sixth son of Robert above-mentioned, and younger brother of John, who built Bifrons, was ancestor of the Bargraves, of Eastry; he was S. T. P. and dean of Canterbury, a man of strict honour and high principles of loyalty, for which he suffered the most cruel treatment. He died in 1642, having married in 1618 Elizabeth, daughter of John Dering, esq. of Egerton, by Elizabeth, sister of Edward lord Wotton, the son of John Dering, esq. of Surrenden, by Margaret Brent. Their descendant, Isaac Bargrave, esq. now living, was an eminent solicitor in London, from which he has retired for some years, and now resides at Eastry-court, of which he is the present lessee. He married Sarah, eldest daughter of George Lynch, M. D. of Canterbury, who died at Herne in 1787, S.P. They bear for their arms, Or, on a pale gules, a sword, the blade argent, pomelled, or, on a chief vert three bezants.

 

SHRINKLING, alias SHINGLETON, the former of which is its original name, though now quite lost, is a small manor at the south-west boundary of this pa Kent, anno 1619. rish, adjoining to Nonington. It is within the borough of Heronden, or Hardonden, as it is now called, and as such, is within the upper half hundred of Downhamford. This manor had antiently owners of the same name; one of whom, Sir William de Scrinkling, held it in king Edward I.'s reign, and was succeeded by Sir Walter de Scrinkling his son, who held it by knight's service of Hamo de Crevequer, (fn. 6) and in this name it continued in the 20th year of king Edward III.

 

Soon after which it appears to have been alienated to William Langley, of Knolton, from which name it passed in like manner as Knolton to the Peytons and the Narboroughs, and thence by marriage to Sir Thomas D'Aeth, whose grandson Sir Narborough D'Aeth, bart. now of Knolton, is at present entitled to it.

 

There was a chapel belonging to this manor, the ruins of which are still visible in the wood near it, which was esteemed as a chapel of ease to the mother church of Eastry, and was appropriated with it by archbishop Richard, Becket's immediate successor, to the almory of the priory of Christ-church; but the chapel itself seems to have become desolate many years before the dissolution of the priory, most probably soon after the family of Shrinkling became extinct; the Langleys, who resided at the adjoining manor of Knolton, having no occasion for the use of it. The chapel stood in Shingleton wood, near the south east corner; the foundations of it have been traced, though level with the surface, and not easily discovered. There is now on this estate only one house, built within memory, before which there was only a solitary barn, and no remains of the antient mansion of it.

 

HERONDEN, alias HARDENDEN, now usually called HERONDEN, is a district in this parish, situated about a mile northward from Shingleton, within the borough of its own name, the whole of which is within the upper half hundred of Downhamford. It was once esteemed as a manor, though it has not had even the name of one for many years past, the manor of Adisham claiming over it. The mansion of it was antiently the residence of a family of the same name, who bore for their arms, Argent, a heron with one talon erect, gaping for breath, sable. These arms are on a shield, which is far from modern, in Maidstone church, being quarterly, Heronden as above, with sable, three escallop shells, two and one, argent; and in a window of Lincoln's Inn chapel is a coat of arms of a modern date, being that of Anthony Heronden, esq. Argent, a heron, azure, between three escallops, sable. One of this family of Heronden lies buried in this church, and in the time of Robert Glover, Somerset herald, his portrait and coat of arms, in brass, were remaining on his tombstone. The coat of arms is still extant in very old rolls and registers in the Heralds office, where the family is stiled Heronden, of Heronden, in Eastry; nor is the name less antient, as appears by deeds which commence from the reign of Henry III. which relate to this estate and name; but after this family had remained possessed of this estate for so many years it at last descended down in king Richard II.'s reign, to Sir William Heronden, from whom it passed most probably either by gift or sale, to one of the family of Boteler, or Butler, then resident in this neighbourhood, descended from those of this name, formerly seated at Butler's sleet, in Ash, whose ancestor Thomas Pincerna, or le Boteler, held that manor in king John's reign, whence his successors assumed the name of Butler, alias Boteler, or as they were frequently written Botiller, and bore for their arms, One or more covered cups, differently placed and blazoned. In this family the estate descended to John Boteler, who lived in the time of king Henry VI. and resided at Sandwich, of which town he was several times mayor, and one of the burgesses in two parliaments of that reign; he lies buried in St. Peter's church there. His son Richard, who was also of Sandwich, had a grant of arms in 1470, anno 11th Edward IV. by Thomas Holme, norroy, viz. Gyronny of six, argent and sable, a covered cup, or, between three talbots heads, erased and counterchanged of the field, collared, gules, garnished of the third. His great-grandson Henry Boteler rebuilt the mansion of Heronden, to which he removed in 1572, being the last of his family who resided at Sandwich. He had the above grant of arms confirmed to him, and died in 1580, being buried in Eastry church. Richard Boteler, of Heronden, his eldest son by his first wife, resided at this seat, and in 1589 obtained a grant from Robert Cook, clarencieux, of a new coat of arms, viz. Argent, on three escutcheons, sable, three convered cups, or. Ten years after which, intending as it should seem, to shew himself a descendant of the family of this name, seated at Graveney, but then extinct, he obtained in 1599 a grant of their arms from William Dethic, garter, and William Camden, clarencieux, to him and his brother William, viz. Quarterly, first and fourth, sable, three covered cups, or, within a bordure, argent; second and third, Argent, a fess, chequy, argent and gules, in chief three cross-croslets of the last, as appears (continues the grant) on a gravestone in Graveney church. He died in 1600, and was buried in Eastry church, leaving issue among other children Jonathan and Thomas. (fn. 7) Jonathan Boteler, the eldest son, of Hernden, died unmarried possessed of it in 1626, upon which it came to his next surviving brother Thomas Boteler, of Rowling, who upon that removed to Hernden, and soon afterwards alienated that part of it, since called THE MIDDLE FARM, to Mr. Henry Pannell, from whom soon afterwards, but how I know not, it came into the family of Reynolds; from which name it was about fifty years since alienated to John Dekewer, esq. of Hackney, who dying in 1762, devised it to his nephew John Dekewer, esq. of Hackney, the present possessor of it.

 

THIS PARISH is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury, and deanry of Sandwich.

 

The church, which is exempted from the archdeacon, is dedicated to St. Mary; it is a large handsome building, consisting of a nave and two side isles, a chancel at the east end, remarkably long, and a square tower, which is very large, at the west end, in which are five very unmusical bells. The church is well kept and neatly paved, and exhibits a noble appearance, to which the many handsome monuments in it contribute much. The arch over the west door is circular, but no other parts of the church has any shew of great antiquity. In the chancel are monuments for the Paramors and the Fullers, of Statenborough, arms of the latter, Argent, three bars, and a canton, gules. A monument for several of the Bargrave family. An elegant pyramidial one, on which is a bust and emblematical sculpture for John Broadley, gent. many years surgeon at Dover, obt. 1784. Several gravestones, with brasses, for the Nevinsons. A gravestone for Joshua Paramour, gent. buried 1650. Underneath this chancel are two vaults, for the families of Paramour and Bargrave. In the nave, a monument for Anne, daughter of Solomon Harvey, gent. of this parish, ob. 1751; arms, Argent, on a chevron, between three lions gambs, sable, armed gules, three crescents, or; another for William Dare, esq. late of Fenderland, in this parish, obt. 1770; arms, Gules, a chevron vaire, between three crescents, argent, impaling argent, on a cross, sable, four lions passant, quardant of the field, for Read.—Against the wall an inscription in Latin, for the Drue Astley Cressemer, A. M. forty-eight years vicar of this parish, obt. 1746; he presented the communion plate to this church and Worth, and left a sum of money to be laid out in ornamenting this church, at which time the antient stalls, which were in the chancel, were taken away, and the chancel was ceiled, and the church otherwise beautified; arms, Argent, on a bend engrailed, sable, three cross-croslets, fitchee, or. A monument for several of the Botelers, of this parish; arms, Boteler, argent, on three escutcheons, sable, three covered cups, or, impaling Morrice. Against a pillar, a tablet and inscription, shewing that in a vault lieth Catherine, wife of John Springett, citizen and apothecary of London. He died in 1770; arms, Springett, per fess, argent and gules, a fess wavy, between three crescents, counterchanged, impaling Harvey. On the opposite pillar another, for the Rev. Richard Harvey, fourteen years vicar of this parish, obt. 1772. A monument for Richard Kelly, of Eastry, obt. 1768; arms, Two lions rampant, supporting a castle. Against the wall, an elegant sculptured monument, in alto relievo, for Sarah, wise of William Boteler, a daughter of Thomas Fuller, esq. late of Statenborough, obt. 1777, æt. 29; she died in childbed, leaving one son, William Fuller Boteler; arms at bottom, Boteler, as above, an escutcheon of pretence, Fuller, quartering Paramor. An elegant pyramidal marble and tablet for Robert Bargrave, of this parish, obt. 1779, for Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Sir Francis Leigh, of Hawley; and for Robert Bargrave, their only son, proctor in Doctors Commons, obt. 1774, whose sole surviving daughter Rebecca married James Wyborne, of Sholdon; arms, Bargrave, with a mullet, impaling Leigh. In the cross isle, near the chancel called the Boteler's isle, are several memorials for the Botelers. Adjoining to these, are three other gravestones, all of which have been inlaid, but the brasses are gone; they were for the same family, and on one of them was lately remaining the antient arms of Boteler, Girony of six pieces, &c. impaling ermine of three spots. Under the church are vaults, for the families of Springett, Harvey, Dare, and Bargrave. In the church-yard, on the north side of the church, are several altar tombs for the Paramors; and on the south side are several others for the Harveys, of this parish, and for Fawlkner, Rammell, and Fuller. There are also vaults for the families of Fuller, Rammell, and Petman.

 

There were formerly painted in the windows of this church, these arms, Girony of six, sable and argent, a covered cup, or, between three talbots heads, erased and counter changed of the field, collared, gules; for Boteler, of Heronden, impaling Boteler, of Graveny, Sable, three covered cups, or, within a bordure, argent; Boteler, of Heronden, as above, quartering three spots, ermine; the coat of Theobald, with quarterings. Several of the Frynnes, or as they were afterwards called, Friends, who lived at Waltham in this parish in king Henry VII.'s reign, lie buried in this church.

 

In the will of William Andrewe, of this parish, anno 1507, mention is made of our Ladie chapel, in the church-yard of the church of Estrie.

 

The eighteen stalls which were till lately in the chancel of the church, were for the use of the monks of the priory of Christ church, owners both of the manor and appropriation, when they came to pass any time at this place, as they frequently did, as well for a country retirement as to manage their concerns here; and for any other ecclesiastics, who might be present at divine service here, all such, in those times, sitting in the chancels of churches distinct from the laity.

 

The church of Eastry, with the chapels of Skrinkling and Worth annexed, was antiently appendant to the manor of Eastry, and was appropriated by archbishop Richard (successor to archbishop Becket) in the reign of king Henry II. to the almonry of the priory of Christ-church, but it did not continue long so, for archbishop Baldwin, (archbishop Richard's immediate successor), having quarrelled with the monks, on account of his intended college at Hackington, took this appropriation from them, and thus it remained as a rectory, at the archbishop's disposal, till the 39th year of king Edward III.'s reign, (fn. 10) when archbishop Simon Islip, with the king's licence, restored, united and annexed it again to the priory; but it appears, that in return for this grant, the archbishop had made over to him, by way of exchange, the advowsons of the churches of St. Dunstan, St. Pancrase, and All Saints in Bread-street, in London, all three belonging to the priory. After which, that is anno 8 Richard II. 1384, this church was valued among the revenues of the almonry of Christ-church, at the yearly value of 53l. 6s. 8d. and it continued afterwards in the same state in the possession of the monks, who managed it for the use of the almonry, during which time prior William Sellyng, who came to that office in Edward IV.'s reign, among other improvements on several estates belonging to his church, built a new dormitory at this parsonage for the monks resorting hither.

 

On the dissolution of the priory of Christ-church, in the 31st year of king Henry VIII.'s reign, this appropriation, with the advowson of the vicarage of the church of Eastry, was surrendered into the king's hands, where it staid but a small time, for he granted it in his 33d year, by his dotation charter, to his new founded dean and chapter of Canterbury, who are the present owners of this appropriation; but the advowson of the vicarage, notwithstanding it was granted with the appropriation, to the dean and chapter as above-mentioned, appears not long afterwards to have become parcel of the possessions of the see of Canterbury, where it continues at this time, his grace the archbishop being the present patron of it.

 

This parsonage is entitled to the great tithes of this parish and of Worth; there belong to it of glebe land in Eastry, Tilmanstone, and Worth, in all sixtynine acres.

 

THERE IS A SMALL MANOR belonging to it, called THE MANOR OF THE AMBRY, OR ALMONRY OF CHRIST-CHURCH, the quit-rents of which are very inconsiderable.

 

The parsonage-house is large and antient; in the old parlour window is a shield of arms, being those of Partheriche, impaling quarterly Line and Hamerton. The parsonage is of the annual rent of about 700l. The countess dowager of Guildford became entitled to the lease of this parsonage, by the will of her husband the earl of Guildford, and since her death the interest of it is become vested in her younger children.

 

As to the origin of a vicarage in this church, though there was one endowed in it by archbishop Peckham, in the 20th year of king Edward I. anno 1291, whilst this church continued in the archbishop's hands, yet I do not find that there was a vicar instituted in it, but that it remained as a rectory, till near three years after it had been restored to the priory of Christchurch, when, in the 42d year of king Edward III. a vicar was instituted in it, between whom and the prior and chapter of Canterbury, there was a composition concerning his portion, which he should have as an endowment of this vicarage; which composition was confirmed by archbishop Simon Langham that year; and next year there was an agreement entered into between the eleemosinary of Christ-church and the vicar, concerning the manse of this vicarage.

 

The vicarage of Eastry, with the chapel of Worth annexed, is valued in the king's books at 19l. 12s. 1d. and the yearly tenths at 1l. 19s. 2½d. In 1588 it was valued at sixty pounds. Communicants three hundred and thirty-five. In 1640 here were the like number of communicants, and it was valued at one hundred pounds.

 

The antient pension of 5l. 6s. 8d. formerly paid by the priory, is still paid to the vicar by the dean and chapter, and also an augmentation of 14l. 13s. 4d. yearly, by the lessee of the parsonage, by a convenant in his lease.

 

The vicarage-house is built close to the farm-yard of the parsonage; the land allotted to it is very trifling, not even sufficient for a tolerable garden; the foundations of the house are antient, and probably part of the original building when the vicarage was endowed in 1367.

 

¶There were two awards made in 1549 and 1550, on a controversy between the vicar of Eastry and the mayor, &c. of Sandwich, whether the scite of St. Bartholomew's hospital, near Sandwich, within that port and liberty, was subject to the payment of tithes to the vicar, as being within his parish. Both awards adjudged the legality of a payment, as due to the vicar; but the former award adjudged that the scite of the hospital was not, and the latter, that it was within the bounds of this parish. (fn. 12)

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol10/pp98-121

I thought I had visited St Mary years ago. And indeed I had, or stood on the green in front of it, but didn't set foot inside.

 

This I didn't realise until Saturday when I was standing outside it looking at the row of cottages leading to the lych gate, I knew the scene was new to me.

 

The drizzle was still falling, so I could not linger in the churchyard, and scampered along the south side of the building, looking for the porch, but there wasn't one. Instead a simple door near to the chancel gave way when I turned the handle, after stepping over the void that acts as a drain for rainwater falling from the roof.

 

I tried hard to find the lightswitches, as in the gloom of the early afternoon, it was almost dark inside. Even when I found the switches in the south chapel, there seemed to be no power to them, so the church remained in half darkness.

 

What I did see, and was dazzled by, were tiles used to line the lower part of the chancel walls, like a mosaic, creating fantastic patterns.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

A mainly thirteenth century church restored by Sir George Gilbert Scott. There is a high window which originally shed light onto the Rood figures (see also Capel le Ferne). Some medieval glass survives in the heads of the windows in the chancel showing angels holding crowns. The west window was designed by Morris and Co in 1874 to commemorate a former Rector, whilst the south chapel has a set of continental glass brought here by the Beckingham family from their house in Essex. Above the nave arcade is a good set of murals including a figure of St Nicholas. The famous Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker is commemorated in the chancel.

 

www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Bishopsbourne

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Bishopsbourne is another example of a parish church belonging to the church (the archbishop, in this case), which was totally rebuilt on a large(r) scale in the 13th century (cf. Chartham). The chancel, as rebuilt, was as wide as the nave, and there is no chancel arch (and probably never has been).

The nave and chancel both show at least two phases of work of about the mid to later 13th century, so it seems likely that a rebuilding programme was being carried on in stages during the 2nd half of the 13th century (no sign exists, above-ground, of the earlier church).

Perhaps the earliest visible work are the two pairs of two-light windows on either side of the chancel. They have geometrical tracery and all sit on an internal moulded string course (there is medieval glass at the top of all these windows). This string course rises up in the east wall, and has on it the five-light east window, within trefoiled lancets, which is perhaps slightly later in date. There is also a late 13th century piscina at the east end of the south wall (though with a 19th century back wall). Externally the N.E. and S.E. corners of the chancel have angle buttresses, but these are heavily restored. It is also just possible that there were further geometrical windows further west in the chancel, which were covered/removed when the 15th century additions were made.

In the nave, as John Newman has pointed out, the two slender arcades have slight differences (N. capitals more complex than the S. ones). Also that the nave abaci are undercut, while the chancel string course is not. Originally the south arcade was at least three bays long (ie. longer than the present nave), but on the north this is not so clear. The aisles themselves are very narrow, with shed roofs continuing the slope of the main nave roof (though this shape may only be 15th century when the aisles were remodelled). The only surviving feature of the 13th century in the outer aisle walls (again heavily restored externally in the 19th century) is the north doorway with its niche (called a stoup by some writers, but not necessarily one) immediately to the east. This doorway has slightly projecting pilasters on either side, and the whole was covered by a porch until 1837.

The second main phase of work took place in the later 15th century. First, the whole of the west end of the church was demolished and a new tower was constructed with diagonal buttresses. The tower is of three main stages with the top stage rendered. The whole of the south face is mostly rendered. As this was being built, short walls were erected from the eastern diagonal buttresses to the 13th century arcade (ie. leaving the western ends of the aisles outside). (This is perhaps due to a population decrease in the parish). New west walls (containing two light perpendicular square headed windows) to the shortened aisles were also built, and four new 2-light perpendicular windows were inserted into the outer aisle walls. Along the top of the inside of the aisles walls a new moulded timber stringcourse was made (the roofs were perhaps also remade, but they are hidden beneath plaster in the aisles, and the main nave roof was replaced in 1871). At the west end of the nave the new short north and south walls contain five 3-light windows with perpendicular tracery under a 2-centred arch in their heads. On the upper nave walls, above the arcade, are remains of some fine painted figures on a painted 'ashlar' background. These were perhaps painted after the 15th century rebuilding (a date of around 1462 for the rebuilding is perhaps suggested by the will of William Harte (see below). At the extreme west end of the nave are two areas (N. and S.) of in situ medieval floor tiles. It is just possible that they predate the tower building work. (They must continue eastwards under the pews). There is also a 15th cent. octagonal font bowl (on a 1975 base). The southern chapel (the Bourne Pew after the Reformation) with its diagonal buttresses and 3-light east window is also 15th century but it was very heavily restored in c. 1853 (date over new S. door). It has a separate roof (and plaster ceiling). The rectangular N. addition with a plinth is also 15th century and was perhaps built as a vestry. It had an external door and only a small door into the chancel until the rebuilding of 1865, when a massive new arch was put in to accommodate a new organ (earlier the organ was under the tower arch). At this time also a totally new pitched roof was built over the vestry, perhaps replacing a low pitched 15th century roof. There is a high up window on the north side above the pulpit, with some old glass in it.

A new boiler house was dug under the western half of the vestry (in the 1880s - date on radiator), and its N.W. corner was rebuilt, incorporating a fireplace and chimney. The cut through N. chancel wall (and foundation) can be seen in the boiler room below.

The door into the Rood loft is in the S.E. corner of the nave.

In 1871-2 a major restoration took place under Scott, when the boarded wagon roofs were put in (nave and chancel) and new pews were installed (and choir stalls). The c. 18th century pulpit was remodelled and has its larger tester removed. The west window contains 1874 Morris & Co glass with figures by Burne Jones. There is also much c. 1877 mosaic work on the lower chancel walls and a large Reredos. The chancel floor was also raised.

 

BUILDING MATERIALS (Incl. old plaster, paintings, glass, tiles, etc.):

The main building materials are flintwork with Rag and Caenstone quoins/jambs, etc. However much of this has been removed externally by the heavy 19th century restoration. The nave arcades are of Reigate stone. The 15th century tower has fine large quoins of Kent Rag (Hythe/Folkestone stone with boring mollusc holes), and a few reused pieces of Caen, Reigate and Roman brick.

The south chapel was "partly of brick" in 1846 (Glynne) but this has now gone in the Restoration. There is also some fine early post-medieval glass in the east window of this chapel.

 

(For medieval glass, wall paintings and floor tiles ,see above).

 

(Also 15th century choir stalls, see below). There are also the arms and Cardinals Cap of Cardinal Morton (hence 1494-1500) in the S.W. chancel window.

 

There are now 4 bells (2 J Hatch of 1618; Christopher Hodson 1685 and Robert Mot 1597). The later from St. Mary, Bredman, Canterbury was installed in 1975 (a cracked bell was 'discarded').

 

A late medieval brass (of John and Elizabeth Colwell) lies under the organ - another of 1617 (John Gibon) is under the choir stalls.

 

EXCEPTIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCH To Richard Hooker (1633) - originally on N chancel wall and moved to S chancel will c. 1865.

 

Also John Cockman (+1734) - also on N. chancel wall and moved to E. wall of N. aisle c. 1865 (when the organ was put under new vestry arch).

 

Also a fine Purbeck marble (14th century) grave slab under the N.E. corner of the tower.

 

There are also two fine 15th century (c. 1462) stall fronts in the chancel with carved panels and ends (and 'poppy heads'). The added Victorian choir stalls copy them.

 

CHURCHYARD AND ENVIRONS:

Shape: Rectangular

 

Condition: Good

 

Earthworks:

enclosing: drop on N. and W. sides (?Ha-Ha) into Bourne Park adjacent:

 

Building in churchyard or on boundary: Lychgate of 1911

 

HISTORICAL RECORD (where known):

Earliest ref. to church: Domesday Book

 

Evidence of pre-Norman status (DB, DM, TR etc.):

 

Late med. status: Rectory

 

Patron: The Archbishop

 

Other documentary sources: Test. Cant. (E. Kent 1907) 23 mentions 'one piece of that stone on which the Archangel Gabriel descended when he saluted the 'BVM' to the Image of the BVM of the church of Bourne. Towards the work of the Church of Bourne, of the stalls and other reparations, 4 marcs. Wm. Haute (1462). Also 'Beam, now before altar of B. Mary in the church' (1477) and Lights of St. Mary, St. Katherine and St. Nicholas (1484) and light of Holy Cross (1462) and 'The altar of St. Mary and St. Nicholas in the nave' (1476).

 

SURVIVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS:

Inside present church: Good - main nave and chancel floor raised in 19th century (earlier levels should be intact beneath (except where burials, etc.).

 

Outside present church: Drainage trench cut round outside of church.

 

Quinquennial inspection (date\architect): October 1987 David Martin

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT:

The church and churchyard: A fine 13th and 15th century church, with an impressive collection of medieval wall paintings, stained glass, floor tiles and pew fronts inside. The 13th century architectural details of the chancel windows and nave arcade are very good. There are, no doubt, the remains of the earlier church beneath.

 

The wider context: One of a group of fine later 13th century rebuildings (cf. Hythe, Chartham, Adisham, etc.)

REFERENCES: Notes by FC Elliston Erwood, Arch. Cant. 62 (1949), 101-3 (+ plan) + S. R. Glynne Notes on the Churches of Kent (1877), 130-1 (He visited in 1846); Hasted IX (1800), 335-7; Newman BOE (N.E. and E Kent) (3rd ed. 1983) 144-5.

 

Guide book: by Miss Alice Castle (1931, rev. 1961, 1969, 1980) - no plan.

 

Plans & drawings: Early 19th century engraving of interior looking W. NW (before restoration).

 

DATES VISITED: 25th November 1991 REPORT BY: Tim Tatton-Brown

 

www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/01/03/BIS.htm

 

-------------------------------------------

 

BISHOPSBORNE

LIES the next parish eastward from Bridge, described before, in the hundred of that name. It is called in Domesday, Burnes, that is, borne, from the bourn or stream which rises in it, being the head of the river, called the Lesser Stour; and it had the name of Bishopsborne from its belonging to the archbishop, and to distinguish it from the several other parishes of the same name in this neighbourhood. There is but one borough in this parish, namely, that of Bourne.

 

THIS PARISH lies about five miles eastward from Canterbury, just beyond Bridge, about half a mile from the Dover road, and the entrance of Barham downs in the valley on the left hand, where the church and village, the parsonage, the mansion and grounds of Bourne place, and the seat of Charlton at the opposite boundary, with the high hills behind them, topped with woods, from a most pleasing and luxuriant prospect indeed. In this beautiful valley, in which the Lesser Stour rises, and through which the Nailbourne at times runs, is the village of Bourne-street, consisting of about fifteen houses, and near it the small seat of Ofwalds, belonging to Mr. Beckingham, and now inhabited by his brother the Rev. Mr. Beckingham, and near it the church and court-lodge. On the rise of the hill is the parsonage, an antient building modernized, and much improved by the present rector Dr. Fowell, and from its whiteness a conspicuous object to the road and Barham downs. About a mile distant eastward, in the vale, close to the foot of the hills, is Charlton, in a low and damp situation, especially when the nailbourne runs. On the opposite side of the church westward, stands the ornament of this parish, the noble mansion of Bourne-place, (for several years inhabited by Sir Horace Mann, bart. but now by William Harrison, esq.) with its paddocks, grounds, and plantations, reaching up to the downs, having the bourn, which is the source of the Lesser Stour, which rises here in the front of it, directing its course from hence to Bridge, and so on by Littleborne, Ickham and Wickham, till it joins the Greater Stour river. This valley from this source of the bourn upwards, is dry, except after great rains, or thaws of snow, when the springs of the Nailbourn occasionally over flow at Liminge and Elham, and directing their course through this parish descend into the head of the bourn, and blend their waters with it. From this valley southward the opposite hills rise pretty high to the woodland, called Gosley wood, belonging to Mr. Beckingham, of large extent, and over a poor, barren and stony country, with rough healthy ground interspersed among it, to the valley at the southern boundary of the parish, adjoining to Hardres; near which is the house of Bursted, in a lonely unfrequented situations, hardly known to any one.

 

THE MANOR OF BOURNE, otherwise Bishopsborne, was given by one Aldhun, a man of some eminence in Canterbury, from his office of præfect, or bailiff of that city, (qui in hac regali villa bujus civitatis prafectus suit), (fn. 1) to the monks of Christ-church there, towards the support of their refectory. After which, anno 811, the monks exchanged it, among other estates, with archbishop Wlfred, for the manor of Eastry, and it continued part of the possessions of the see of Canterbury, at the time of taking the survey of Domesday, in which it is thus entered, under the title of the archbishop's lands:

 

In Berham hundred, the archbishop himself holds Burnes in demesne. It was taxed for six sulings. The arable land is fifty carucates. In demesne there are five carucates, and sixty-four villeins, with fifty-three borderers having thirty carucates and an half. There is a church, and two mills of eight shillings and six pence, and twenty acres of meadow. Wood for the pannage of fifteen hogs. Of herbage twenty-seven pence. In its whole value, in the time of king Edward the Confessor, and afterwards, it was worth twenty pounds, now thirty pounds.

 

The manor of Bishopsborne appears by the above entry to have been at that time in the archbishop's own hands, and it probably continued so as long as it remained part of his revenues, which was till the 35th year of king Henry VIII. when archbishop Cranmer, by an act specially passed for the purpose, exchanged this manor with the park, grounds and soil of the archbishop in this parish, called Langham park, with Thomas Colepeper, sen. esq. of Bedgbury, who that year alienated it to Sir Anthony Aucher, of Otterden, who gave this manor, with the rest of his possessions in this parish, to his second son Edward. Since which it has continued in the same line of ownership as Bourne-place, as will be more particularly mentioned hereafter, down to Stephen Beckingham, esq. the present owner of it. A court leet and court baron is held for this manor.

 

BOURNE-PLACE, formerly called the manor of Hautsbourne, is an eminent seat in this parish, for the manor has from unity of possession been for many years merged in the paramount manor of Bishopsborne. It was in very early times possessed by a family who took their name from it. Godric de Burnes is mentioned in the very beginning of the survey of Domesday, as the possessor of lands in it. John de Bourne had a grant of free-warren and other liberties for his lands in Bourne and Higham in the 16th year of king Edward I. He left an only daughter Helen, who carried this estate in marriage to John de Shelving, of Shelvingborne, whose grandson, of the same name, died anno 4 Edward III. at which time this manor had acquired from them the name of Shelvington. He left an only daughter and heir Benedicta, who carried it in marriage to Sir Edmund de Haut, of Petham, whose son Nicholas Haut gave to William, his youngest son, this estate of Bishopsborne, where he afterwards resided, and died in 1462, having been knight of the shire and sheriff of this county. From him it descended down to Sir William Haut, of Hautsborne, sheriff in the 16th and 29th year of king Henry VIII. whose son Edmund dying unmarried in his life-time, his two daughters, Elizabeth, married to Thomas Colepeper, esq. of Bedgbury, and Jane, to Sir Thomas Wyatt, of Allington-castle, became his coheirs, and on the division of their estates, this of Hautsborne was allotted to the former, and her hus band Thomas Colepeper, in her right, became possessed of it, and having acquired the manor of Bishopsborne by exchange from the archbishop, anno 35 Henry VIII. immediately afterwards passed away both that and Hautsborne to Sir Anthony Aucher, of Otterden, whose family derived their origin from Ealcher, or Aucher, the first earl of Kent, who had the title of duke likewise, from his being intrusted with the military power of the county. He is eminent in history for his bravery against the Danes, in the year 853. They first settled at Newenden, where more of the early account of them may be seen. He at his death gave them to his second son Edward, who afterwards resided here at Shelvington, alias Hautsborne, as it was then called, whose great-grandson Sir Anthony Aucher was created a baronet in 1666, and resided here. He left surviving two sons Anthony and Hewitt, and two daughters, Elizabeth, afterwards married to John Corbett, esq. of Salop, LL. D. and Hester, to the Rev. Ralph Blomer, D. D. prebendary of Canterbury. He died in 1692, and was succeeded by his eldest son, who dying under age and unmarried, Hewitt his brother succeeded him in title and estate, but he dying likewise unmarried about the year 1726, the title became extinct, but his estates devolved by his will to his elder sister Elizabeth, who entitled her husband Dr. Corbett afterwards to them, and he died possessed of the manor of Bishopsborne, with this seat, which seems then to have been usually called Bourneplace, in 1736, leaving his five daughters his coheirs, viz. Katherine, afterwards married to Stephen Beckingham, esq. Elizabeth, to the Rev. Thomas Denward; Frances, to Sir William Hardres, bart. Antonina, to Ignat. Geohegan, esq. and Margaret-Hannah-Roberta, to William Hougham, esq. of Canterbury, the four latter of whom, with their respective husbands, in 1752, jointed in the sale of their shares in this estate to Stephen Beckingham, esq. above-men tioned, who then became possessed of the whole of it. He married first the daughter of Mr. Cox, by whom he had the present Stephen beckingham, esq. who married Mary, daughter of the late John Sawbridge, esq. of Ollantigh, deceased, by whom he had an only daughter, who married John-George Montague, esq. eldest son of John, lord viscount Hinchingbrooke, since deceased. By his second wife Catherine, daughter of Dr. John Corbet, he had two daughters, Charlotte and Catherine, both married, one to Mr. Dillon and the other to Mr. Gregory; and a son John Charles, in holy orders, and now rector of Upper Hardres. They bear for their arms, Argent, a sess, crenelle, between three escallop shells, sable. He died in 1756, and his son Stephen Beckingham, esq. above-mentioned, now of Hampton-court, is the present owner of the manor of Bishopsborne, and the mansion of Bourneplace.

 

BURSTED is a manor, in the southern part of this parish, obscurely situated in an unfrequented valley, among the woods, next to Hardres. It is in antient deeds written Burghsted, and was formerly the property of a family of the same name, in which it remained till it was at length sold to one of the family of Denne, of Dennehill, in Kingston, and it continued so till Thomas Denne, esq. of that place, in Henry VIII.'s reign, gave it to his son William, whose grandson William, son of Vincent Denne, LL. D. died possessed of it in 1640, and from him it descended down to Mr. Thomas Denne, gent. of Monkton-court, in the Isle of Thanet, who died not many years since, and his widow Mrs. Elizabeth Denne, of Monktoncourt, is the present possessor of it.

 

CHARLTON is a seat, in the eastern part of this parish, which was formerly the estate of a family named Herring, in which it continued till William Herring, anno 3 James I. conveyed it to John Gibbon, gent. the third son of Thomas Gibbon, of Frid, in Bethers den, descended again from those of Rolvenden, and he resided here, and died possessed of it in 1617, as did his son William in 1632, whose heirs passed it away to Sir Anthony Aucher, bart. whose son Sir Hewitt Aucher, bart. in 1726, gave it by will to his sister Elizabeth, and she afterwards carried it in marriage to John Corbett, LL. D. of Salop, who died possessed of it in 1735, leaving his window surviving, after whose death in 1764 it came to her five daughters and coheirs, who, excepting Frances, married to Sir William Hardres, bart. joined with their husbands in the sale of their respective fifth parts of it in 1765, to Francis Hender Foote, clerk, who resided here. Mr. Foote was first a barrister-at-law, and then took orders. He married Catherine, third daughter of Robert Mann, esq. of Linton, by whom he had three sons, John, mentioned below, who is married and has issue; Robert, rector of Boughton Malherb, and vicar of Linton, who married Anne, daughter of Dobbins Yate, esq. of Gloucestershire, and Edward, in the royal navy; and three daughters, of whom two died unmarried, and Catherine, the second, married first Mr. Ross, and secondly Sir Robert Herries, banker, of London. Mr. Foote died possessed of them in 1773, leaving his wife Catherine surviving, who possessed them at her death in 1776, on which they descended to their eldest son John Foote, esq. of Charlton, who in 1784, purchased of the heirs of lady Hardres, deceased, the remaining fifth part, and so became possessed of the whole of it, of which he is the present owner, but Mr. Turner now resides in it.

 

Charities.

MRS. ELIZABETH CORBETT, window, executrix of Sir Hewit Aucher, bart. deceased, in 1749, made over to trustees, for the use and benefit of the poor, a tenement called Bonnetts, and half an acre of land adjoining, in this parish; now occupied by two poor persons, but if rented, of the annual value of 3l.

 

The poor constantly relieved are about eleven, casually seven.

 

THIS PARISH is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury, and deanry of Bridge.

 

¶The church, which is dedicated to St. Mary, is a large building, consisting of three isles and three chancels, having a tower steeple at the west end, in which are four bells. This church is a large handsome building, but it is not kept so comely as it ought to be. In the chancel is a monument for Richard Hooker, rector of this parish, who died in 1600; on it is his bust, in his black gown and square cap. A monument for John Cockman, M. D. of Charlton. His widow lies in the vault by him, obt. 1739; arms, Argent, three cocks, gules, impaling Dyke. Memorial for Petronell, wife of Dr. John Fowell, the present rector, second daughter of William Chilwich, esq. of Devonshire, obt. 1766. She lies buried in a vault under the altar. A large stone, twelve feet long, supposed to be over the remains of Mr. Richard Hooker. A memorial on brass for John Gibbon, gent. of this parish, obt. 1617; arms, Gibbon, a lion rampant-guardant, between three escallops, impaling Hamon, of Acrise, quartering Cossington. Memorials for Mrs. Jane Gibbon, his wife, obt. 1625, and for William Gibbon, gent. obt. 1632. A memorial for William Gresham, obt. 1718. In one of the windows are the arms of the see of Canterbury impaling Warham. In the middle isle, in the south wall, above the capital of the pillar, opposite the pulpit, is a recess, in which once stood the image of the Virgin Mary, the patron saint of this church, to which William Hawte, esq. by will anno 1462, among the rest of his relics, gave a piece of the stone on which the archangel Gabriel descended, when he saluted her, for this image to rest its feet upon. On the pavement near this, seemingly over a vault, is a stone with an inscription in brass, for William, eldest son of Sir William Hawt. A memorial for Farnham Aldersey, gent. of this parish, only son of Farnham Aldersey, gent. of Maidstone, obt. 1733. Memorials for several of the Dennes, of this parish. In a window of the south isle, are the arms of Haut, impaling Argent, a lion rampant-guardant, azure. The south chancel is inclosed and made into a handsome pew for the family of Bourne-place, under which is a vault appropriated to them. The window of it eastward is a very handsome one, mostly of modern painted glass; the middle parts filled up with scripture history, and the surrounding compartments with the arms and different marriages impaled of the family of Beckingham. On each side of this window are two ranges of small octagon tablets of black marble, intended for the family of Aucher, and their marriages, but they were not continued. In the church-yard, on the south side, is a vault for the family of Foote, of Charlton, and a tomb for Mrs. Elizabeth Corbett, obt. 1764; arms, Corbett, which were Or, two ravens, sable, within a bordure, gules, bezantee. At the north-east corner of the church-porch are several tombs for the Dennes.

 

The church of Bishopsborne, with the chapel of Barham annexed, was antiently appendant to the manor, and continued so till the exchange made between the archbishop and Thomas Colepeper, in the 35th year of king Henry VIII. out of which the advowson of this rectory was excepted. Since which it has continued parcel of the possessions of the see of Canterbury to the present time, his grace the archbishop being the present patron of it.

 

This rectory, (including the chapel of Barham annexed to it) is valued in the king's books at 39l. 19s. 2d. and the yearly tenths at 3l. 19s. 11d. In 1588 here were communicants one hundred. In 1640 one hundred and forty-eight, and it was valued, with Barham, at two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.

 

Church of Bishopsborne with the Chapel of Barhan annexed.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol9/pp328-337

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 3 November 1600) was an English priest in the Church of England and an influential theologian.[2] He was one of the most important English theologians of the sixteenth century.[3] His defence of the role of redeemed reason informed the theology of the seventeenth century Caroline Divines and later provided many members of the Church of England with a theological method which combined the claims of revelation, reason and tradition.[3] Scholars disagree regarding Hooker's relationship with what would later be called "Anglicanism" and the Reformed theological tradition. Traditionally, he has been regarded as the originator of the Anglican via media between Protestantism and Catholicism.[4]:1 However, a growing number of scholars have argued that he should be considered as being in the mainstream Reformed theology of his time and that he only sought to oppose the extremists (Puritans), rather than moving the Church of England away from Protestantism.

 

This sermon from 1585 was one of those that triggered Travers attack and appeal to the Privy Council. Travers accused Hooker of preaching doctrine favourable to the Church of Rome when in fact he had just described their differences emphasising that Rome attributed to works "a power of satisfying God for sin;..." For Hooker, works were a necessary expression of thanksgiving for unmerited justification by a merciful God.[11] Hooker defended his belief in the doctrine of Justification by faith, but argued that even those who did not understand or accept this could be saved by God.

 

Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie is Hooker's best-known work, with the first four books being published in 1594. The fifth was published in 1597, while the final three were published posthumously,[2] and indeed may not all be his own work. Structurally, the work is a carefully worked out reply to the general principles of Puritanism as found in The Admonition and Thomas Cartwright's follow-up writings, more specifically:

 

Scripture alone is the rule that should govern all human conduct;

Scripture prescribes an unalterable form of Church government;

The English Church is corrupted by Roman Catholic orders, rites, etc.;

The law is corrupt in not allowing lay elders;

'There ought not to be in the Church Bishops'.[12]

Of the Lawes has been characterised as "probably the first great work of philosophy and theology to be written in English."[13] The book is far more than a negative rebuttal of the puritan claims: it is (here McAdoo quotes John S. Marshall) 'a continuous and coherent whole presenting a philosophy and theology congenial to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the traditional aspects of the Elizabethan Settlement."[14]

 

Quoting C. S. Lewis,[15] Stephen Neill underlines its positive side in the following terms: Hitherto, in England, "controversy had involved only tactics; Hooker added strategy. Long before the close fighting in Book III begins, the puritan position has been rendered desperate by the great flanking movements in Books I and II. . . . Thus the refutation of the enemy comes in the end to seem a very small thing, a by-product."[16]

 

It is a massive work that deals mainly with the proper governance of the churches ("polity"). The Puritans advocated the demotion of clergy and ecclesiasticism. Hooker attempted to work out which methods of organising churches are best.[2] What was at stake behind the theology was the position of the Queen Elizabeth I as the Supreme Governor of the Church. If doctrine were not to be settled by authorities, and if Martin Luther's argument for the priesthood of all believers were to be followed to its extreme with government by the Elect, then having the monarch as the governor of the church was intolerable. On the other side, if the monarch were appointed by God to be the governor of the church, then local parishes going their own ways on doctrine were similarly intolerable.

 

In political philosophy, Hooker is best remembered for his account of law and the origins of government in Book One of the Politie. Drawing heavily on the legal thought of Thomas Aquinas, Hooker distinguishes seven forms of law: eternal law ("that which God hath eternally purposed himself in all his works to observe"), celestial law (God's law for the angels), nature's law (that part of God's eternal law that governs natural objects), the law of reason (dictates of Right Reason that normatively govern human conduct), human positive law (rules made by human lawmakers for the ordering of a civil society), divine law (rules laid down by God that can only be known by special revelation), and ecclesiastical law (rules for the governance of a church). Like Aristotle, whom he frequently quotes, Hooker believes that humans are naturally inclined to live in society. Governments, he claims, are based on both this natural social instinct and on the express or implied consent of the governed.

 

The Laws is remembered not only for its stature as a monumental work of Anglican thought, but also for its influence in the development of theology, political theory, and English prose.

 

Hooker worked largely from Thomas Aquinas, but he adapted scholastic thought in a latitudinarian manner. He argued that church organisation, like political organisation, is one of the "things indifferent" to God. He wrote that minor doctrinal issues were not issues that damned or saved the soul, but rather frameworks surrounding the moral and religious life of the believer. He contended there were good monarchies and bad ones, good democracies and bad ones, and good church hierarchies and bad ones: what mattered was the piety of the people. At the same time, Hooker argued that authority was commanded by the Bible and by the traditions of the early church, but authority was something that had to be based on piety and reason rather than automatic investiture. This was because authority had to be obeyed even if it were wrong and needed to be remedied by right reason and the Holy Spirit. Notably, Hooker affirmed that the power and propriety of bishops need not be in every case absolute.

 

King James I is quoted by Izaak Walton, Hooker's biographer, as saying, "I observe there is in Mr. Hooker no affected language; but a grave, comprehensive, clear manifestation of reason, and that backed with the authority of the Scriptures, the fathers and schoolmen, and with all law both sacred and civil."[17] Hooker's emphasis on Scripture, reason, and tradition considerably influenced the development of Anglicanism, as well as many political philosophers, including John Locke.[2] Locke quotes Hooker numerous times in the Second Treatise of Civil Government and was greatly influenced by Hooker's natural-law ethics and his staunch defence of human reason. As Frederick Copleston notes, Hooker's moderation and civil style of argument were remarkable in the religious atmosphere of his time.[18] In the Church of England he is celebrated with a Lesser Festival on 3 November and the same day is also observed in the Calendars of other parts of the Anglican Communion.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

Created by Melbourne stained glass manufacturer Brooks Robinson and Company by the Reverend R. Clarke in 1952, the John McAllister Vincent memorial stained glass window is a fine late example of Art Deco design, still being used commonly in Australia in the post-war period. Installed into the western wall of the nave of Christ Church Brunswick, it is one of the few post-war windows to be found in the church.

 

Depicted in regal robes, wearing a crown and holding and orb, Jesus rises towards Heaven. The golden Kingdom of Heaven awaits Jesus at the top of the panel, light beams streaming down from the Holy Spirit, in the form of a white dove, to embrace him and welcome him home. Below him, the people of the world cast their eyes to him or bow their heads an pray. These people may include Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Jesus and Saint Thomas, however none of them have halos. The robes of Jesus and those below, and all the faces in the window have the simplified, angular style that is typically associated with Art Deco period.

 

A dedication at the bottom reads: "In loving memory of John McAllister Vincent Organist Killed in action Crete 24th May 1941 Aged 24." Corporal John McAllister Vincent, was a member of the Christ Church congregation. He was born in Brunswick on the 4th of September in 1916. He was obviously musically inclined as not only was he the Christ Church organist, he was also a pianist to the Meistersingers Male Choir. This may well explain the reason for the script noted in the banner at the top of the window "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" which is the most common English title of a piece of music composed by Johann Sebastian Bach, commonly played at weddings and funerals. No doubt John had played the piece on the church organ many times over, or perhaps it was his favourite piece of music. Prior to enlisting in the Second World War, John was on the staff of the Registrar's Office at the University of Melbourne, which was only a short tram ride away down Sydney Road. He served with Australian Army Medical Corps 2/1 Field Ambulance attached to the 2/2 Field Regiment that took part on the defence of Crete. Following the landing of more than 9,500 German troops on the island on 20 May 1941, Corporal John McAllister Vincent was initially reported missing, however it was found that he was killed in action on 24 May 1941 during the unsuccessful defence of Crete.

 

Christ Church, built almost on the corner of Glenlyon Road and Brunswick Street in Brunswick, is a picturesque slice of Italy in inner city Melbourne. With its elegant proportions, warm yellow stuccoed facade and stylish Romanesque campanile, the church would not look out of place sitting atop a rise in Tuscany, or being the centre of an old walled town. This idea is further enhanced when the single bell rings from the campanile, calling worshipers to prayer.

 

Christ Church has been constructed in a cruciform plan with a detached campanile. Although not originally intended as such, at its completion, the church became an excellent example of "Villa Rustica" architecture in Australia. Like other churches around the inner city during the boom and bust eras of the mid Nineteenth Century as Melbourne became an established city, the building was built in stages between 1857 and 1875 as money became available to extend and better what was already in existence. Christ Church was dedicated in 1857 when the nave, designed by architects Purchas and Swyer, was completed. The transepts, chancel and vestry were completed between 1863 and 1864 to the designs created by the architects' firm Smith and Watts. The Romanesque style campanile was also designed by Smith and Watts and it completed between 1870 and 1871. A third architect, Frederick Wyatt, was employed to design the apse which was completed in 1875.

 

Built in Italianate style with overture characteristics of classical Italian country house designs, Christ Church is one of the few examples of what has been coined "Villa Rustica" architecture in Victoria.

 

Slipping through the front door at the bottom of the campanile, the rich smell of incense from mass envelops visitors. As soon as the double doors which lead into the church proper close behind you, the church provides a quiet refuge from the busy intersection of Glenlyon Road and Brunswick Street outside, and it is quite easy to forget that cars and trams pass by just a few metres away. Walking up the aisle of the nave of Christ Church, light pours over the original wooden pews with their hand embroidered cushions through sets of luminescent stained glass windows by Melbourne manufacturers, Ferguson and Urie, Mathieson and Gibson and Brooks Robinson and Company. A set of fourteen windows from the mid-to-late Nineteenth Century by Ferguson and Urie depicting different saints are especially beautiful, filled with painted glass panes which are as vivid now as when they were created more than one hundred years ago. The floors are still the original dark, richly polished boards that generations of worshipers have walked over since they were first laid. The east transept houses the Lady Chapel, whilst the west transept is consumed by the magnificent 1972 Roger H. Pogson organ built of cedar with tin piping. This replaced the original 1889 Alfred Fuller organ. Beautifully executed carved rood figures watch over the chancel from high, perhaps admiring the marble altar.

 

Albert Purchas, born in 1825 in Chepstow, Monmouthshire, Wales, was a prominent Nineteenth Century architect who achieved great success for himself in Melbourne. Born to parents Robert Whittlesey Purchas and Marianne Guyon, he migrated to Australia in 1851 to establish himself in the then quickly expanding city of Melbourne, where he set up a small architect's firm in Little Collins Street. He also offered surveying services. His first major building was constructing the mansion "Berkeley Hall" in St Kilda on Princes Street in 1854. The house still exists today. Two years after migrating, Albert designed the layout of the Melbourne General Cemetery in Carlton. It was the first "garden cemetery" in Victoria, and his curvilinear design is still in existence, unaltered, today. In 1854, Albert married Eliza Anne Sawyer (1825 - 1869) in St Kilda. The couple had ten children over their marriage, including a son, Robert, who followed in his father's footsteps as an architect. Albert's brother-in-law, Charles Sawyer joined him in the partnership of Purchas and Sawyer, which existed from 1856 until 1862 in Queens Street. The firm produced more than 140 houses, churches, offices and cemetery buildings including: the nave and transepts of Christ Church St Kilda between 1854 and 1857, "Glenara Homestead"in Bulla in 1857, the Melbourne Savings Bank on the corner of Flinders Lane and Market Street (now demolished) between 1857 and 1858, the Geelong branch of the Bank of Australasia in Malop Street between 1859 and 1860, and Beck's Imperial Hotel in Castlemaine in 1861. When the firm broke up, Albert returned to Little Collins Street, and the best known building he designed during this period was St. George's Presbyterian Church in East St Kilda between 1877 and 1880. The church's tall polychomatic brick bell tower is still a local landmark, even in the times of high rise architecture and development, and St, George's itself is said to be one of his most striking church designs. Socially, Albert was vice president of the Royal Victorian Institute of Architects for many years, before becoming president in 1887. He was also an inventor and philanthropist. Albert died in 1909 at his home in Kew, a wealthy widower and much loved father.

 

Brooks, Robinson and Company first opened their doors on Elizabeth Street in Melbourne in 1854 as importers of window and table glass and also specialised in interior decorating supplies. Once established the company moved into glazing and were commonly contracted to do shopfronts around inner Melbourne. In the 1880s they commenced producing stained glass on a small scale. Their first big opportunity occurred in the 1890s when they were engaged to install Melbourne's St Paul's Cathedral's stained-glass windows. Their notoriety grew and as a result their stained glass studio flourished, particularly after the closure of their main competitor, Ferguson and Urie. They dominated the stained glass market in Melbourne in the early 20th Century, and many Australian glass artists of worked in their studio. Their work may be found in the Princess Theatre on Melbourne's Spring Street, in St John's Church in Toorak, and throughout churches in Melbourne. Brooks, Robinson and Company was taken over by Email Pty Ltd in 1963, and as a result they closed their stained glass studio.

THE LITTLE CHURCH IN A FIELD

  

St Hubert's Idsworth STANDING alone amid the fields of Old Idsworth and Heberden's Farms is the little Chapel of St Hubert, for many centuries dedicated to St Peter but rededicated to St Hubert, patron saint of hunters, probably in the late 19th century (after the discovery of the wall painting in 1864). According to legend, St Hubert was converted while hunting on Good Friday by seeing an image of the crucified Christ between the antlers of a stag. He later became Bishop of Maastricht and Liege and died in 727. It is thought that the chapel could well have been used as a hunting chapel in its early days.

  

The chapel stands some distance from the road, adjoining the site of the old Manor House of Idsworth, of which only the stables, coach house and walled garden remain, the house having been demolished when the railway was built in the mid 19th century. It overlooks a valley in which a stream (lavant) now flows only in occasional winters but which was the site of a village from about the 9th to the 14th centuries.

 

Idsworth is not mentioned in the Domesday Book, unlike the neighbouring manor of Chalton, which was held personally by Earl Godwin, Earl of Wessex and premier Earl of England, until his death in 1053, when the manor passed to his son, (later King) Harold, who held it until his death at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Idsworth began as a chaplaincy of the manor of Chalton but by the 12th century had become independent and later became the dominant of the two manors.

 

The chapel is believed to have been built by Earl Godwin, who died in 1053, which perhaps explains why this is the latest date normally given to its origin. However, Roman coins and pottery have been found in the adjoining field and it has been suggested that the chapel could well have been built on the foundations of a much earlier building. The oldest part is the nave (later widened), which was built in the new Norman style which Edward the Confessor was then introducing into England. An early English Chancel, a bell turret and a porch were all added later.

  

St Hubert's Chapel is beautiful in its simplicity rather than its richness, yet some of its contents are rich beyond price. For example, on the North wall of the Chancel is a mural, discovered in 1864 and dated at circa 1330.

Idsworth C14 Painting

 

Unusual for its completeness and quality, it consists of two parts separated by a horizontal zigzag line. It is generally agreed that the lower picture depicts the presentation of the head of St John the Baptist, on a salver, to Salome (the contorted figure in the foreground) at King Herod's feast (clearly visible in the centre), and that the separate scene at the left-hand end represents St John being thrown into prison. The hunting scene in the upper picture is less easily interpreted and an earlier view that it represents St Hubert converting or curing a lycanthrope (a man who through a form of insanity believed himself to be a wolf) has been discounted in a number of modern treatises on the subject. It is generally considered that the right-hand end of the upper picture depicts the arrest of St John and that the remainder portrays the discovery of a "hairy anchorite", a hermit who, according to legend, in penance for sins of inchastity and murder, undertook to walk on all fours until he knew he was forgiven. In the early 14th century this legend could well have been identified with events in the early life of St John the Baptist, thus providing a thread of continuity through both tiers of the mural.

 

Click on these links for a detailed and scholarly discussion of these paintings:

 

Herod’s Feast, with Salome’s Dance

The Legend of the Hairy Anchorite

 

A new fresco in 14th century style, was commissioned and painted in 2000 to celebrate the millennium. This depicts ‘Christ in Majesty’ together with images inspired by the vision of St Peter and also a rich variety of other symbols and contemporary images.

 

Idsworth Fresco 2000

 

The Chancel

 

The Ceiling was replastered and decorated in 1913. There are 13 medallions set within a framework of diamond panels with ribs in cable pattern, rising from pleasing frescoes of grapes, leaves and a bird at the top of each wall. Two crowns on each side surmount the frescoes. The medallions appear to show: -- The Good Shepherd, four eagles receiving light from a cloud above them, a Cross of Lorraine superimposed by cross keys, the Dove of the Holy Spirit, a Phoenix rising from the flames, three fishes arranged in a triangle with the head of each superimposed over another's tail, a Bishop, a Chalice, the Lamb of St. John holding a flag and staff, a peacock, St. Hubert and the stag, the mother pelican pecking her breast to produce drops of blood to feed her three chicks, and a medieval three-masted ship.

 

Two braces, boxed in wood, cross the Chancel overhead, and since they partially mask the crowns, these were probably a later addition.

 

The Altar consists of the stone mensâ of the medieval altar, raised from the floor and placed on stonework in 1913.

 

Idsworth Window RoundelThe East window is of plain glass with one adornment, a small circular inset picturing St. Hubert's conversion and based on a Dürer engraving, but with the addition of a tiny representation of the chapel itself, in the upper left-hand quadrant, just to the right of the horse's head. This roundel was the gift of the architect of the 1913 restoration (see below).

   

Idsworth St Peter

  

On the splays each side of the window, frescos of St. Peter and St. Paul are easily discernible. St. Peter is shown holding the keys of Heaven, and St. Paul with a staff over his shoulder holding aloft a book. On the soffit of the arch are two angels. These paintings are also dated at circa 1330.

  

Idsworth St Paul

  

On the wall to the North side of the East window some remains of a mural are faintly visible, but unfortunately the figures are not discernible. On the other side, in a niche in the wall, is a Piscina, the bottom being shaped like a basin with a drain hole in the centre. The water used for cleaning the chalice was poured into this after the service of Holy Communion.

 

Hanging here is a painting of the Royal Coat of Arms of George III surrounded by the inscription, "The Chapel was repaired in 1793-- Thomas Padwick, Chapel Warden. This Chapel was repaired in 1825-- Thomas Smith, Chapel Warden."

 

The Nave

 

Idsworth NaveThe Nave seats about fifty and consists of box pews and narrow, rather uncomfortable benches. In the North wall of the Nave is a small arch, now blocked, only twenty-one inches wide. It is visible from inside and out and might have been an entrance to a much smaller chapel or building. Above the Nave are three tie beams, the centre one conspicuous as the ceiling clings to the line of the roof. The one below the bell turret is partly embedded in the ceiling which at this point reaches down to the beam to form the enclosure for the bell. The third beam is behind the organ in the gallery.

 

The pulpit is of the early seventeenth century with carved brackets to the back panel. The tester, or canopy, is of later date, probably eighteenth century. The pulpit at one time stood in front of the small blocked archway in the North wall but, in the course of a major restoration by the Clarke-Jervoise family, under the expert hand of the architect, H.S. Goodhart-Rendel, it was restored to what was believed to have been its original position on the South wall, as evidenced by the adjacent inscription "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet . . . . " (Isaiah 58:1). At the same time a vestry was added and the organ was moved to the newly replaced gallery. These restorations and improvements are commemorated by a stone tablet by the door in the West wall.

 

Among other things of great antiquity are the original Norman light in the North wall and the bench behind the Font. The Font itself, octagonal with quatrefoiled panels is dated 1400, the base having been broken, probably during the Civil War.

 

The entrance to the Chapel is through the West door. Although the North and West walls are eleventh century,Idsworth Nave from Alter the arched entrance is probably fourteenth century. An eighteenth century porch has been added. The Chancel and Nave were the same width until the sixteenth century when the Nave was widened Southwards.

 

On the outer side of the North wall of the Chancel is a window with two uncusped lights, anciently blocked, the inner side having the murals previously described.

 

The earliest walling on the North side is of regularly set flint work, while the South wall is of coarser rubble and sandstone quoins, on one of which (at the SW corner) is what has been assumed to be an incised sun-dial. It has recently been suggested (1995) that this is not a sundial but a much rarer "mass dial" or "scratch dial" in which the priest inserted a bent twig, with one end in the central hole and the other end pointing to the time of the next mass or other service. www.homeshed.plus.com/bcichurches_netobjects/html/history...

Students return to classroom for growth in wisdom, faith

 

By Ambria Hammel | Aug. 16, 2010 | The Catholic Sun

 

After climbing her way through the ranks, Danage Norwood-Pearson came to orientation day Aug. 9, ready for her senior year at St. Mary’s High School.

 

“I like my classes. They’re going to be fun,” Norwood-Pearson said during break after fourth period.

 

She said theology class should be especially fun because of the students and the fact that the teacher is one of St. Mary’s newest faculty members: Fr. Robert Bolding, campus chaplain.

 

Mixing academics, faith and fellowship is what a Catholic education is all about, administrators and teachers throughout the diocese reminded students when school resumed this month.

 

“If we all pray together and work together, we will all be celebrating together” on graduation day, Suzanne Fessler, principal at St. Mary’s, told the senior class.

 

Classes at some diocesan schools are facing declining enrollment, but that didn’t stop students at every grade level from coming prepared for the demands of a new academic year.

 

Norwood-Pearson was one student among many who had summer homework. She also got right back into athletics as a volleyball player.

 

Others, like Bourgade freshman Megan Burke, who also plans to play volleyball, spent the final weeks of summer vacation organizing school supplies and buying new uniforms.

 

“I try them on about twice a week just for fun,” she said during a campus cleanup day

July 31. Burke, a Ss. Simon and Jude alumna, has worn school uniforms all of her life.

 

Getting back into a uniform was one thing St. Mary’s freshman Daniel Wright dreaded. The public school transfer wore school uniforms through seventh grade and enjoyed free dress last year.

 

Despite the uniform, Wright — who spent his final days of summer in drills with the football team — looks forward to being successful on and off the field.

 

Megan Nestor, a sophomore at Xavier College Preparatory, said her time at cheer camp in early July helped the team grow closer. She looked forward to seeing the rest of her friends too and getting back into the school rhythm.

 

That daily routine is all new for young learners at Our Lady of the Lake Preschool and Kindergarten in Lake Havasu City. The 10-year-old facility welcomed its first kindergarten class earlier this month.

 

“We have been very pleased with the support of our community,” Deacon Jeff Arner, director, said of the expansion, noting the more than $7,000 it raised in start up costs. “The parents just wish their children could just stay here with a pre-K through 12th grade Catholic school.”

 

Deacon Jeff spent the early weeks of summer pushing the June 30 tax credit deadline to help families finance Catholic education. Parishioners contributed more than $36,000 in state tax dollars to the school through the Catholic Tuition Organization of the Diocese of Phoenix.

 

Kathryn Makar called Catholic school “mandatory” for children in today’s social climate where morality appears to take low priority. The long-time Our Lady of Mount Carmel parishioner said she always knew about the school, but admitted, “I didn’t know it was this good until we experienced it.”

 

Makar said families receive loving support in raising their children and the students, like her fourth-grade daughter, Angela, learn about charity and faith.

 

“The best thing is that you make friendships and that they’re faith-filled,” Makar said.

 

The senior class president at St. Mary’s agreed that it’s important to be a faith-filled student. He challenged fellow seniors to take ownership of the school as they all work toward one goal: a relationship with Christ.

 

“He’s above all of your problems. He’s above all of your worries, everything that’s going on in your life,” Estevan Wetzel said during senior orientation. “Seek God in this school. You can find Him.”

 

Students at Most Holy Trinity planned to be Christ for one another this school year, especially its 20 new students. The student council planned ways to welcome them and increase overall school spirit during the first two weeks.

 

“I’m excited for the new students,” said seventh-grader Hayley Brizzee, vice president of the school council. “We’re a really small school, so when new students come in, it’s ‘welcome to our family.’”

 

The students will also welcome three young women religious from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity to the school later this month. Sisters Mary Emmanuel Schmidt, Alison Marie Conemac and Maria Victoria Tate will teach the preschool students.

 

The gray-habited sisters, two of whom play the guitar, are meant to complement the parish priests from the same order.

 

“We try to show how the vocations work together and they complement one another” including the laity, said Sr. Anne Marie Walsh, SOLT, superior of the order.

 

Fr. John Lankeit, pastor at Ss. Simon and Jude School, touched on the role of the laity, particularly parents, when it comes to instruction in the faith during the TV Mass Aug. 8. Priests and religious are there to support them, he said, but parents are the first teachers of the faith.

 

Fr. Lankeit reminded them that children learn best by example.

 

“Parents, you have been charged with the awesome duty of getting your kids to heaven… You are not just caretakers of children, but stewards of souls,” Fr. Lankeit said. “Is there anything greater to be entrusted with than the immortal souls of your children?”

 

More: www.catholicsun.org

 

ORDERING INFORMATION

Looking for a glossy/matte copy of this photo? Please call 602-354-2140 or send an e-mail for ordering information. Please note the photo's title when ordering. Download the order form here.

 

Copyright 2006-2010 The Catholic Sun. All rights reserved. This photo and all photos on this Web site credited to The Catholic Sun are provided for personal use only and may not be published, broadcasted, transmitted or sold without the expressed consent of The Catholic Sun.

Oneness Pentecostalism (doctrine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

It has been suggested that Oneness vs Trinity be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 

This list of basic Oneness Pentecostal doctrine is an overview. These doctrines are UPCI specific, and can be interpreted more conservatively or liberally with respect to individual and church specific views. These doctrines are accompanied by references to most, but not all, scriptures officially used by Oneness Pentecostal churches in defense of their doctrines. [1]

 

Oneness Pentecostal theology is essentially rooted in the following fundamentalist beliefs:

 

* God exists and is perfect.

* The Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God.

* The absolute inerrancy of the Holy Bible (not necessarily including any or all translations).

* Sola Scriptura (Scripture interprets Scripture), which also leads to the following assertions by Oneness Pentecostalism in framing its theology:

o The Bible is the final authority on all doctrine.

o Doctrine and Theology must take the entire Bible into consideration, using Scripture to interpret other Scripture.

o Any apparent contradictions between Scriptures is a result of faulty interpretation of one or both Scriptures.

o Any doctrine, theology, or person that contradicts the Bible is in error.

 

Contents

[hide]

 

* 1 God

o 1.1 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

o 1.2 The Deity of Jesus Christ

o 1.3 The Name of Jesus (Emmanuel, God with us as Savior)

* 2 Salvation

o 2.1 Salvation Is through Faith

o 2.2 Obeying (Applying) the Gospel

o 2.3 Repentance

o 2.4 Water Baptism

o 2.5 The Baptism of the Holy Ghost

* 3 References

 

[edit] God

 

Oneness Doctrine Churches hold to a conservative monotheistic view of God and stress Jesus Christ as the self revelation of God in the New Testament, who was known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The Christian Monotheist Oneness doctrine rejects all concepts of a duality, trinity, pantheon, or other doctrines they see as representing multiple personalities of God. It rejects all concepts of Jesus Christ as anything different than being both fully God and fully man. This rejection includes views that would place the Son as only part of God, views that the Son is only a high priest and not God, or that the Son was not fully human. It declares that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Oneness also rejects the view that any person can "obtain" the status of God either by works or by grace, maintaining that Jesus Christ did not "obtain" His status, but rather that he is God manifested in the flesh (1st Timothy 3:16).

 

Oneness specifically maintains:

 

God is One

God is absolutely and indivisibly One. [2]

 

God is an Invisible Spirit

God is not made of a physical body, but is an invisible spirit that can only be seen in Theophanies (eg. the burning bush) that God creates or manifests or as the incarnate Jesus Christ. [3]

 

[edit] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

 

The Father

The title of God in Parental Relationship [4]

 

The Son of God

The only begotten Son of God and the One God incarnate in man. The title "Son" refers to both the man and the deity of Jesus Christ with specific emphasis on the man, but never God or the man only. [5]

 

The Holy Spirit

The title of God in activity as Spirit. [6]

 

The Father Is the Holy Ghost

Oneness maintains that the titles Father and Holy Ghost refer to the same being. [7]

 

[edit] The Deity of Jesus Christ

 

Jesus is God Incarnate

Oneness maintains that Jesus is fully God. [8]

 

From the Beginning of His Human Life

Oneness maintains that Jesus is fully man, and had birth, death, and resurrection. Oneness denies doctrines that state that the Son was eternally begotten, maintaining that the man was begotten on a specific day.[9]

 

The Divine Nature of Jesus Is the Father

Oneness maintains that the deity of Jesus is the Father. [10]

 

The Divine Nature of Jesus Is the Holy Spirit

Oneness maintains that the deity of Jesus is the Holy Ghost. [11]

 

Jesus is LORD (the LORD in the KJV)

Oneness maintains that LORD and Jesus refer to the same God who is also known as the Jehovah to "some" modern day Christians. [12]. Some believe Jehovah to be a false guess name with "hovah" in Hebrew meaning ruin or destruction, hence Je-hovah meaning God of ruin or destruction [13]

 

[edit] The Name of Jesus (Emmanuel, God with us as Savior)

 

Supreme Revelation of God in the New Testament

Oneness maintains that God revealed Himself as Jesus Christ. [14]

 

The Saving Name

Oneness Pentecostal theology is based primarily on "the saving Name" of Jesus Christ and recognition of Jesus as the revealed, supreme, and One True Name of God. [15]

 

[edit] Salvation

 

Oneness Pentecostal doctrine and theology maintains that salvation comes by a specific set of commands and requirements in the New Testament. It maintains that each set of requirements, as summarized by faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, water baptism by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost baptism, are all necessary for salvation. Each that is deemed a requirement, or necessary, is noted by their doctrine with Scripture that maintains that each was commanded for salvation and/or explained that the lack of them would result in not having salvation. Individual church interpretation can impact how these are carried out. Most Oneness Pentecostal churches maintain that the use of Jesus, Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ of Nazareth all refer to the same name, and reference the variety used in the Book of Acts. This allows room in their doctrine for personal preference of the specific utterance of the name of Jesus Christ, though officially the full name "Jesus Christ" is advocated.

 

Universal Need for Salvation

Oneness Pentecostals believe that all men are sinners and lost without salvation. [16]

 

The Atoning Work of Jesus Christ

Oneness Pentecostals maintain that the man Christ Jesus made atonement, or payment, for the sins of all people. [17]

 

Salvation Is by Grace

Oneness Pentecostal theology holds that salvation is impossible to obtain without God's grace. [18]

 

[edit] Salvation Is through Faith

 

Only Through Faith in Jesus Christ

Faith must be in Jesus Christ. This theology holds that there is no salvation in faith in any name, god, being, or work other than Jesus Christ. This contradicts liberal interpretations of scripture that salvation was given automatically by the atonement of Jesus Christ. Oneness Pentecostals maintain that those without faith in Jesus Christ have not received salvation. That salvation is a gift and must be received. [19]

 

Saving Faith Includes Obedience

Oneness Pentecostals maintain that true faith is followed by obedience and a willingness to do the Will of God.[20]

 

Examples of Insufficient, Mental Faith

Oneness Pentecostals reject that salvation is obtainable by what they refer to as "mental faith". Mental faith is best described as faith that has no accompanying actions other than the barest definition of believing. Mental faith is often characterized by Oneness Pentecostals as faith without any life changing repentance or obedience. This doctrine is often used to refute groups who practice salvation by the "Sinner's Prayer". Oneness Pentecostals have no issue with the "Sinner's Prayer" itself, but would dispute that it alone is sufficient saving faith. They often argue that upon questioning, a significant portion of the US population might say they believe in Jesus Christ, but that "belief" and "faith" are not necessarily synonymous, pointing out in James 2:19 that even "the devils also believe, and tremble". [21]

 

Saving Faith Includes the Acts 2:38 Experience

Oneness Pentecostals affirm a position that "true faith" includes acts of faith and obedience to faith. They specifically point out Acts 2:38 which says, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." They maintain that if a person has true faith, they will act on it.[22]

 

[edit] Obeying (Applying) the Gospel

 

New Testament Teaching

To obtain salvation, a person must meet the requirements set forth in the New Testament. [23]

 

Old Testament Typology (Blood, Water, Fire or Oil)

The requirements set forth in the New Testament are based on the teachings of the Old Testament, and that the New Testament teachings fulfill the teachings of the Old Testament. [24]

 

[edit] Repentance

 

Necessity of Repentance

Oneness Pentecostals maintain that salvation is not possible without repentance. [25]

 

Elements of Repentance

Oneness Pentecostals define repentance generally as confession and forsaking of sin. Confession is the admittance of sin and asking of forgiveness. Forsaking of sin is the conscious decision to abstain from sinning again.[26]

 

[edit] Water Baptism

 

Significance and Necessity

The majority of Oneness Pentecostals believe that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. A small minority believe that baptism is symbolic in nature.(Reference Global Network of Christian Ministries) [27]

 

For Repentant Believers

Oneness Pentecostals believe that one must have faith and repent before being baptized. This would contradict a view that salvation could come through a baptism by force.[28]

 

The Baptismal Mode - Immersion in Water

Oneness Pentecostal theology maintains the literal definition of baptism, being full immersion in water. They often point out that other methods have either no biblical basis, or are based inexact Old Testament rituals, and that their mode is the only one described in the New Testament. This view contradicts the use of any other substance other than water for baptism. This view contradicts any reduced amount of water in baptism, such as sprinkling or head-only immersion. [29]

 

The Baptismal Formula - In the Name of Jesus

Oneness Pentecostal theology in the use of "the name of Jesus" as the baptismal formula is universal among its believers by definition of Oneness Pentecostalism. [30]

The One Name in Matthew 28:19

Many Oneness Pentecostals recognize "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in Matthew 28:19 as being that of Lord Jesus Christ. Oneness itself is often explained (in simplistic terms) as the recognition of the three titles as the singular name of Lord Jesus Christ (Father=Lord, Son=Jesus, and Holy Ghost=Christ). Some Oneness reject the triune Lord Jesus Christ representing the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and baptize in the name of Jesus Christ only. These are called "Jesus Only". They note that in their own 20th century history, the baptismal name recognition and Oneness theology go hand in hand. Similarly, they note a universal use in the Book of Acts, and with the support of other historical texts of the time, maintain that proof of Oneness theology by the early Christian church was widespread and universal among the leading members. Also of note is that by their doctrinal basis that no Scripture contradicts, that Matthew 28:19, and all of the Acts accounts, including Acts 2:38, must be in full agreement with each other. They state that the only two explanations would be that the Apostles all disobeyed the command in Matthew 28:19 or that they correctly interpreted and fulfilled it, when they used the name Lord Jesus Christ. [31]

 

[edit] The Baptism of the Holy Ghost

 

Promise and Command

Pentecostals maintain that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is both a free gift and is commanded to be accepted. The Holy Ghost is explained by Pentecostal doctrine as the Spirit of God (also known as the Spirit of Christ) dwelling within a person. It is further explained as the power of God to edify (build up) the person, help them abstain from sin, and to anoint them with power to exercise the gifts of the Spirit for edification of the church in the Will of God. This differs from the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, in that the incarnation is explained as "the fullness of the Godhead" in the body of Jesus Christ inseparably linking the deity and man, that is Jesus. Believers, according to this doctrine, can only receive a portion of the Spirit and are not permanently bonded with God as Jesus is. This doctrine explained most simply, it is God dwelling within an individual, communing with the individual, and working through that individual. Oneness doctrine maintains the Holy Ghost is the title of God in action, so they also maintain that the Holy Ghost in an individual is God in action in and through that individual. [32]

 

An Experience for the Church Founded on Pentecost

Pentecostals, both Oneness and Trinitarian, maintain that the Holy Ghost experience marks the formation of the Christian Church. [33]

 

Significance and Necessity

Pentecostal churches maintain that the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation, and that he carries with him power for the believer to accomplish the Will of God. [34]

 

Speaking in Tongues Is the Initial Sign

The majority of Oneness Pentecostals maintain that the initial sign of the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues. They recognize that reception of the Holy Ghost was evidenced, when documented in the New Testament, by the minimal requirement of speaking in tongues. They also recognize a biblical basis that the gift of tongues is a sign to unbelievers of the power of the Holy Ghost and is actively to be prayed for and practiced, especially in prayer. [35]

 

[edit] References

 

1. ^ A shortened version compiled from “An Overview of Basic Doctrines”, an overview compiled the book ‘’A Handbook of Basic Doctrines’’ by David K. Bernard. Also included are excerpts, as marked, from “Essential Doctrines of the Bible.” “Essential Doctrines of the Bible” and “An Overview of Basic Doctrines”, Thompson Chain-Reference Study Bible, Word Aflame Press, 1999, 1-12, 13-25, respectively

2. ^ Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 37:16, 42:8, 43:10-11, 44:6, 8, 24, 45:5-6, 14, 18, 21-22, 46:5, 9, 48:11-12, Zechariah 14:9, Malachi 2:10, Mark 12:29, John 17:3, Romans 3:30, Galatians 3:20, I Timothy 2:5, James 2:19, Revelation 4:2

3. ^ Exodus 33:20, Luke 24:39, John 1:18, 4:24, Colossians 1:15, I Timothy 6:15-16, Hebrews 12:9, I John 4:12

4. ^ Deuteronomy 32:6, Malachi 2:10, Psalm 89:26, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8, Jeremiah 31:9, Romans 8:14-19, Galatians 1:1-4, Ephesians 4:6, Hebrews 12:9

5. ^ Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, Matthew 1:18-23, Mark 13:32, Luke 1:35, John 14:10-11, 28, Acts 13:33, Romans 5:10, Galatians 4:4, Colossians 1:13-15, Hebrews 1:1-9

6. ^ Genesis 1:2, Ephesians 4:4, 6, Leviticus 11:44, John 4:24, Acts 5:3, 4, 9, I Corinthians 12:11, I Peter 1:16, II Peter 1:21

7. ^ Matthew 1:18, 20, Isaiah 40:13, Joel 2:27-28, Luke 1:35, Romans 8:15-16, Compare Matthew 10:20 and Mark 13:11, Compare John 14:17 and 14:23, Compare John 14:26 and II Corinthians 1:3-4, Compare I Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19, Compare Ephesians 1:17-20 and Romans 8:11, Compare I Timothy 6:13 and Romans 8:11, Compare II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:21 Compare I Peter 1:2 and Jude 1

8. ^ Isaiah 9:6, 11:1, 10, 40:9, John 1:1, 14, Colossians 2:9-10, Micah 5:2, Matthew 1:23, John 1:1-18, John 20:28, II Corinthians 5:19, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 1:15, 19, I Timothy 3:16, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:1-3, I John 5:20, Jude 4, 25, Revelation 1:7-18, 22:3-4, Compare Exodus 20:1-5 and Luke 24:52, Compare Deuteronomy 33:27 and Revelation 1:8, 18, Compare Psalm 139:7-13 and Matthew 18:20, 28:20, Compare Isaiah 35:3-6 and Matthew 11:2-6, Compare Isaiah 43:25 and Mark 2:5-12, Compare Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8, Compare I John 1:5 and John 1:4-9, Compare Revelation 19:6 and Colossians 1:16-18

9. ^ Galatians 4:4, Micah 5:2, Matthew 1:23, 2:11, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, Luke 1:35, 2:38, Hebrews 1:6

10. ^ Isaiah 9:6, 63:16, John 8:19-27, 10:30, 10:38, 12:45, 14:8-11, Revelation 21:6-7, Colossians 2:9, I John 3:1-5, Compare John 2:19-21 and Acts 2:24, Compare John 6:40 and I Corinthians 6:14, Compare John 6:44 and John 12:32, Compare John 14:14 and John 16:23, Compare John 16:7 and John 14:26, Compare Ephesians 5:26 and Jude 1

11. ^ John 14:16-18, 16:7, Acts 16:6-7 (NIV), II Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 3:16-17, Philippians 1:19, Compare Matthew 28:20 and John 14:16, Compare Luke 21:15 and Mark 13:11, Compare John 2:19-21 and Romans 8:9-11, Compare Ephesians 5:26 and I Peter 1:2, Compare Colossians 1:27 and Acts 2:4, 38

12. ^ Jeremiah 23:5-6, 33:15-16, John 8:58, Acts 9:5, Isaiah 40:10, 53:1-2, Zechariah 11:3, 12, 12:1, 10, 14:3-5, Compare Genesis 17:1 and Revelation 1:8, 18, Compare Exodus 3:14 and John 8:56-59, Compare Psalm 27:1 and Acts 4:10-12, Compare Psalm 136:3 and Revelation 19:16, Compare Isaiah 33:22 and Acts 10:42, Compare Isaiah 40:3 and Matthew 3:3, Compare Isaiah 40:5 and I Corinthians 2:8 and Isaiah 42:8, 48:11, Compare Isaiah 45:21 and Acts 7:52, Compare Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10

13. ^ Strongs #1943

14. ^ Zecharaiah 14:9, John 14:13-14, Colossians 3:17, Isaiah 52:6, Acts 3:6, 16, 4:7-12 17-18, 30, Philippians 2:9-11, James 5:14

15. ^ Matthew 1:21, Acts 3:16, 4:12, 10:43, 15:14-17, 22:16, Romans 10:13, I John 2:12

16. ^ Romans 3:9-12, 23, 5:12, 19, 6:23, Psalm 53:1-3, 130:3, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Jeremiah 17:9, Galatians 3:22, Ephesians 2:1-3, I John 1:8-10

17. ^ Isaiah 53:5-6, Matthew 20:28, 26:28, Romans 3:24-25, 5:8-11, John 1:29, I Corinthians 15:1-4, II Corinthians 5:14-21, Ephesians 2:13-19, Colossians 1:19-22, 2,:13-15, I Timothy 2:5, 6, Hebrews 2:9, 9:22, 28, 10:4, 10-20, Revelation 5:8-10

18. ^ Ephesians 2:4-10, Titus 2:11-12, 3:4-7, Romans 3:24, 6:1-2, 15, 23, I corinthians 15:10, II Corinthians 12:9, Galatians 5:4, Philippians 2:13, Hebrews 12:15, I Peter 5:5, 10

19. ^ John 3:16, 8:24, 20:31, Acts 13:38-39, 16:31, Hebrews 11:6, Romans 1:16-17, 3:21-31, 10:8-11, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8

20. ^ Romans 1:5, 6:17, 10:16, 16:26, Hebrews 5:9, 11:6-10, 11:28, John 8:30-32, Acts 6:7, James 1:21-25, I Peter 1:21-23, I John 2:3-6, 5:1-8, Compare Romans 4:3 and Genesis 15:6, 22:16-18, 26:5, Compare Romans 10:6-10 and Deuteronomy 30:10-14 and Luke 6:46

21. ^ John 2:23-25, 12:42-43, James 2:14-19, Acts 8:12-23

22. ^ Mark 1:15, 16:16, Acts 2:38, 41, 8:36-39, 11:15, 17, 19:1-6, Galatians 3:14, Ephesians 1:13

23. ^ John 3:5, Acts 1:4-8, 2:38, 8:15-17, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 16:30-34, 19:1-6, 22:16, Titus 3:5, Matthew 3:11, Luke 24:46-49, Romans 6:1-7, I Corinthians 6:11, 15:1-4, Hebrews 6:1-2, 10:15-23, I John 5:8-10

24. ^ I Corinthians 10:1-2, Exodus 12:13, 14:19-31, 19:10-11, 29:1-7, Leviticus 14:1-20, Numbers 19:1-10, 31:1-18, I Kings 18:33-39, Hebrews 9:18-20, Compare Exodus 40:6-7 and Hebrews 9:1-9, Compare Matthew 3:11 and Acts 2:3-4, Compare John 14:16-17, 26 and I John 2:20, 27, I Peter 3:20-21 and II Peter 3:5-7

25. ^ Luke 3:3-9, 13:1-5, Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30, 26:18, 20, Ezekiel 18:30-32, Matthew 3:1-11, Mark 1:15, Hebrews 6:1, II Peter 3:9

26. ^ Psalm 51:17, Proverbs 28:13, Matthew 5:23-24, Mark 1:4-5, Luke 3:7-9, 19:8, Acts 26:18, 20, II Corinthians 7:10

27. ^ Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 10:48, 22:16, Galatians 3:27, Numbers 19:1-5, 9, Romans 6:3-4, I Corinthians 6:11, Colossians 2:11-13, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21, I John 5:6, 8

28. ^ Luke 3:7-8, Acts 2:38, 41, 8:12, 36-37, 10:47-48, 16:14-15, 18:8, 19:5, Matthew 3:6-8, Mark 1:5, 16:16

29. ^ Matthew 3:16, John 3:23, Romans 6:4, Mark 1:5, 9-10, Acts 8:36-39, Colossians 2:12

30. ^ Acts 2:38, 8:12, 16, 10:48, 15:17, 19:3-5, 22:16, I Corinthians 1:13, Galatians 3:27, Philippians 3:27, Colossians 2:9-10, 3:17, James 2:7

31. ^ Matthew 1:21, 28:18-20, Luke 24:47, Isaiah 52:6, Zechariah 14:9, John 5:43, 14:26, Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:3-5, Colossians 3:17, Revelation 22:3-4

32. ^ Matthew 3:11, Acts 1:4-8, 2:38-39, Joel 2:28-29, Mark 15:17-18, Luke 11:13, 24:49, John 3:5, 7:38-39, 14:16-18, 20:22, 16:7, 13

33. ^ Matthew 16:18, John 7:39, 16:17, Acts 1:4-8, 2:1-4, 19:1-6, Hebrews 8:6-13, 9:15-17, 11:39-40, I Peter 10-12

34. ^ John 3:1-8, Acts 1:4-8, 2:1-4, 2:37-39, 3:19, 8:15-17, 9:17, 10:44-47, 11:15-18, 19:1-6, Romans 8:1-16, 23-27, 14:17, I Corinthians 6:11, 12:3, Ephesians 1:13-14, Titus 3:5, I John 3:24

35. ^ Acts 2:1-4, 33, 8:6-8, 12-20, 10:44-46, 11:15, 19:6, Isaiah 28:11-12, Mark 16:17, John 3:8, Romans 8:16, I Corinthians 14:18, 21-22

 

ashcraftministry.blogspot.com/

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama,[note 3] Shakyamuni,[note 4] or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[web 2] He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 5]

 

The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "the enlightened one". "Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being in an era. In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Pali sammāsambuddha, Sanskrit samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age.[note 6] Gautama taught a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism found in the Sramana (renunciation) movement[5] common in his region. He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[4][6]

 

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era in India during the reign of Bimbisara, the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatshatru who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a younger contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain teacher.[7] Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of other influential sramana schools of thoughts like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jain, and Ajñana. It was also the age of influential thinkers like Mahāvīra, Pūraṇa Kassapa , Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, whose viewpoints Buddha most certainly must have been acquainted with and influenced by.[8][9][note 7] There is also evidence to suggest that the two masters, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, were indeed historical figures and they most probably taught Buddha two different forms of meditative techniques.[10] While the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true,[11] most scholars do not consistently accept all of the details contained in traditional biographies.[12][13]

 

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][14] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][15][note 5] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.[20][21][note 9]

 

The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born into the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[23] It was either a small republic, in which case his father was an elected chieftain, or an oligarchy, in which case his father was an oligarch.[23] According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may either be in present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India.[note 1] He obtained his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, gave his first sermon in Sarnath, and died in Kushinagara.

 

No written records about Gautama have been found from his lifetime or some centuries thereafter. One edict of Emperor Ashoka, who reigned from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE, commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to the Buddha's birthplace in Lumbini. Another one of his edict mentions several Dhamma texts, establishing the existence of a written Buddhist tradition at least by the time of the Mauryan era and which may be the precursors of the Pāli Canon.[34][note 11] The oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts are the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, reported to have been found in or around Haḍḍa near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan and now preserved in the British Library. They are written in the Kharoṣṭhī script and the Gāndhārī language on twenty-seven birch bark scrolls, and they date from the first century BCE to the third century CE.[web 10]The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sūtra, Mahāvastu, and the Nidānakathā.[35] Of these, the Buddhacarita[36][37][38] is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[35] The Lalitavistara Sūtra is the next oldest biography, a Mahāyāna/Sarvāstivāda biography dating to the 3rd century CE.[39] The Mahāvastu from the Mahāsāṃghika Lokottaravāda tradition is another major biography, composed incrementally until perhaps the 4th century CE.[39] The Dharmaguptaka biography of the Buddha is the most exhaustive, and is entitled the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra,[40] and various Chinese translations of this date between the 3rd and 6th century CE. Lastly, the Nidānakathā is from the Theravāda tradition in Sri Lanka and was composed in the 5th century CE by Buddhaghoṣa.[41]

 

From canonical sources, the Jātakas, the Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), and the Achariyabhuta Sutta (MN 123) which include selective accounts that may be older, but are not full biographies. The Jātakas retell previous lives of Gautama as a bodhisattva, and the first collection of these can be dated among the earliest Buddhist texts.[42] The Mahāpadāna Sutta and Achariyabhuta Sutta both recount miraculous events surrounding Gautama's birth, such as the bodhisattva's descent from Tuṣita Heaven into his mother's womb.Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[43][44][45] Nevertheless, some of the more ordinary details of his life have been gathered from these traditional sources. In modern times there has been an attempt to form a secular understanding of Siddhārtha Gautama's life by omitting the traditional supernatural elements of his early biographies.

 

Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human:[46]

 

It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.

 

The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist.[47] British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.[48] Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.[11]The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, present-day Nepal, to be the birthplace of the Buddha.[49][note 1] He grew up in Kapilavastu.[note 1] The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown. It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, present-day India,[32] or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal.[50] Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart from each other.[50]

 

Siddharta Gautama was born as a Kshatriya,[51][note 13] the son of Śuddhodana, "an elected chief of the Shakya clan",[4] whose capital was Kapilavastu, and who were later annexed by the growing Kingdom of Kosala during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[53][54] and ten months later[55] Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree.

 

The day of the Buddha's birth is widely celebrated in Theravada countries as Vesak.[56] Buddha's birth anniversary holiday is called "Buddha Purnima" in Nepal and India as Buddha is believed to have been born on a full moon day. Various sources hold that the Buddha's mother died at his birth, a few days or seven days later. The infant was given the name Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha), meaning "he who achieves his aim". During the birth celebrations, the hermit seer Asita journeyed from his mountain abode and announced that the child would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a great holy man.[57] By traditional account,[which?] this occurred after Siddhartha placed his feet in Asita's hair and Asita examined the birthmarks. Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day, and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave a dual prediction that the baby would either become a great king or a great holy man.[57] Kaundinya (Pali: Kondañña), the youngest, and later to be the first arahant other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[58]

 

While later tradition and legend characterized Śuddhodana as a hereditary monarch, the descendant of the Solar Dynasty of Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka), many scholars think that Śuddhodana was the elected chief of a tribal confederacy.

 

Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition.[59] The state of the Shakya clan was not a monarchy, and seems to have been structured either as an oligarchy, or as a form of republic.[60] The more egalitarian gana-sangha form of government, as a political alternative to the strongly hierarchical kingdoms, may have influenced the development of the Shramana-type Jain and Buddhist sanghas, where monarchies tended toward Vedic Brahmanism.[61]Siddhartha was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati.[62] By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.

 

When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal.[62]According to the early Buddhist texts,[web 11] after realizing that meditative dhyana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[web 11]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification, or the Noble Eightfold Path, as was identified and described by the Buddha in his first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.[web 11] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[web 12] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[web 12]

 

Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree—now known as the Bodhi tree—in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth.[70] Kaundinya and four other companions, believing that he had abandoned his search and become undisciplined, left. After a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment.[70][web 13] According to some traditions, this occurred in approximately the fifth lunar month, while, according to others, it was in the twelfth month. From that time, Gautama was known to his followers as the Buddha or "Awakened One" ("Buddha" is also sometimes translated as "The Enlightened One").

 

According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the "Four Noble Truths",[web 13] which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that's free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states,[web 13] or "defilements" (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the "end of the world", in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha.

 

According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach.After his awakening, the Buddha met Taphussa and Bhallika — two merchant brothers from the city of Balkh in what is currently Afghanistan — who became his first lay disciples. It is said that each was given hairs from his head, which are now claimed to be enshrined as relics in the Shwe Dagon Temple in Rangoon, Burma. The Buddha intended to visit Asita, and his former teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, to explain his findings, but they had already died.

 

He then travelled to the Deer Park near Varanasi (Benares) in northern India, where he set in motion what Buddhists call the Wheel of Dharma by delivering his first sermon to the five companions with whom he had sought enlightenment. Together with him, they formed the first saṅgha: the company of Buddhist monks.

 

All five become arahants, and within the first two months, with the conversion of Yasa and fifty four of his friends, the number of such arahants is said to have grown to 60. The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, with their reputed 200, 300 and 500 disciples, respectively. This swelled the sangha to more than 1,000.For the remaining 45 years of his life, the Buddha is said to have traveled in the Gangetic Plain, in what is now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and southern Nepal, teaching a diverse range of people: from nobles to servants, murderers such as Angulimala, and cannibals such as Alavaka. Although the Buddha's language remains unknown, it's likely that he taught in one or more of a variety of closely related Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, of which Pali may be a standardization.

 

The sangha traveled through the subcontinent, expounding the dharma. This continued throughout the year, except during the four months of the Vāsanā rainy season when ascetics of all religions rarely traveled. One reason was that it was more difficult to do so without causing harm to animal life. At this time of year, the sangha would retreat to monasteries, public parks or forests, where people would come to them.The first vassana was spent at Varanasi when the sangha was formed. After this, the Buddha kept a promise to travel to Rajagaha, capital of Magadha, to visit King Bimbisara. During this visit, Sariputta and Maudgalyayana were converted by Assaji, one of the first five disciples, after which they were to become the Buddha's two foremost followers. The Buddha spent the next three seasons at Veluvana Bamboo Grove monastery in Rajagaha, capital of Magadha.

 

Upon hearing of his son's awakening, Suddhodana sent, over a period, ten delegations to ask him to return to Kapilavastu. On the first nine occasions, the delegates failed to deliver the message, and instead joined the sangha to become arahants. The tenth delegation, led by Kaludayi, a childhood friend of Gautama's (who also became an arahant), however, delivered the message.

 

Now two years after his awakening, the Buddha agreed to return, and made a two-month journey by foot to Kapilavastu, teaching the dharma as he went. At his return, the royal palace prepared a midday meal, but the sangha was making an alms round in Kapilavastu. Hearing this, Suddhodana approached his son, the Buddha, saying:

 

"Ours is the warrior lineage of Mahamassata, and not a single warrior has gone seeking alms."

 

The Buddha is said to have replied:

 

"That is not the custom of your royal lineage. But it is the custom of my Buddha lineage. Several thousands of Buddhas have gone by seeking alms."

 

Buddhist texts say that Suddhodana invited the sangha into the palace for the meal, followed by a dharma talk. After this he is said to have become a sotapanna. During the visit, many members of the royal family joined the sangha. The Buddha's cousins Ananda and Anuruddha became two of his five chief disciples. At the age of seven, his son Rahula also joined, and became one of his ten chief disciples. His half-brother Nanda also joined and became an arahant.

 

Of the Buddha's disciples, Sariputta, Maudgalyayana, Mahakasyapa, Ananda and Anuruddha are believed to have been the five closest to him. His ten foremost disciples were reputedly completed by the quintet of Upali, Subhoti, Rahula, Mahakaccana and Punna.

 

In the fifth vassana, the Buddha was staying at Mahavana near Vesali when he heard news of the impending death of his father. He is said to have gone to Suddhodana and taught the dharma, after which his father became an arahant.

 

The king's death and cremation was to inspire the creation of an order of nuns. Buddhist texts record that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women. His foster mother Maha Pajapati, for example, approached him, asking to join the sangha, but he refused. Maha Pajapati, however, was so intent on the path of awakening that she led a group of royal Sakyan and Koliyan ladies, which followed the sangha on a long journey to Rajagaha. In time, after Ananda championed their cause, the Buddha is said to have reconsidered and, five years after the formation of the sangha, agreed to the ordination of women as nuns. He reasoned that males and females had an equal capacity for awakening. But he gave women additional rules (Vinaya) to follow.Dhyana and insight[edit]

A core problem in the study of early Buddhism is the relation between dhyana and insight.[82][95][84] Schmithausen, in his often-cited article On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism notes that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the Rupa Jhanas, is a later addition to texts such as Majjhima Nikaya 36.[85][81][82]

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

19.9.10: Cofton Park, Birmingham

 

Lead, kindly light, amid the encircling gloom, lead thou me on!

The night is dark, and I am far from home; lead thou me on!

Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to see the distant scene,

One step enough for me.

 

I was not ever thus, nor prayed that thou shouldst lead me on;

I loved to choose and see my path; but now lead thou me on!

I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears, pride ruled my will.

Remember not past years!

 

So long thy power hath blest me, sure it still will lead me on.

O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,

And with the morn those angel faces smile,

Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.

 

John Henry Newman, The Pillar of the Cloud, 1833

 

The Beatification of John Henry Newman by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

Clifford Longley, in The Tablet (25.9.10), caught the mood of the Pope's visit to Britain perfectly:

 

There were two fifth columns that nobody had bargained for: ordinary British Catholics who decided spontaneously to stand up and be counted; and ordinary British people with open minds and sense of fair play. The former bought tickets for the set-piece events, some even giving up a night’s sleep to stand for hours in a wet and muddy field on the outskirts of Birmingham. The latter let curiosity and a desire to be touched by history move them to join Catholic crowds on the streets of Edinburgh, Glasgow and London to wait, watch and wave. The Catholic masses and the broader public formed a resonating feedback loop via the media, learning how to behave as bystanders on a papal route from what they saw others doing and feeling on television the night before. It was Diana moment.

 

By then there was nothing the protesters or the media could do to blow the Pope off course. They began to seem deaf to the zeitgeist. What could have been a papal disaster and national disgrace became for Pope Benedict, for the organisers, and above all for the ordinary people of Britain, Catholics included, a significant and memorable victory.

 

First prize goes to those feisty Catholic teenagers who seemed to be everywhere, laughing, having the time of their lives. Catholic, yes. But typical teenagers, very normal. “Pope Benedict, we love you more than beans on toast,” said one of their banners. They were loving it and saying so, with joyous exuberance at being near the Pope and being on the telly simultaneously. Whatever they were on, I wanted some.

 

Completely by chance, the TV cameras cut between these appealingly giddy young people in Hyde Park and the grim and serious business of “protesting the Pope”, as the opposition marchers called what they spent Saturday afternoon doing. It was Cavaliers versus Roundheads, and, televisually, no contest. No doubt the protesters spoke for many more, as the polls had suggested. But if voting was by one’s feet, the Cavalier party seemed to win by a factor of 20 or more. If I were Peter Tatchell, I would be a little bit embarrassed.

 

Their fundamental mistake, in order to correct the earlier error of sounding like bigoted anti-Catholics, was to try to separate Catholics from their Pope. It wasn’t the majority they were against, they said, just this one man and his outrageous opinions – which many Catholics disagreed with. That last bit may be half true, though this Pope’s teachings differ hardly at all from the last one’s. And when it comes to the list of anti-Pope grievances drawn up by Mr Tatchell – though not those of the ludicrous Richard Dawkins – there are bits here and there with which I can sympathise.

 

But the effect on me of their general nastiness was to want to go and join the Swiss Guard. Yet Pope Benedict himself is surely a bit of a Roundhead, a touch Puritan. His addresses were utterly serious, though brilliantly calculated to connect with many of the things the British are worried about. But if his thoughts didn’t appeal directly to the senses, the gorgeous sights and sounds certainly did. It was Charles II’s time again, rumbustious and slightly irreverent. Thank you, God, for teenagers.

 

More here.

 

On 19th September 2010, John Henry Newman was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI at Cofton Park in Birmingham.

 

Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not... We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them.

 

- Blessed John Henry, Cardinal Newman

 

We were at Cofton Park for Newman as much as we were for the Pope. I'm not the biggest fan of Benedict XVI or of the cult of hero worship, but Newman is for me one of the outstanding figures of the 19th Century; along with Darwin and Marx, he is one of the three great thinkers of that century. The three of them changed the way we understand the world, how we got here and where we are going.

 

What Darwin, Marx and Newman all had in common was that they devoted their lives to arguing theories of development. All three had a profound effect on how we lived our lives in the 20th century. Newman's theory was a theory of theological development. His starting point was to say: if we are imperfect, how can we possibly claim to truly know the mind of God?

 

As a young man, Newman had been an evangelical, believing in the literal truth of the Bible. As he matured, and realised this was not a possibility, he asked himself the big question: if we are literally incapable of posessing a knowledge of the mind of God, if we cannot understand exactly what it is that God is asking us to do, but we are still called on to seek perfection, then how does the revelation of that knowledge come about?

 

Newman decided it was the duty of the Church to be open to unfolding revelation, for each generation to continue the journey towards God in its own way. Some traditionalist Catholics are uncomfortable with the uncertainty of this, and ask the question "does this mean that some things we used to think were sinful are no longer sins?" In the words of the great Cardinal Hume, the answer is yes, I am afraid it does, because understanding of how sin may be realised is ultimately in the mind of imperfect man. Rather confusingly, Newman used the word 'Tradition' to explain the way the Church develops in response to this unfolding revelation.

 

Some of Newman's well-known sayings were projected on to the big screens at Cofton Park on Sunday, and one of my favourites went up just as the Pope was getting out of his helicopter: To grow is to change, and to become perfect is to change often. A little ironic perhaps, as one of the charges often levelled against this Pope by his fellow-Catholics is that he is intransigent and dogmatic - was it the spirit of Newman sending him a message, perhaps?

 

I think English Catholics have a love-hate relationship with Benedict XVI. He is a northern European, he's one of us, he thinks like us - but on the other hand he is such a deep intellectual that he doesn't engage in ordinary people's lives in the way that John Paul II did, even though John Paul II was in many ways a much more conservative Pope. JP2 is increasingly seen by history as providing a steady hand on the tiller at a time when the ship was entering uncertain waters, and I expect history's view of Benedict to be similar, that he kept the Conservatives on board at a time when the great outcry for change might have led to fragmentation.

 

I am also glad that there is at last a wider, public debate about the role of Faith in a civilised and secular society, and the relationship between Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason, although it needs to be conducted without hysteria. While I think the Church and the Pope are certainly patriarchal and authoritarian, I do not believe that either is homophobic. This seems to me a very serious charge, and quite inappropriate when addressing the real issues involved in the Catholic Church's understanding of homosexuality. The Church's teaching in the matter (with which I find much to disagree) is against non-creative sexual acts, and also against sexual acts outside of marriage. Thus, homosexuality is not taught to be sinful, but it is taught to be a disordered state. While I think this teaching is wrong, I also think that to describe it as 'homophobic', that is, the fear of homosexuality or the promotion of a hatred of homosexuality, is just plain wrong. I am not saying that homophobic Catholics do not exist, but I am not aware of ever having met one. Indeed, several of my openly gay friends are Mass-attending Catholics. This obviously isn't enough, but it is a better starting point.

 

Secondly, while I think that condoms have a role to play in fighting AIDS and other diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is a very complex one. Respect needs to be given to the Church's preference for other methods, and the resources it commits to employing them: education, building up respect for women, fighting to raise the social conditions in which the abuse of women thrives. To describe the Catholic Church's work in Africa as 'genocide', as one banner at the 'Protest the Pope' rally in London on Saturday did, is just plain daft.

 

The Catholic Church is crying out for change. Under John XXIII and Paul VI in the Sixties and Seventies there was a real sense of a pilgrim church on the move and open to the Holy Spirit. But I do not think this is currently the case. Perhaps Newman's beatification will open up the eyes of the Church again to the reality of its journey, who knows? Where there are difficulties with official Church teaching, most Catholics I know follow their prayerful consciences, as Newman said we must, in a spirit of loyal dissent. We think the Church's teaching on contraception and homosexuality is wrong - not because we think we are right, but because we think that ongoing revelation will lead to the teaching being developed and changed - to grow is to change, to become perfect is to change often.

 

It is good to see dissent, and it is good to see a public debate. It is right and proper that those protesting against the visit of the Pope in London on Saturday had the chance to make thier voices heard. Vatican officials are said to be amazed that 80,000 pilgrims and 10,000 protestors were able to go about their business in the same area of central London and there only be one arrest! I'd like to think it is a good example of English tolerance and fair play. But I am afraid that I do not like their leader, Professor Dawkins, at all. I think he is a fundamentalist, and I abhor fundamentalism in all its forms, whether Christian, Moslem, Socialist, Fascist or Atheist. He's an intelligent man, and really ought to know better. His spiteful and angry speech on Saturday - he was literally shaking with anger - was a world away from the spirit of peace, love and reconciliation that I felt around me at Cofton Park yesterday. Ultimately, it's all about Love.

There was never any doubt I would go to Rob's funeral. Rob was born just two weeks before me, and in our many meetings, we found we had so much in common.

 

A drive to Ipswich should be something like only two and a half hours, but with the Dartford Crossing that could balloon to four or more.

 

My choice was to leave early, soon after Jools left for work, or wait to near nine once rush hour was over. If I was up early, I'd leave early, I said.

 

Which is what happened.

 

So, after coffee and Jools leaving, I loaded my camera stuff in the car, not bothering to program in a destination, as I knew the route to Suffolk so well.

 

Checking the internet I found the M2 was closed, so that meant taking the M20, which I like as it runs beside HS2, although over the years, vegetation growth now hides most of it, and with Eurostar cutting services due to Brexit, you're lucky to see a train on the line now.

 

I had a phone loaded with podcasts, so time flew by, even if travelling through the endless roadworks at 50mph seemed to take forever.

 

Dartford was jammed. But we inched forward, until as the bridge came in sight, traffic moved smoothly, and I followed the traffic down into the east bore of the tunnel.

 

Another glorious morning for travel, the sun shone from a clear blue sky, even if traffic was heavy, but I had time, so not pressing on like I usually do, making the drive a pleasant one.

 

Up through Essex, where most other traffic turned off at Stanstead, then up to the A11 junction, with it being not yet nine, I had several hours to fill before the ceremony.

 

I stopped at Cambridge services for breakfast, then programmed the first church in: Gazeley, which is just in Suffolk on the border with Cambridgeshire.

 

I took the next junction off, took two further turnings brought be to the village, which is divided by one of the widest village streets I have ever seen.

 

It was five past nine: would the church be open?

 

I parked on the opposite side of the road, grabbed my bag and camera, limped over, passing a warden putting new notices in the parish notice board. We exchange good mornings, and I walk to the porch.

 

The inner door was unlocked, and the heavy door swung after turning the metal ring handle.

 

I had made a list of four churches from Simon's list of the top 60 Suffolk churches, picking those on or near my route to Ipswich and which piqued my interest.

 

Here, it was the reset mediaeval glass.

 

Needless to say, I had the church to myself, the centuries hanging heavy inside as sunlight flooded in filling the Chancel with warm golden light.

 

Windows had several devotional dials carved in the surrounding stone, and a huge and "stunningly beautiful piscina, and beside it are sedilia that end in an arm rest carved in the shape of a beast" which caught my eye.

 

A display in the Chancel was of the decoration of the wooden roof above where panels contained carved beats, some actual and some mythical.

 

I photographed them all.

 

I programmed in the next church, a 45 minute drive away just on the outskirts of Ipswich, or so I thought.

 

The A14 was plagued by roadworks, then most trunk roads and motorways are this time of year, but it was a fine summer morning, I was eating a chocolate bar as I drove, and I wasn't in a hurry.

 

I turned off at Claydon, and soon lost in a maze of narrow lanes, which brought be to a dog leg in the road, with St Mary nestling in a clearing.

 

I pulled up, got out and found the air full of birdsong, and was greeted by a friendly spaniel being taken for a walk from the hamlet which the church serves.

 

There was never any doubt that this would be open, so I went through the fine brick porch, pushed another heavy wooden door and entered the coolness of the church.

 

I decided to come here for the font, which as you can read below has quite the story: wounded by enemy action no less!

 

There seems to be a hagioscope (squint) in a window of the south wall, makes one think or an anchorite, but of this there is little evidence.

 

Samuel and Thomasina Sayer now reside high on the north wall of the Chancel, a stone skull between them, moved here too because of bomb damage in the last war.

 

I drove a few miles to the next church: Flowton.

 

Not so much a village as a house on a crossroads. And the church.

 

Nothing so grand as a formal board outside, just a handwritten sign say "welcome to Flowton church". Again, I had little doubt it would be open.

 

And it was.

 

The lychgate still stands, but a fence around the churchyard is good, so serves little practical purpose, other than to be there and hold the signs for the church and forthcoming services.

 

Inside it is simple: octagonal font with the floor being of brick, so as rustic as can be.

 

I did read Simon's account (below) when back outside, so went back in to record the tomb of Captain William Boggas and his family, even if part of the stone is hidden by pews now.

 

I had said to myself, that if I saw signs for another church, I might find time to visit. And so it was with Aldham, I saw the sign pointing down a narrow lane, so I turned and went to investigate.

 

First it looked like the road ended in a farmyard, but then I saw the flint round tower of the church behind, so followed the lane to the church gate.

 

There was a large welcoming sign stating, proudly, that the church is always open.

 

St Mary stands on a mound overlooking a shallow valley, water stand, or runs slowly, in the bottom, and it really is a fine, fine location for a church.

 

I pushed through the gate and went up the path to the south porch, where the door swung open once again.

 

The coolness within enveloped me.

 

An ancient font at the west end was framed by a brick-lined arch, even to my untrained eyes, I knew this was unusual.

 

There were some carved bench ends, some nice fairly modern glass, but the simplicity of the small church made for a very pleasant whole.

 

I no longer watch TV much, so was unaware of the view and indeed church being used in the TV show, The Detectorists.

 

One of Suffolk's hidden treasures, for sure.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

I cycle past this church often - or, at least, the top of the lane that leads down to it. Traffic rushes along the busy Ipswich to Sudbury road not far off, but there is a quieter, parallel road which not many people seem to know about. It leaves Ipswich through Sproughton and will take you all the way to Sudbury, visiting the likes of Burstall, Kersey and Little Waldingfield on the way. Aldham as a village is little more than a straggle of houses, but they lie along this road, and just beyond a cluster of houses you take a sudden turn to the left, on to a pretty track to Aldham Hall. Down through fruit trees you descend, until the walls become older, and there at the end are the farm buildings. Beyond them, is this pretty church.

 

If the church is pretty, the view from it is doubly so - to the south, the land drops away alarmingly, into a valley full of sheep. You may even think you recognise it, and you could well be right, for the second season of the popular TV series The Detectorists was filmed here, as a small display in the porch of the church reminds you. The church appeared in the opening credits of each programme, the two main characters searching for buried treasure in Aldham Vale below the churchyard.

 

This is lovely, and splendidly English. Nothing could be more peaceful. But beyond, the land rises to a dark sea of trees, the mysteriously named Wolves Wood, now an RSPB reserve. Looking along to the right, the other hilltop is where the Protestant preacher Roland Taylor was burned at the stake in the 1550s, a site of pilgrimage for his many American descendants. Whatever your reading of the English Reformation, Taylor's burning was a terrible event. One imagines the villagers gathered outside this church, watching the flames and smoke rise.

 

I remembered the first time I came here, back in the 1990s. We arrived on one of those humid, overcast summer days, on our way to the Bildeston Beer Festival. My young children scattered off to play hide and seek with their mother in the precipitous graveyard. An elderly man was pottering about, looking at 19th Century graves, so I apologised for my family (as you do). But he seemed genuinely pleased that they were running about like mad things. He was tracing his family, and had come down from Norfolk to look for a particular grave of an ancestor. And he'd found it. He was pretty pleased about that, too. He was also following up a theory that his ancestor had been a Rector of this parish. His address had been Aldham Rectory. Did I have any idea how he could find out? I suggested that the church might have a board of 'Rectors of this Parish'. Many do. These are a pleasant Victorianism, intended to overcome the 16th Century breach by claiming a history of the CofE that extended back before the Reformation. We could go inside, and take a look. And we did - the church was militantly open, the inner door wedged wide. We found the board - but the name wasn't there. So, the mystery remained unsolved.

 

This church was pretty well derelict by the mid 19th Century, and underwent a fairly late restoration, in 1883. The tower was rebuilt, as was the south wall of the nave. The roofs were replaced, giving an overwhelmingly Victorian appearance, although Sam Mortlock detected the Norman, and possibly Saxon, ancestor. The hill itself suggests a very early foundation, perhaps on a site of pagan worship.

 

The architect was WM Fawcett, and there was another restoration of the inside in the early 20th Century under the eyes of diocesan surveyor and renowned antiquarian H Munro Cautley. The resulting interior is one of those neat and shiny jobs that is certainly grand, and pleasant enough, but rather dated now. Our early 21st Century spirituality seems to respond more to dusty, ancient interiors than to these High Church ritualisations. But you get a sense of a church that is still much loved, well-cared for, and used regularly.

 

Aldham parish have gone one further than a wedged-open door, and a big sign has been erected at the bottom of the lane proclaiming that Our Church is Always Open, and so it is easy to step inside. And it is not without survivals, some of them fascinating. The benches are mostly Cautleys from the 1920s, but he incorporated a couple of earlier ones. These are unlike anything else I've seen in Suffolk, and their primitive quality suggests a local origin. The one to the west apparently shows a bear, or possibly a lion. My first impulse was that it was some kind of heraldic device, but what is the shaved off object it holds in its mouth, and is the pattern emerging from beneath the head really fur? Back in 1999, my six year old took one look at it and decided that the creature isn't eating the bird, but the bird is flying out of its mouth. Could it be a dove? And could the three objects issuing from beneath the head actually be tongues of fire? In which case, could this be some strange composition representing Pentecost, and the descent of the Holy Spirit?

 

In the spandrel above the bear, or whatever it is, there is a lily, the symbol of the Annunciation. But it is also a symbol of the crucifixion. It calls to mind the rare lily crucifixes, of which just two are known to survive in Suffolk, at Long Melford and Great Glemham. Could this be an unrecorded third? The other bench end is probably easier to read. The crown is obvious enough. The star and crescent are familiar from representations of the crucifixion. The pike is a familiar instrument of the Passion. And, if you look in the spandrel above, you'll see a crown of thorns, so this may well be a composition representing the Passion.

 

A third bench end, to the east, shows just a simple spiked tool, that looks as if it might have been used in thatching. So, what's it all about? They are all a bit of a mystery, really.

And what of the font? This is curious too. It appears to be Norman, but a second glance finds it too elegant, too finely detailed. The pillars are almost Classical in design, and the whole piece has a touch of the 18th Century about it. Was it brought here from somewhere else in the 1880s? Or is it a Victorian recutting of a Norman predecessor? Whatever, the revealed brickwork of the late medieval tower arch looks most fitting behind it.

 

To see Cautley's work in its full glory, step up into the chancel for the reredos and its flanking niches, as grand as a side-chapel in a French cathedral. Cautley was usually a safe pair of hands in these churches he loved so well, but I wonder what he had been thinking to impose this triumphalism on this pretty little country church. Alfred Wilkinson's contemporary glass above it suits it well, but even so it is rather hard to imagine the same thing happening today. Postdating it by a few decades is a set of arms for Elizabeth II above the south doorway. East Anglia has no more than half a dozen sets, and these ones are rather good.

 

Standing in the nave and looking east to the splendour of the reredos, it is hard to imagine the real glory that once was here. But John Nunn contacted me, to tell me about a will he has a copy of. In 1525, his ancestor Robert Clifford declared: I bequeath I will have the rood there upon the candlebeam set up higher and Mary & John and two new angels and the breast under the rood korvyn and when that is done I will have all this painted and guilt whatsoever the cost. I will have bought two standards of brass stand in the choir and I will my executors bestow therein 40/-. I will my executors shall buy four candlesticks of brass for the candlebeam, I give six kine unto the church of Aldham to keep my obit with as long as the world stand.

 

What does all this mean? Firstly, you have to remember that England was a devoutly Catholic country in 1525, and the fittings of the church were for the actions of the Catholic liturgy. In the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, all Suffolk churches had a rood in place. This was a representation of the crucifixion, set above the chancel arch. On the left hand side of the cross always stood the Virgin Mary, and on the other side stood St John. Often, the wall behind was painted. The rood either hung on the wall, or was supported by a beam. However, there was always a beam that ran below it for candles to be lit on. This was called the candlebeam, or rood beam. The candles were placed on it by individuals or guilds as part of the process of prayer, particularly prayer for the souls of the dead. A rood loft ran beside it for access, and the space beneath was infilled with a rood screen. To make the rood even more glorious, the roof above was panelled, and the panels were painted blue, with gold stars, and perhaps Marian monograms. This was called the canopy of honour, or more simply, the coving (rendered delightfully in Suffolk dialect as Korvyn above.)

 

Robert Clifford was paying for a simple rood to be made more glorious. He was going to have it placed higher, with a new canopy of honour. He was paying for brass candlesticks to replace wooden candlestocks.

 

Why? Simply, the medieval economy of grace depended upon the living praying for the dead, and the dead praying for the living. In donating glorious things to his church, Clifford was ensuring that he would be remembered. The roodscreen would have a dedicatory inscription with his name on. He was saying - I won't forget you, don't you forget me. The Catholic liturgy formalised prayers for the dead in the form of obit masses.These were said on the anniversary of someone's death in perpetuity. The proceeds of the sale of the six cows (kine) would be invested, probably in land to be rented, to pay a priest to say these masses - as long as the world shall stand; that is, for ever.

 

Unfortunately, 'for ever' didn't last very long. Prayers for the dead were declared illegal by the protestant reformers in the late 1530s. By 1547, every single rood in the land had been toppled and burned. The rood lofts were hacked down, along with many of the candle beams (although about ten beams survive in Suffolk) and most of the rood screens were also destroyed (about 50 survive in Suffolk).

 

Nothing of Robert Clifford's gifts survive at Aldham. All the gilt would have been stripped, the brass candlesticks melted down, and the proceeds sequestered by the King's commissioners. The collected glory of all the churches of England was squandered by Henry VIII on high living, and on the expensive and pointless siege of Boulogne. A sad thought.

 

When I first came here in 1999, I remember the graveyard was full of wild thyme and especially sorrel, which we gathered in handfuls and ate later in the day with fresh trout and new potatoes. Twenty years have passed since then, and it was too early for the sorrel this year. Instead I just stood, and looked out across the gentle valley, the sheep cropping their way slowly westward. It was easy to recognise the opening of The Detectorists in the vale below. And I looked beyond to Wolves Wood, and the site of Roland Taylor's martyrdom. Hard to imagine such history happening to such a modest little parish.

  

Simon Knott, March 2019

 

www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/aldham.htm

Holy Family and St Michael, Kesgrave, Ipswich, Suffolk

 

A new entry on the Suffolk Churches site.

 

There are ages of faith which leave their traces in splendour and beauty, as acts of piety and memory. East Anglia is full of silent witnesses to tides which have ebbed and flowed. Receding, they leave us in their wake great works from the passing ages, little Norman churches which seem to speak a language we can no longer understand but which haunts us still, the decorated beauty of the 14th Century at odds with the horrors of its pestilence and loss, the perpendicular triumph of the 15th Century church before its near-destruction in the subsequent Reformation and Commonwealth, the protestant flowering of chapels and meeting houses in almost all rural communities, and most obvious of all for us today the triumphalism of the Victorian revival.

 

But even as tides recede, piety and memory survive, most often in quiet acts and intimate details. The catholic church of Holy Family and St Michael at Kesgrave is one of their great 20th Century treasure houses.

 

At the time of the 1851 census of religious worship, Kesgrave was home to just 86 people, 79 of whom attended morning service that day, giving this parish the highest percentage attendance of any in Suffolk. However, they met half a mile up the road at the Anglican parish church of All Saints, and the current site of Holy Family was then far out in the fields. In any case, it is unlikely that any of the non-attenders was a Catholic. Today, Kesgrave is a sprawling eastern suburb of Ipswich, home to about 10,000 people. It extends along the A12 corridor all the way to Martlesham, which in turn will take you pretty much all the way to Woodbridge without seeing much more than a field or two between the houses.

 

Holy Family was erected in the 1930s, and serves as a chapel of ease within the parish of Ipswich St Mary. However, it is still in private ownership, the responsibility of the Rope family, who, along with the Jolly family into which they married, owned much of the land in Kesgrave that was later built on.

 

The growth of Kesgrave has been so rapid and so extensive in these last forty years that radical expansions were required at both this church and at All Saints, as well as to the next parish church along in the suburbs at Rushmere St Andrew. All of these projects are interesting, although externally Holy Family is less dramatic than its neighbours. It sits neatly in its trim little churchyard, red-brick and towerless, a harmonious little building if rather a curious shape, of which more in a moment. Beside it, the underpass and roundabout gives it a decidedly urban air. But this is a church of outstanding interest, as we shall see.

 

It was good to come back to Kesgrave. As a member of St Mary's parish I generally attended mass at the parish's other church, a couple of miles into town, but I had been here a number of times over the years, either to mass or just to wander around and sit for a while. These days, you generally approach the church from around the back, where you'll find a sprawling car park typical of a modern Catholic church. To the west of the church are Lucy House and Philip House, newly built for the work of the Rope family charities. Between the car park and the church there there is a tiny, formal graveyard, with crosses remembering members of the Rope and Jolly families.

 

Access to the church is usually through a west door these days, but if you are fortunate enough to enter through the original porch on the north side you will have a foretaste of what is to come, for to left and right are stunning jewel-like and detailed windows depicting St Margaret and St Theresa on one side and St Catherine and the Immaculate Conception on the other. Beside them, a plaque reveals that the church was built to the memory of Michael Rope, who was killed in the R101 airship disaster of 1930.

 

Blue Peter-watching boys like me, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, were enthralled by airships. They were one of those exciting inventions of a not-so-distant past which were, in a real sense, futuristic, a part of the 1930s modernist project that imagined and predicted the way we live now. And they were just so big. But they were doomed, because the hydrogen which gave them their buoyancy was explosive.

 

As a child, I was fascinated by the R101 airship and its disaster, especially because of that familiar photograph of its wrecked and burnt-out fuselage sprawled in the woods on a northern French hillside. It is still a haunting photograph today. The crash of the R101 put an end to airship development in the UK for more than half a century.

 

Of course, this is all ancient history now, but in the year 2001 I had the excellent fortune to be shown around Holy Family by Michael Rope's widow, Mrs Lucy Doreen Rope, née Jolly, who was still alive, and then in her nineties. She was responsible for the building of this church as a memorial to her husband. We paused in the porch so that I could admire the windows. "Do you like them?" Mrs Rope asked me. "Of course, my sister-in-law made them."

 

Her sister-in-law, of course, was Margaret Agnes Rope, who in the first half of the twentieth century was one of the finest of the Arts and Craft Movement stained glass designers. She studied at Birmingham, and then worked at the Glass House in Fulham with her cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, whose work is also here. But their work can be found in churches and cathedrals all over the world. What Mrs Rope did not tell me, and what I found out later, is that these two windows in the porch were made for her and her husband Michael as a wedding present.

 

Doreen Jolly and Michael Rope were married in 1929. Within a year, he was dead. Mrs Rope was just 23 years old.

 

The original church from the 1930s is the part that you step into. You enter to the bizarre sight of a model of the R101 airship suspended from the roof. The nave altar and tabernacle ahead are in the original sanctuary, and you are facing the liturgical east (actually south) of the original building, and what an intimate space this must have been before the church was extended. Red brick outlines the entrance to the sanctuary, and here are the three windows made by Margaret Rope for the original church. The first is the three-light sanctuary window, depicting the Blessed Virgin and child flanked by St Joseph and St Michael. Two doves sit on a nest beneath Mary's feet, while a quizzical sparrow looks on. St Michael has the face of Michael Rope. The inscription beneath reads Pray for Michael Rope who gave up his soul to God in the wreck of His Majesty's Airship R101, Beauvais, October 5th 1930.

 

Next, a lancet in the right-hand side of the sanctuary contains glass depicting St Dominic, with a dog running beneath his feet and the inscription Laudare, Benedicere, Praedicare, ('to praise, to bless, to preach'). The third window is in the west wall of the church (in its day, the right hand side of the nave), depicting St Thomas More and St John Fisher, although at the time the window was made they had not yet been canonised. The inscription beneath records that the window was the gift of a local couple in thankfulness for their conversion to the faith for which the Blessed Martyrs Thomas More and John Fisher gave their lives. A rose bush springs from in front of the martyrs' feet.

 

By the 1950s, Holy Family was no longer large enough for the community it served, and it was greatly expanded to the east to the designs of the archtect Henry Munro Cautley. Cautley was a bluff Anglican of the old school, the retired former diocesan architect of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, but he would have enjoyed designing a church for such an intimate faith community, and in fact it was his last major project before he died in 1959. The original sanctuary was retained as a blessed sacrament chapel, and the church was turned ninety degrees to face east for the first time. The north and south sides of the new church received three-light Tudor windows in the style most beloved by Cautley, as seen also at his Ipswich County Library in Northgate Street, and the former Fosters (now Lloyds) Bank in central Cambridge.

 

Although the Rope family had farmed at Blaxhall near Wickham Market for generations, Margaret Rope herself was not from Suffolk at all, and nor was she at first a Catholic. She was born in Shrewsbury in 1882, the daughter of Henry Rope, a surgeon at Shrewsbury Infirmary, and a son of the Blaxhall Rope family. The largest collection of Margaret Rope's glass is in Shrewsbury Cathedral. When Margaret was 17, her father died. The family were received into the Catholic church shortly afterwards. A plaque was placed in the entrance to Shrewsbury Infirmary to remember her father. When the hospital was demolished in the 1990s, the plaque was moved to here, and now sits in the north aisle of the 1950s church. In her early days in London Margaret Rope designed and made the large east window at Blaxhall church as a memorial to her grandparents. It features her younger brother Michael, and is believed to be the only window that she ever signed.

 

In her early forties, Margaret Rope took holy orders and entered the Carmelite Convent at nearby Woodbridge, but continued to produce her stained glass work until the community moved to Quidenham in Norfolk, when poor health and the distances involved proved insurmountable. She died there in 1953, and so she never saw the expanded church. Her cartoons, the designs for her windows, are placed on the walls around Holy Family. Some are for windows in churches in Scotland and Wales, one for a window in the English College in Rome. Among them are the roundels for within the enclosure of Tyburn Convent in London. "They had to remove the windows there during the War", said Mrs Rope. "Of course, with me, you have to ask which war!"

 

Turning to the east, we see the new sanctuary with its high altar, completed in 1993 as part of a further reordering and expansion, which gave a large galilee porch, kitchen and toilets to the north side of the church. The window above the new sanctuary has three lights, and the two outer windows were made by Margaret Rope for the chapel of East Bergholt convent to the south of Ipswich. They remember the Vaughan family, into which Margaret Rope's sister had married, and in particular one member, a sister in the convent, to celebrate her 25 year jubilee.

 

The convent later became Old Hall, a famous commune. They depict the prophet Isaiah and King David.

 

The central light between them is controversial. Produced in the 1990s and depicting the risen Christ, it really isn't very good, and provides the one jarring note in the church. It is rather unfortunate that it is in such a prominent position. It is not just the quality of the design that is the problem. It lets in too much light in comparison with the two flanking lights. "The glass in my sister-in-law's windows is half an inch thick", Mrs Rope told me. "In the workshop at Fulham they had a man who came in specially to cut it for them". The glass in the modern light is simply too thin.

 

Despite the 1990s extension, and as so often in modern urban Catholic churches, Holy Family is already not really big enough, although it is hard to see that there could ever be another expansion. We walked along Munro Cautley's south aisle, and at that time the stations of the cross were simple wooden crosses. However, about three months after my conversation with Mrs Rope, the World Trade Centre in New York was attacked and destroyed, and among the three thousand people killed were two local Kesgrave brothers who were commemorated with a new set of stations in cast metal.

 

Here also is a 1956 memorial window by Margaret Rope's cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, to Mrs Rope's mother Alice Jolly, depicting the remains of the shrine at Walsingham and the Jolly family at prayer before it. Another MEA Rope window is across the church in the galilee, a Second World War memorial window, originally on the east side of the first church before Cautley's extension. It depicts three of the English Martyrs, Blessed Anne Lynne, Blessed Robert Southwell and Blessed John Robinson, as well as the shipwreck of Blessed John Nutter off of Dunwich, with All Saints church on the cliffs above.

 

The galilee is designed for families with young children to play a full part in mass, and is separated from the church by a glass screen. At the top of the screen is a small panel by Margaret Rope which is of particular interest because it depicts her and her family participating in the Easter vigil, presumably in Shrewsbury Cathedral. This is hard to photograph because it is on an internal window between two rooms.

 

A recent addition to the Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope windows here is directly opposite, newly installed on the south side of the nave. It was donated by her great-nephew. It depicts a nativity scene, the Holy Family in the stable at Bethlehem, an angel appearing to shepherds on the snowy hills beyond. It is perhaps her loveliest window in the church.

 

Finally, back across the church. Here, beside the brass memorial to Margaret Rope, is a window depicting the Blessed Virgin and child, members of the Rope family in the Candlemas procession beneath. The inscription reminds us to pray for the soul of Sister Margaret of the Mother of God, mistress of novices and stained glass artist, Monastery of the Magnificat of the Mother of God, Quidenham, Norfolk, entered Carmel 14th September 1923, died 6th December 1953. Sister Margaret of the Mother of God was, of course, Margaret Rope herself. She was buried in the convent at Quidenham, a Shrewsbury exile at rest in the East Anglian soil of her forebears. The design is hers, and the window was made by her cousin Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope.

 

Back in 2001, we were talking about the changing Church, and I asked Mrs Rope what she thought about the recently introduced practice of transferring Holy Days on to the nearest Sunday, so that the teaching of them was not lost. Mrs Rope approved, a lady clearly not stuck in the past. She had a passion for ensuring that the Faith could be shared with children. As we have seen, her church is designed so that young families can take a full part in the Mass. But she was sympathetic to the distractions of the modern age. "The world is so exciting for children these days", she said. "I think it must be difficult to bring them up with a sense of the presence of God." She smiled. "Mind you, my son is 70 now! And I do admire young girls today. They have such spirit!"

 

She left me to potter about in her wonderful treasure house. As I did so, I thought of medieval churches I have visited, which were similarly donated by the Mrs Ropes of their day, perhaps even for husbands who had died young. They not only sought to memorialise their loved ones, but to consecrate a space for prayer, that masses might be said for the souls of the dead. This was the Catholic way, a Christian duty. Before the Reformation, this was true in every parish in England. It remained true here at Kesgrave.

 

And finally, back outside to the small graveyard. Side by side are two crosses. One remembers Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, artist, 1891-1988. The other remembers Lucy Doreen Rope, founder of this church, 1907-2003.

Christ is Coming!

Bible Teaching About His Return

  

* New Testament Teaching

* Other New Testament Writings

* Old Testament Teaching

* The Kingdom of God

* Behold Your King!

* Dual Fulfillment

* The Times and Seasons

* Antichrist

* Tribulation

* The Nation of Sign

* The "Rapture"

* The Lord will Come!

* Take Heed to Yourselves

 

It was once fashionable in religious circles to say that Jesus Christ would never return to the earth. There are still plenty of professing Christians who believe that. But there are now many others who have come to believe that the Second Coming is a very important event.

 

Christadelphians have always taught that the Return of Jesus Christ to the earth is vital to the fulfillment of the purpose of God. This booklet reviews Bible teaching about the Second Coming, both the events that will lead up to that miracle and the reason for the Lord's Return.

 

New Testament Teaching

Someone has counted the New Testament references to this great event, and they number 318 occurrences! If you reflect that the number of times the word for Christian love occurs is only 115, you will begin to see the importance of this topic. Nor is it simply the case that only one or two New Testament writers refer to the matter in their writings. Treatment of the subject is widely spread.

 

Jesus spoke often about the Kingdom of God and his Second Coming. His parables, for example, were told to those who thought the Kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He was like a nobleman who had to go "into a far country to receive for himself a Kingdom and to return" (Luke 19:12). More than once he spoke of the Coming of the Son of Man (e.g. Matthew 24:27,30,37,39,48; 25:27; 26:64). And when he assured his disciples of his continuing spiritual, but invisible, presence "even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20), he inferred that then he would be visibly present with them for ever.

 

The testimony of the Apostles was equally plain. They had been clearly taught by the Risen Lord who, during the forty days before his ascension into heaven, instructed them about the Kingdom of God, the restored kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:3,6). It was the opening theme of his post-resurrection appearances that all the Old Testament promises were coming to their fulfillment in him (Luke 24:27). At the time of his ascension, as he was being taken up from the Mount of Olives into the clouds, God sent His angels to explain.

 

"Ye men of Galilee", they said to the watching apostles, "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11).

 

It is not therefore surprising that when the Apostles began to teach in the streets of Jerusalem, they said that their Lord Jesus Christ was to return to the earth as King. Peter gave the lead when he boldly announced that the grave could not keep Jesus imprisoned. He referred his hearers to a statement in Psalm 110:1, used also by his Lord, to show that he had gone to heaven only until his enemies have been subdued (2:34,35). Note the authoritative use of the Old Testament.

 

But also note a vital point. Bible teaching is never given just for the sake of informing us what happens next. It always has a deeper intention, for we are meant to use the knowledge it confers to prepare ourselves for those coming events:

 

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ . . . Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:36,38).

 

It should follow that our consideration of Bible truth concerning the Return of the Lord should also cause us to search our hearts.

 

Other New Testament Writings

But what of the writings of other New Testament authors? Let us look at just one of the New Testament letters, the First written by Paul to the Thessalonians. Notice how he centers his entire message on the truth of the personal return to the earth of the Lord:

 

"wait for his Son from heaven . . . which delivereth us from the wrath to come" (1:10);

"what is our hope or joy? Are not ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (2:19);

"he may stablish your hearts unblameable . . . at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints" (3:13);

"the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout" (4:16);

"the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night" (5:2);

"I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (5:23).

 

You could try extending this investigation, if you wish. The emphasis on the Lord's Coming continues in all the New Testament letters, but it is always related to practical Christian living. Because the Lord is coming again, there were matters in their lives that required attention! And it is so for us.

 

Old Testament Teaching

The same person who counted 318 references in the New Testament extended the search to the Old Testament, and discovered 1,527 such references to an event in God's purpose which can be no other than the Coming of Christ as King. Let it be clear that the exact number is unimportant; there is always room for some difference of opinion about the occasional passage. But it is perhaps startling to some readers to consider that there could be five times as many references to the Second Coming in a part of the Bible which has suffered widely from neglect over the years.

 

The fact of the matter is this: the New Testament can only be understood once the Old Testament has also been studied. The two Testaments belong together as interdependent parts of God's revealed truth. What the Old Testament foretells the New Testament fulfils, in part. But a very large amount of Old Testament prophecy remains unfulfilled.

 

Consider these promises of a King who will reign over God's Kingdom on earth, and ask yourself whether they have ever been fulfilled:

GENESIS: "Thy seed (a descendant of Abraham) shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (22:17,18; see Acts 3:25; Galatians 3:16).

2 SAMUEL: "And when thy days (David) be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed (descendant) after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house (a Temple) for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (7:12,13).

PSALMS: "The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession" (2:7,8; see Acts 4:25,26);

"He (the promised king) . . . shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" (72:6-8).

ISAIAH: "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house (His Temple) shall be established in the top of the mountains (at Jerusalem) . . . and all nations shall flow unto it . . . for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations" (2:2-4);

"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever" (9:7);

JEREMIAH: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch (descendant), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (23:5,6).

 

The Kingdom of God

Many times God has promised that He will rule the earth. What man has failed time and again to achieve, God will establish. The King will be a descendant of both Abraham and David (see Matthew 1:1). He will rule from Jerusalem, on David's throne (see Luke 1:31-33). His Kingdom will be one of justice and righteousness; it will involve Divine education, Temple worship, and the exercise of Kingly power to establish peace on earth (see Revelation 11:15-18).

 

The Kingdom of God was once before established on earth. King David and his descendants reigned upon the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord (1 Chronicles 28:5). There was nothing special about the throne itself. The Divine appointment was what mattered and when king after king had neglected God's law, He brought that arrangement to an end. But even when the prophet Ezekiel announced the end of the Kingdom to King Zedekiah (in 21:25-27), he promised that God would restore the Kingdom on earth when he should "come whose right it is".

 

The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth has therefore to be understood against that powerful Old Testament background. When Jesus began his public ministry by announcing that the Kingdom of God was at hand (Mark 1:15), he was saying to those who knew the Old Testament promises that he was the promised King. But Jesus had first come to achieve personal righteousness, and to make it possible for others to become right with God.

 

It is now possible for us to find peace with God through the forgiveness of our sins, by association with the saving work of the Lord Jesus. First we have to understand the Gospel, including Bible teaching about the work and person of the Lord Jesus, and the Kingdom over which he is now the King. Then we have to be baptized as believing adults into his saving Name (see Acts 8:1 2).

 

Behold Your King!

But what is the Second Coming of the Lord going to be like? For example, would it be possible to miss it altogether and not even be aware that it had occurred? Will it be visible or invisible? Will Jesus be there in person or merely a spiritual presence? And will he come to the earth or only towards the earth?

 

Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave. He was not an invisible spirit creature but One who could be seen, handled and held (1 John 1:1; Luke 24:39,40). His body was marked by the evidence of his suffering on the cross. Yet he was no longer subject to the limitations of human existence. He could come and go despite locked doors, and on Mount Olivet he ascended bodily to heaven, defying the law of gravity. The disciples had seen him go; he would return visibly. As the angel later said: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelation 1:7). Or as Zechariah the Old Testament prophet had predicted, long before the crucifixion, "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him" (12:10).

 

So it will not do to say that only those who look with faith will see the Lord. Some will look, see, and mourn (Revelation 1:7). Nor will it do to say that Jesus will come invisibly, for the Lord himself warned:

 

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets . . ." (Matthew 24:23,24).

 

Nor will it do to argue that the Bible talks of the presence of the Lord, meaning that it will be an invisible one. The New Testament also talks about the revelation of the Lord, using a word that means uncovering or manifesting. In fact, the presence (Greek: parousia) of the Lord turns out to be an especially suitable term. One of the most authoritative Greek Lexicons available says of the word:

 

"It became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, especially of kings and emperors visiting a province" (Arndt and Gingrich).

 

It is such a visit by a King that the Scriptures foretell. The crowds who welcomed King Jesus into Jerusalem when he sat astride a donkey and they threw coats and' palm branches before him, shouted out greetings that referred right back to the Promises of God: "Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mark 11:10). Matthew comments that the rejoicing was a foretaste of what had been forecast by Zechariah the prophet, when he wrote "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee".

 

Now if the initial royal visit was attended by such joy and rejoicing, consider what the next one will be like! The prophet had declared:

 

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation. . . and he shall speak peace unto the heathen; and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth" (Zechariah 9:9,10).

 

Dual Fulfillment

This Scripture illustrates a widely used feature of Bible prophecy: its joint short and long-term character. Jerusalem rejoiced at the Kingly coming of Jesus -- "Lowly and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" -- just as the prophet had said. But their joy was short-lived, for he did not then go on to establish worldwide peace, or commence to rule from Jerusalem over a Kingdom that was to last for ever. Jesus completed enough of the prophecy at that time to demonstrate that he was the Coming One, and to give us confidence that he will return to complete the promised transformation of the earth. Zechariah compressed the two comings in such a way that there appeared to be no interval between them. This has led some people to argue that the Kingdom will never come, because, they say, even Jesus expected it in the First Century, or at most shortly afterwards. It has thus been dismissed by some as an early Christian hope, which has now been superseded by a superior understanding. But when all the Scriptures are studied carefully, it becomes clear that the Coming of Jesus was not to occur immediately after his ascension to heaven. The Day and the Hour

Any attempt to show that Jesus was mistaken about the time of his Coming is doomed to failure. He clearly stated, more than once, that he did not know:

 

"Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (Matthew 24:36).

 

As he later said, this was something that the Father had reserved within His own authority (Acts 1:7). But Jesus did know that some long time would elapse before his Second Coming. He told parables to indicate that his coming would not "immediately appear" (Luke 1 9:11), that it would be "after a long time" (Matthew 25:19), and that there might be some delay for those who were waiting (25:3). Like their Lord, his followers were to appreciate that they could "not know what hour" he would come.

 

The apostles also acknowledged that they could not know the precise time of the great event for which they waited. Peter warned about people who would scoff, as so many have, at the "promise of his coming" (2 Peter 3:4). Indeed he poured scorn on their faithlessness, what he called "willful ignorance" -- people believing what they wanted to believe, regardless of the evidence. And Paul was in no doubt either, for he went on record as saying:

 

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh . . ." (1 Thessalonians 5:1,2).

 

Can you complete that quotation? It holds the key to two vital matters concerning the early return of the King. Notice first what the verse above says. There would be general indications available -- what Paul calls "times and seasons" -- which would help keep the believers prepared. And the verse continues:

 

". . . the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night."

 

When it happens the Lord's Coming will be swift, sudden and unexpected. No-one expects thieves to strike. But they often succeed because people overlook the dangers. It is also the case that speed is vital to a successful robbery, which is why the figure is used by Jesus (Matthew 24:43), Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:2), and Peter (2 Peter

 

3:10), to emphasise the vital point. We must be on our guard, watchful, prepared, vigilant. The Lord could come at any time! He will come when we least expect him!

 

The Times and Seasons

That is why when Jesus explained what was to happen before his Return, he very carefully emphasised the need for watchfulness. Sitting with his disciples one day on the Mount of Olives, from where he would later ascend to heaven, he gave them some general indications of what was to happen prior to his "coming and the end of the world" (Matthew 24:3). This prophecy presents a fascinating challenge, for it combines a short-term prediction about the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, with a long-term forecast of world events.

 

A list of the predicted events in the three Gospel accounts (Matthew 24, Mark 1 3 and Luke 24), which does not claim to be a structured sequence of prophetic events, shows the following:

 

1. The rise of false Christianity and false Christs

2. The persecution of true Christians.

3. Wars and rumors of wars, nation against nation.

4. Earthquakes, famines and pestilences.

5. Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

6. The Jewish nation dispersed.

7. Jerusalem in non-Jewish occupation.

8. Tribulation and distress.

9. Signs in the sun, moon and stars.

10. The powers of heaven shaken.

 

Notice how believers are warned about the rise and growth of false Christianity. It is the Lord's first concern. His words were fulfilled by the rapid development of wrong teaching in New Testament times (e.g. Acts 20:29), and are being fulfilled again at the close of this age. Elsewhere the message is that the true believers will comprise a very small remnant, compared with those who hold a distorted form of Christianity.

 

Antichrist

The apostles also warn about this development. Paul was emphatic that there would be manifestations of false Christianity, for he prophesied that the Day of the Lord:

 

"shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped" (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4).

 

The apostle Paul describes the man of sin in language that refers back to the prophet Daniel, who accurately foretold the rise and fall of four empires that exercised power in the Middle East. He traced the development from them to a false religious system, involving the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy, that is opposed to Christ and his true followers. This is counterfeit Christianity, and the apostle Paul describes it as "the mystery of iniquity" which was already at work, and "a strong delusion".

 

The other thread of teaching in the Lord's catalogue of future events concerned trouble. There were to be wars and rumors of wars, both within and between nations; there would be natural disasters and widespread hardship, earthquakes, famines and epidemics; terrors and fearful sights would be in the heavens, causing much fear and distress. People would not know which way to turn for fear of what was about to happen on earth.

 

To some extent these problems are as old as man. The tendency to war against one another is evident even in the first book of the Bible, and famine features there too. But even within Bible history the atrocities of which man is capable become increasingly ugly, and since then even more widespread horrors have been seen. The powers now available to mankind are enough to make any sane person fear for the future. More than ever before, these words of Jesus are coming true:

 

"There shall be . . . upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory" (Luke 21:25-27).

 

Tribulation

The reference to the sea and waves roaring, like others to signs in the sun, moon and stars, may be either symbolic or literal or some combination of both. The prophet Isaiah, for example, wrote about the wicked being "like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt" (57:20). Jesus may have been drawing upon such imagery to describe a world that was full of trouble because it was full of wickedness. He may also have been teaching us to look out for some upheaval of the physical order, like tidal waves, which would also be an indication of the end of the age. Certainly there have been many earthquakes and natural disasters over the past few years, all over the world. The apostle Paul described the whole world order as groaning and travailing in pain (Romans 8:22), like a woman waiting to be delivered of a child. It is thus evident that our present troubles are the birthpangs of a new and better world, soon to begin.

 

In both Testaments we are told that the tribulation that will come at the end of human government is the final herald of the Second Coming. It will be:

 

"a time of trouble such as never was" (Daniel 12:1);

"the time of Jacob's (Israel's) trouble" (Jeremiah 30:7);

"great tribulation" (Matthew 24:21).

 

Will the believers waiting for their Lord have to suffer this trouble, or will they be spared? The likelihood is that present-day believers will live through this time of trouble, indeed that they have already begun to do so. Jesus promised that for the elect's sake that time would be shortened (Mark 13:20). But those who finally stand approved before the Judge are those "which came out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14).

 

As that trouble increases, and God pours out His wrath upon the earth, there are indications that true believers will be sheltered from that outpouring. Isaiah describes the great shake-up of human society when God intervenes:

 

"Come, my people, enter into thy chambers. . . hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity" (24:18-23, 26:20,21).

 

We must therefore consider carefully what Jesus said:

 

"When these things (the signs of which he spoke) begin to come to pass, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21:28).

 

We should not wait until total disaster has struck, and there is no escape route left. It is better to learn the lesson now, that this is the time immediately before the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The Nation of Sign

There is one great sign which removes all doubt concerning his imminent return. The nation of Israel is back occupying the land promised by God. The history of the Jewish nation has been a guide throughout the ages to the outworking of God's purposes. They were called as a special people, because of the great promises that had been made to their Fathers. They were given the right to occupy the land we now know as Israel, conditional upon their faithful obedience to God. They were the people whose kings occupied the throne of God's Kingdom on earth.

 

They forfeited these rights when, after centuries of indifference, they not only refused to accept the Lord Jesus as their Messiah, but were involved, with the Romans, in effecting his death by crucifixion. Because of that rejection, Jerusalem was overthrown. Throughout the intervening centuries Jews have wandered the earth as a stateless people, hated and persecuted almost everywhere they went, just as Scripture said they would be.

 

But Scripture also forecast a better future for this nation of sign, not because they would change their behavior and live to deserve better treatment, but because God would take pity on their plight and act to redeem them. He would remember the promises made of old to the Fathers and act to vindicate His great name. At the time of the end they would be brought back from the nations and once more be settled in their own land-the land of promise! So the prophets said:

ISAIAH: "The remnant shall return . . the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion" (10:21; 35:10).

JEREMIAH: "He that scattered Israel will gather him" (31:10).

EZEKIEL: "I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries . . . then shall they dwell in their land . . . yea, they shall dwell with confidence" (11:17; 28:25,26).

ZECHARIAH: "I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem" (8:8).

 

And so it came to pass. After nearly two thousand years of dispersion and down-treading, in 1948 the State of Israel was born by the decree of the United Nations, and in 1 967 the whole of Jerusalem was repossessed by Jews. It had taken all that time for the words of Jesus to be fulfilled:

 

"They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).

 

Everything now indicates that the Times of the Gentiles are rapidly drawing to a close and the Time of the Kingdom of God is once more at hand. The bringing together of troublous times and the return of the Jews to the Land removes any doubt. Shortly King Jesus will return to Jerusalem as World Ruler, to reign over Israel and over all nations. Of all the available Signs of the Times given by Jesus and the prophets, the establishment of Israel-the Nation of Sign-is the clearest witness that the End is now at hand.

 

The "Rapture"

What then awaits the faithful follower of Jesus? Can he expect to go to heaven with the Lord at his Return? Hardly, for the Lord is coming to reign on earth, from Jerusalem. An elaborate scheme has been devised by some Bible readers which requires not one Coming but two. According to this, Christ's Coming would be first for the Church only and would be a secret "rapture". He would come again with the Church, for the world, and this would be visible and public. In some versions of this theory the interval between the two comings is very small; in others as much as seven years is thought to separate the two events.

 

There is very little Scripture that can be used to attempt to support these theories, for whilst there are some indications that a separation will occur between companions when Jesus comes (Luke 17:34-36), the main teaching about the circumstances of the Return is that given in Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians:

 

"The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (4:16,17).

 

The phrase caught up is that from which the whole idea of a rapture has evolved; and the links with a supposed seven year period of tribulation have been achieved by the unsatisfactory interpretation of other Scriptures, especially from the Revelation. Clearly there is to be a catching away of true believers, both of the living and the resurrected dead, "to meet the Lord in the air". They are to form a welcoming party who, with the angels who attend his coming, will make up his entourage. But they go to meet him, not he them. And their destination is made clear in the Scriptures already considered: the Lord and his followers are bound for Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4), "the city of the great king" (Matthew 5:35).

 

The Lord will come!

In these dying moments of human government, the powers of heaven will be shaken as men's hearts fail them for fear. The nations will be engaged in a battle around Jerusalem. Then the Lord will come! Unexpectedly, suddenly, in great power and glory, bringing salvation for those who have faithfully waited and prepared for this central event in their lives; but bringing judgement upon all those who have wilfully ignored the faithful promises and gracious invitation of God:

 

"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power: when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe" (2 Thessalonians 1:9,10).

 

It is vital therefore that we believe what the Bible so clearly promises. We cannot simply "wait and see", because Jesus is coming to save those who already believe, not to give reasons for faith to those who have had clear evidence, but no inclination for the things of God.

 

When the Lord spoke to his followers about his eventual return to earth, he focused their attention more on the consequences of his Coming than on the sequence of events itself. To this day we cannot know for sure when Jesus will come. But we know perfectly clearly that when he comes he will call us to account, and ask us how we spent our lives on the eve of his return:

 

"Take heed . . . be not led astray . . . be not troubled . . . take heed to yourselves . . . preach the gospel . . . be not anxious . . . endure to the end . . . flee . . . pray . . . believe not false prophets . . . take heed . . . look up and lift up your heads . . . take heed to yourselves . . . watch . . . BE READY" (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).

 

The apostles make the very same points as they reflect on the nearness of the Lord's Return.

 

"What manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness . . . be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (2 Peter 3:11-14).

 

"Denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:12,13).

 

"When he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man who has this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (1 John 3:2,3).

 

Take Heed to Yourselves

The Bible is our guidebook to the future, just as it is our handbook for the present. It alone will show us what God wants us to do. From it we can learn God's purpose and promises. The first thing is to understand and believe those things that are true. We shall then come to appreciate the need for obedience to God, starting with baptism. And thus we shall be doing what Jesus commanded.

 

The coming Kingdom of God on earth will transform human experience. We need to learn to live now in harmony with our Creator. The Lord is at hand! It is now an urgent matter for us all to examine our lives, so that we are properly prepared for the Coming of the King.

Enter Pentecostal Chat Room

 

<http://ashcraftministry.blogspot.com/

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

former site of the Shrine of Our Lady of Ipswich, Lady Lane, Ipswich

 

On January 8th, 1297, a royal wedding took place in Ipswich. Princess Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward I, married the Count of Holland. Fitch, in his annals, records that Edward I stayed in the town for the ceremony with 'a splendid court', and that the three minstrels were paid 50s each for their services.The wedding took place, not in any of the parish churches of the town, but in one of England's major shrines of Marian pilgrimage; a shrine to which we may presume Edward I had a special devotion. This was the Shrine of Our Lady of Grace, also referred to in contemporary records as Our Lady of Ipswich.

 

This wedding is just the earliest record we have of a royal occasion at the shrine. Thereafter, a succession of visitors come here on pilgrimage, culminating in the early 16th century, when the pilgrimage cult was at its height. Between 1517 and 1522, both Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon made journeys to the shrine, set beside the Westgate in the parish of St Matthew. Other visitors included the local dignitary Cardinal Wolsey, and the future saint Thomas More.

 

It is hard for us to understand today the part that Mary played in the medieval economy of grace. Contrary to popular belief, there is considerable (and growing) evidence that the people of rural medieval England had an articulate and sophisticated understanding of the nature and purposes of intercessionary prayer. Although there may have been abuses, when people, in some sense, offered 'worship' to images of the Madonna, this was not a general practice, or even a common one. Mary was seen as a focus of prayer; contemporary images of medieval people frequently show them carrying their rosary beads.

 

To have some understanding of the role of Our Lady in the hearts and minds of medieval Suffolkers, we need to look at the church in southern Europe today. The spectacular processions, the colourful images, the celebrations and devotions would all have been a part of medieval Suffolk life. Fundamentally, the people of medieval Suffolk, in all their daily trials and tribulations, in the midst of their suffering and expectation of an early death, saw Mary as being on their side.

 

A surprising amount of evidence of the medieval affection for Mary survives in Suffolk, considering how this cult outraged the reformers of the 1540s, and was attacked by Puritans and Anglicans throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. A brief survey of churches with entries on this site will find the rosary dedication at the base of the tower at Helmingham, the Hail Mary monograms on each side of the tower at Stonham Parva, the so-called Doom painting at Cowlinge, where Mary tips the scales in favour of sinners, and many more. About half of the medieval churches in Suffolk are dedicated to St Mary. Although Orme has shown us that many current Anglican dedications are well-meaning 18th century inventions, will evidence proves that many of the Suffolk dedications to Mary are correct; except that the dedication would usually be to a Marian solemnity or devotion, most commonly the Assumption. This dedication has been restored correctly by the Anglo-catholics at Ufford. Of the churches not dedicated to Mary, all would have contained a Marian shrine.

 

These shrines were most commonly at the east end of the south aisle, and were often restored by the Victorians as a 'lady chapel'. Some of these shrines became famous as a result of reports of their efficacy. Some became so popular that they were translated to buildings of their own. This is probably how the shrine of Our Lady of Grace came to be, although its actual origins are lost in the mists of time.

 

There were four churches within a stones throw of the shrine, of which two, St Mary Elms and St Matthew, survive today. Edward I's visit to Ipswich came two hundred years after the founding of the greatest English Marian shrine at Walsingham, about sixty miles from Ipswich. We may assume that the fame of Ipswich grew in a similar way to that of Walsingham.There were other major shrines in Eastern England at Kings Lynn, Ely and Lincoln; in Suffolk, we know that pilgrimages were made to Bury, Woolpit and Sudbury, amongst others.

 

The fame and influence of the Ipswich shrine reached its peak in the early years of the 16th Century, after an incident known as the Miracle of the Maid of Ipswich. This occured in 1516 and was held in renown all over England in the few short years left before the Reformation intervened. The popularity of the Miracle, in which Joan, a young Ipswich girl, has a near-death encounter and experiences visions of the Virgin Mary, was widely used by the Catholic Church as a buttress against the murmurings of reformers.

 

The late Dr John Blatchly, in his book The Miracles of Lady Lane showed convincingly that the font in nearby St Matthew's church was paid for by the Rector John Bailey to celebrate the Miracle of the Maid of Ipswich, and the visit to Ipswich of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon soon afterwards. The panels of the font depict events in the devotional story of Mary, mother of Jesus. These five reliefs, and a sixth of the Baptism of Christ, are amazing art objects. They show the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin with Gabriel unfurling a banner from which a dove emerges to whisper in Mary's ear; The Adoration of the Magi, with the wise men pulling a blanket away from the Blessed Virgin and child as if to symbolise their revelation to the world; the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, with Mary radiating glory in a mandala, which four angels use to convey her up to heaven in bodily form; the Coronation of the Queen of Heaven, the crowned figures of God the Father and God the Son placing a crown on the Blessed Virgin's head while the Dove of the Holy Spirit races down directly above her; and the Mother of God Enthroned, the crowned figure of the Blessed Virgin sitting on the left of and looking at (and thus paying homage to) her crowned son on the right, who is holding an orb.

 

Dr Blatchly thought that this last panel was a representation of Katherine of Aragon and her husband Henry VIII, which I think a little unlikely, although of course it could be both, one representing the other. Remarkably, two of the four figures around the base are probably intended as Joan, the Maid of Ipswich, and John Bailey the Rector himself.

 

In The Miracles of Lady Lane, which Dr Blatchly co-authored with Diarmaid MacCulloch, there is a fascinating if somewhat convoluted account of the battles between Bailey and Cardinal Wolsey, who was trying to consolidate his power in Ipswich by taking over the Shrine of Our Lady of Ipswich, which was in the parish of St Matthew. It is the kind of thing Trollope would have written about if he had been around in the 16th Century. Bailey's celebration of the Miracle was partly a way of competing with Wolsey for fame and influence, but Bailey's death in 1525 left the way open for the Cardinal, who in his turn would completely over-reach himself and fall in his own way.

 

The book is memorable as a picture of the incredible religious fervour in Ipswich in the early years of the 16th Century, enthusiasms that would spill over into passion and violence. Blatchly notes that the sequence of at least some of the Marian images on the font was replicated by a sequence of inns down the mile of Ipswich's main street, now Carr Street, Tavern Street and Westgate Street, which led to the shrine. One of the inns, the Salutation (ie, Annunciation) at the start of Carr Street, survives in business under the same name to this day. But in time of course Ipswich would become well-known as the most puritan of towns in the most puritan of England's regions.

 

The focus of any Marian shrine would be the statue of Mary, most often with the infant Christ on her knee. When the reformers of the 16th century set out to break the hold of the Church on the imagination of the people, statues of Mary and the saints were the first things to go. Poor William Dowsing, who inspected Suffolk churches for 'superstitious imagery' 100 years later in 1644, is often blamed for the destruction of these statues; but his meticulous journals do not suggest that a single one of them had survived to his time.

 

The shrines were suppressed in the spring of 1538, and Sir Charles Wriothesley, in his Chronicle, writes that in the moneth of July, the images of Our Lady of Wallsingham and Ipswich were brought up to London with all the jewelles that hang about them, at the Kinge's commandment, and divers other images... because the people should use noe more idolatrye unto them, and they were burnt at Chelsey by my Lord Privy Seal. Wodderspoon, in his memorials, records that (Thomas) Cromwell... caused this image of Our Lady to be pulled down from her niche, and after despoiling the effigy of its rich habilements and jewels... it was conveyed to London and destroyed. John Weever, writing a century after the event, reports that all the notable images, as the images of Our Lady of Walsingham, Ipswich, Worcester, the Lady of Wilsdon, the rood of grace of Our Lady of Boxley, and the image of the rood of St Saviour at Bermondsey, were brought up to London and burnt at Chelsey, at the commandment of the aforesaid Cromwell.

 

This is a particularly folkloric account, since we know that several of the images mentioned were not burnt at Chelsea, but were destroyed elsewhere. There is no evidence that any of the surviving reports are by eye-witnesses, and although there are many other reports of the burning, all are circumstantial, and most seem to be based on Wriothesley's Chronicle. Stanley Smith, in his majestic The Madonna of Ipswich, concludes that the conflagration took place at Thomas Cromwell's house at Chelsea on 26th September 1538, under the orders of Bishop Latimer, and before the eyes of the Lord Privy Seal. The Ipswich statue certainly made it to Chelsea. Thomas Cromwell's steward wrote to him that he had received it, with 'nothing about her but two half shoes of silver'. This report will be crucial, as our story develops.

 

In general, where a Marian shrine was not in a parish church, the building that had housed it did not survive for much longer. During the 17th and 18th centuries, several legal documents, especially those dealing with the transfer of ownership of land, make reference to the remains of the Shrine of Our Lady of Grace. John Waple bought land 'at the south end of the La. chapel wall' in 1566. In 1650, Edward Bartle was granted 'land on which once stood a chapel, called the Lady of Grace chapel, land whereon a stable is now built'. In 1761, a Mr Grove visiting from Richmond reports that 'there is scarce one stone left upon another'. Of course, the terrible irony of this is that we can use these land documents to pinpoint exactly where the shrine of Our Lady of Grace was. Another advantage to locating the shrine is that the general layout of streets in the centre of Ipswich has changed little since Saxon times, despite the best efforts of Sixties town planners.

 

The shrine, then, was just outside the west gate of the town wall. This was demolished in 1782, but photographs exist of a rather fanciful reconstruction put up for the Jubilee celebrations of 1887. The gate stood in Westgate Street, just beyond where a footpath now cuts through to the Civic Centre. The shrine stood on the next corner, where a Sixties block once housed a shoe shop and Tesco, but now contains rather dismal discount stores. The narrow road to the left here is called Lady Lane, and was certainly called that in 1761, although I cannot discover if this name was contemporary with the shrine.

 

We can also form some idea of what the shrine looked like. Stanley Smith records surviving wills which bequeathed items, including, in 1498, a porch and glass for the east and west windows. There was almost certainly a burial ground; this is referred to in a land transfer document and a will, and human remains were found on the site in the early 20th century. When Tesco was built in 1964, chunks of church masonry were discovered on the site; however, we should remember that, after the Reformation, rubble from many demolished religious buildings (of which Ipswich had plenty) were used in the construction of other buildings.

 

What appears to be a pilgrim's token was also found near the site; but, as Stanley Smith points out, pilgrim's tokens from many shrines have been found around Walsingham, and there is no reason to believe that this particular medal originally came from Ipswich.

 

In Lady Lane itself, a small statue was put up in the early 1990s as a memorial to the shrine; it replaced a 1960s plaque. This statue repays close inspection, because the story gets slightly more exciting at this point. Despite the conflagration at Chelsea in 1538, there is some evidence that the statue of Our Lady of Grace survived, and still exists today; and that this memorial statue is a true copy of it. In the Italian city of Nettuno, most famous perhaps for its harbour of Anzio, there is a shrine to Our Lady of Grace. There is a story that the image there was brought to Nettuno from England during the Jubilee year of 1550. There is some evidence in the town archives to support this. And the town archives also mention Ipswich.

 

It wouldn't be that improbable. Western mainland Europe is full of statues and sculptures produced in England during the 12th and 13th centuries. Many of them must have been exported at the time; Nottingham alabaster work, for instance, was greatly prized throughout Europe. But much probably went abroad at the time of the Reformation. It must be remembered that the Reformation in England placed quite a low priority on the new teachings of Luther and Calvin; they were the job of the theologians. But the state, which enforced the Reformation in England, was more concerned with wresting political power from the church, and enriching itself on the wealth of the churches, shrines and monasteries. It achieved both of these goals extremely successfully; the first is shown by the fact that there was no religious war in this country, and the second by the fact that the Tudor royal family amassed riches beyond its wildest dreams, much of it to be squandered by Elizabeth I and James I on high living and piratical expeditions to the 'New World'.

 

There was no evangelical agenda on behalf of the English state as there would be 100 years later under Oliver Cromwell. It is hard to imagine William Dowsing selling images abroad, but there is a great amount of circumstantial evidence that the cronies of Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer in the 1530s and 1540s did exactly this. It was a pragmatic approach; they wanted rid of images, and they wanted to accrue the wealth of the church. That said, the Nettuno legend records that the statue was rescued from the flames by secretly Catholic sailors, who spirited it safely abroad. I think the sales story outlined above is more likely, though.

 

The Nettuno image was identified as English as early as 1938 by an historian of 13th century iconography, Martin Gillett. He felt that considerable changes had been made to it; Mary's head had been replaced, and the posture of the infant Christ changed. The throne (no longer in existence) was a 19th century replacement. But the folds in the material, the features of the Christ child, the position of the infant on the right knee rather than the left, and the carving style, all strongly suggest an English origin.

 

And then war intervened. Anzio and Nettuno were the site of some of the fiercest fighting during the Allied landings in Italy, and the statue was seriously damaged. During its restoration on 1959, an antiquated English inscription was found below the Madonna's right foot: IU? ARET GRATIOSUS (thou art gracious). This supports, as Stanley Smith says, the local dedication of Madonna della Grazie. The inscription had been overwritten SANCTA MARIA, ORA PRO NOBIS, probably in the late 16th century.

 

Interestingly, no other major English Marian shrine was dedicated to Our Lady of Grace. Even more striking, when Martin Gillett first examined the statue in 1938, it was wearing two half shoes made of English silver, just like those described by Thomas Cromwell's steward 400 years before.

 

Obviously, there is a great yearning for it to be true. I think, on balance, that the statue at Nettuno probably is the statue of Our Lady of Ipswich. Other people seem certain of the fact; hence the replica in Lady Lane.

 

The Guild of Our Lady of Ipswich is an ecumenical group formed in the 1980s by people from the Catholic church of St Pancras and the Anglican church of St Mary Elms. They have re-established Marian shrines in both these churches, and meet monthly. They have also re-established the procession which Cardinal Wolsey instituted from St Peter (by his college) to the site of the shrine. They make this walk every year on the date of its predecessor, 7th September. Even more excitingly, they have also placed a replica of the Nettuno statue in the church at St Mary Elms. It was dedicated with great ecumenical ceremony under the watchful eye of the Guild in September 2002.

Students return to classroom for growth in wisdom, faith

 

By Ambria Hammel | Aug. 16, 2010 | The Catholic Sun

 

After climbing her way through the ranks, Danage Norwood-Pearson came to orientation day Aug. 9, ready for her senior year at St. Mary’s High School.

 

“I like my classes. They’re going to be fun,” Norwood-Pearson said during break after fourth period.

 

She said theology class should be especially fun because of the students and the fact that the teacher is one of St. Mary’s newest faculty members: Fr. Robert Bolding, campus chaplain.

 

Mixing academics, faith and fellowship is what a Catholic education is all about, administrators and teachers throughout the diocese reminded students when school resumed this month.

 

“If we all pray together and work together, we will all be celebrating together” on graduation day, Suzanne Fessler, principal at St. Mary’s, told the senior class.

 

Classes at some diocesan schools are facing declining enrollment, but that didn’t stop students at every grade level from coming prepared for the demands of a new academic year.

 

Norwood-Pearson was one student among many who had summer homework. She also got right back into athletics as a volleyball player.

 

Others, like Bourgade freshman Megan Burke, who also plans to play volleyball, spent the final weeks of summer vacation organizing school supplies and buying new uniforms.

 

“I try them on about twice a week just for fun,” she said during a campus cleanup day

July 31. Burke, a Ss. Simon and Jude alumna, has worn school uniforms all of her life.

 

Getting back into a uniform was one thing St. Mary’s freshman Daniel Wright dreaded. The public school transfer wore school uniforms through seventh grade and enjoyed free dress last year.

 

Despite the uniform, Wright — who spent his final days of summer in drills with the football team — looks forward to being successful on and off the field.

 

Megan Nestor, a sophomore at Xavier College Preparatory, said her time at cheer camp in early July helped the team grow closer. She looked forward to seeing the rest of her friends too and getting back into the school rhythm.

 

That daily routine is all new for young learners at Our Lady of the Lake Preschool and Kindergarten in Lake Havasu City. The 10-year-old facility welcomed its first kindergarten class earlier this month.

 

“We have been very pleased with the support of our community,” Deacon Jeff Arner, director, said of the expansion, noting the more than $7,000 it raised in start up costs. “The parents just wish their children could just stay here with a pre-K through 12th grade Catholic school.”

 

Deacon Jeff spent the early weeks of summer pushing the June 30 tax credit deadline to help families finance Catholic education. Parishioners contributed more than $36,000 in state tax dollars to the school through the Catholic Tuition Organization of the Diocese of Phoenix.

 

Kathryn Makar called Catholic school “mandatory” for children in today’s social climate where morality appears to take low priority. The long-time Our Lady of Mount Carmel parishioner said she always knew about the school, but admitted, “I didn’t know it was this good until we experienced it.”

 

Makar said families receive loving support in raising their children and the students, like her fourth-grade daughter, Angela, learn about charity and faith.

 

“The best thing is that you make friendships and that they’re faith-filled,” Makar said.

 

The senior class president at St. Mary’s agreed that it’s important to be a faith-filled student. He challenged fellow seniors to take ownership of the school as they all work toward one goal: a relationship with Christ.

 

“He’s above all of your problems. He’s above all of your worries, everything that’s going on in your life,” Estevan Wetzel said during senior orientation. “Seek God in this school. You can find Him.”

 

Students at Most Holy Trinity planned to be Christ for one another this school year, especially its 20 new students. The student council planned ways to welcome them and increase overall school spirit during the first two weeks.

 

“I’m excited for the new students,” said seventh-grader Hayley Brizzee, vice president of the school council. “We’re a really small school, so when new students come in, it’s ‘welcome to our family.’”

 

The students will also welcome three young women religious from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity to the school later this month. Sisters Mary Emmanuel Schmidt, Alison Marie Conemac and Maria Victoria Tate will teach the preschool students.

 

The gray-habited sisters, two of whom play the guitar, are meant to complement the parish priests from the same order.

 

“We try to show how the vocations work together and they complement one another” including the laity, said Sr. Anne Marie Walsh, SOLT, superior of the order.

 

Fr. John Lankeit, pastor at Ss. Simon and Jude School, touched on the role of the laity, particularly parents, when it comes to instruction in the faith during the TV Mass Aug. 8. Priests and religious are there to support them, he said, but parents are the first teachers of the faith.

 

Fr. Lankeit reminded them that children learn best by example.

 

“Parents, you have been charged with the awesome duty of getting your kids to heaven… You are not just caretakers of children, but stewards of souls,” Fr. Lankeit said. “Is there anything greater to be entrusted with than the immortal souls of your children?”

 

More: www.catholicsun.org

 

ORDERING INFORMATION

Looking for a glossy/matte copy of this photo? Please call 602-354-2140 or send an e-mail for ordering information. Please note the photo's title when ordering. Download the order form here.

 

Copyright 2006-2010 The Catholic Sun. All rights reserved. This photo and all photos on this Web site credited to The Catholic Sun are provided for personal use only and may not be published, broadcasted, transmitted or sold without the expressed consent of The Catholic Sun.

Holy Family and St Michael, Kesgrave, Ipswich, Suffolk

 

A new entry on the Suffolk Churches site.

 

There are ages of faith which leave their traces in splendour and beauty, as acts of piety and memory. East Anglia is full of silent witnesses to tides which have ebbed and flowed. Receding, they leave us in their wake great works from the passing ages, little Norman churches which seem to speak a language we can no longer understand but which haunts us still, the decorated beauty of the 14th Century at odds with the horrors of its pestilence and loss, the perpendicular triumph of the 15th Century church before its near-destruction in the subsequent Reformation and Commonwealth, the protestant flowering of chapels and meeting houses in almost all rural communities, and most obvious of all for us today the triumphalism of the Victorian revival.

 

But even as tides recede, piety and memory survive, most often in quiet acts and intimate details. The catholic church of Holy Family and St Michael at Kesgrave is one of their great 20th Century treasure houses.

 

At the time of the 1851 census of religious worship, Kesgrave was home to just 86 people, 79 of whom attended morning service that day, giving this parish the highest percentage attendance of any in Suffolk. However, they met half a mile up the road at the Anglican parish church of All Saints, and the current site of Holy Family was then far out in the fields. In any case, it is unlikely that any of the non-attenders was a Catholic. Today, Kesgrave is a sprawling eastern suburb of Ipswich, home to about 10,000 people. It extends along the A12 corridor all the way to Martlesham, which in turn will take you pretty much all the way to Woodbridge without seeing much more than a field or two between the houses.

 

Holy Family was erected in the 1930s, and serves as a chapel of ease within the parish of Ipswich St Mary. However, it is still in private ownership, the responsibility of the Rope family, who, along with the Jolly family into which they married, owned much of the land in Kesgrave that was later built on.

 

The growth of Kesgrave has been so rapid and so extensive in these last forty years that radical expansions were required at both this church and at All Saints, as well as to the next parish church along in the suburbs at Rushmere St Andrew. All of these projects are interesting, although externally Holy Family is less dramatic than its neighbours. It sits neatly in its trim little churchyard, red-brick and towerless, a harmonious little building if rather a curious shape, of which more in a moment. Beside it, the underpass and roundabout gives it a decidedly urban air. But this is a church of outstanding interest, as we shall see.

 

It was good to come back to Kesgrave. As a member of St Mary's parish I generally attended mass at the parish's other church, a couple of miles into town, but I had been here a number of times over the years, either to mass or just to wander around and sit for a while. These days, you generally approach the church from around the back, where you'll find a sprawling car park typical of a modern Catholic church. To the west of the church are Lucy House and Philip House, newly built for the work of the Rope family charities. Between the car park and the church there there is a tiny, formal graveyard, with crosses remembering members of the Rope and Jolly families.

 

Access to the church is usually through a west door these days, but if you are fortunate enough to enter through the original porch on the north side you will have a foretaste of what is to come, for to left and right are stunning jewel-like and detailed windows depicting St Margaret and St Theresa on one side and St Catherine and the Immaculate Conception on the other. Beside them, a plaque reveals that the church was built to the memory of Michael Rope, who was killed in the R101 airship disaster of 1930.

 

Blue Peter-watching boys like me, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, were enthralled by airships. They were one of those exciting inventions of a not-so-distant past which were, in a real sense, futuristic, a part of the 1930s modernist project that imagined and predicted the way we live now. And they were just so big. But they were doomed, because the hydrogen which gave them their buoyancy was explosive.

 

As a child, I was fascinated by the R101 airship and its disaster, especially because of that familiar photograph of its wrecked and burnt-out fuselage sprawled in the woods on a northern French hillside. It is still a haunting photograph today. The crash of the R101 put an end to airship development in the UK for more than half a century.

 

Of course, this is all ancient history now, but in the year 2001 I had the excellent fortune to be shown around Holy Family by Michael Rope's widow, Mrs Lucy Doreen Rope, née Jolly, who was still alive, and then in her nineties. She was responsible for the building of this church as a memorial to her husband. We paused in the porch so that I could admire the windows. "Do you like them?" Mrs Rope asked me. "Of course, my sister-in-law made them."

 

Her sister-in-law, of course, was Margaret Agnes Rope, who in the first half of the twentieth century was one of the finest of the Arts and Craft Movement stained glass designers. She studied at Birmingham, and then worked at the Glass House in Fulham with her cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, whose work is also here. But their work can be found in churches and cathedrals all over the world. What Mrs Rope did not tell me, and what I found out later, is that these two windows in the porch were made for her and her husband Michael as a wedding present.

 

Doreen Jolly and Michael Rope were married in 1929. Within a year, he was dead. Mrs Rope was just 23 years old.

 

The original church from the 1930s is the part that you step into. You enter to the bizarre sight of a model of the R101 airship suspended from the roof. The nave altar and tabernacle ahead are in the original sanctuary, and you are facing the liturgical east (actually south) of the original building, and what an intimate space this must have been before the church was extended. Red brick outlines the entrance to the sanctuary, and here are the three windows made by Margaret Rope for the original church. The first is the three-light sanctuary window, depicting the Blessed Virgin and child flanked by St Joseph and St Michael. Two doves sit on a nest beneath Mary's feet, while a quizzical sparrow looks on. St Michael has the face of Michael Rope. The inscription beneath reads Pray for Michael Rope who gave up his soul to God in the wreck of His Majesty's Airship R101, Beauvais, October 5th 1930.

 

Next, a lancet in the right-hand side of the sanctuary contains glass depicting St Dominic, with a dog running beneath his feet and the inscription Laudare, Benedicere, Praedicare, ('to praise, to bless, to preach'). The third window is in the west wall of the church (in its day, the right hand side of the nave), depicting St Thomas More and St John Fisher, although at the time the window was made they had not yet been canonised. The inscription beneath records that the window was the gift of a local couple in thankfulness for their conversion to the faith for which the Blessed Martyrs Thomas More and John Fisher gave their lives. A rose bush springs from in front of the martyrs' feet.

 

By the 1950s, Holy Family was no longer large enough for the community it served, and it was greatly expanded to the east to the designs of the archtect Henry Munro Cautley. Cautley was a bluff Anglican of the old school, the retired former diocesan architect of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, but he would have enjoyed designing a church for such an intimate faith community, and in fact it was his last major project before he died in 1959. The original sanctuary was retained as a blessed sacrament chapel, and the church was turned ninety degrees to face east for the first time. The north and south sides of the new church received three-light Tudor windows in the style most beloved by Cautley, as seen also at his Ipswich County Library in Northgate Street, and the former Fosters (now Lloyds) Bank in central Cambridge.

 

Although the Rope family had farmed at Blaxhall near Wickham Market for generations, Margaret Rope herself was not from Suffolk at all, and nor was she at first a Catholic. She was born in Shrewsbury in 1882, the daughter of Henry Rope, a surgeon at Shrewsbury Infirmary, and a son of the Blaxhall Rope family. The largest collection of Margaret Rope's glass is in Shrewsbury Cathedral. When Margaret was 17, her father died. The family were received into the Catholic church shortly afterwards. A plaque was placed in the entrance to Shrewsbury Infirmary to remember her father. When the hospital was demolished in the 1990s, the plaque was moved to here, and now sits in the north aisle of the 1950s church. In her early days in London Margaret Rope designed and made the large east window at Blaxhall church as a memorial to her grandparents. It features her younger brother Michael, and is believed to be the only window that she ever signed.

 

In her early forties, Margaret Rope took holy orders and entered the Carmelite Convent at nearby Woodbridge, but continued to produce her stained glass work until the community moved to Quidenham in Norfolk, when poor health and the distances involved proved insurmountable. She died there in 1953, and so she never saw the expanded church. Her cartoons, the designs for her windows, are placed on the walls around Holy Family. Some are for windows in churches in Scotland and Wales, one for a window in the English College in Rome. Among them are the roundels for within the enclosure of Tyburn Convent in London. "They had to remove the windows there during the War", said Mrs Rope. "Of course, with me, you have to ask which war!"

 

Turning to the east, we see the new sanctuary with its high altar, completed in 1993 as part of a further reordering and expansion, which gave a large galilee porch, kitchen and toilets to the north side of the church. The window above the new sanctuary has three lights, and the two outer windows were made by Margaret Rope for the chapel of East Bergholt convent to the south of Ipswich. They remember the Vaughan family, into which Margaret Rope's sister had married, and in particular one member, a sister in the convent, to celebrate her 25 year jubilee.

 

The convent later became Old Hall, a famous commune. They depict the prophet Isaiah and King David.

 

The central light between them is controversial. Produced in the 1990s and depicting the risen Christ, it really isn't very good, and provides the one jarring note in the church. It is rather unfortunate that it is in such a prominent position. It is not just the quality of the design that is the problem. It lets in too much light in comparison with the two flanking lights. "The glass in my sister-in-law's windows is half an inch thick", Mrs Rope told me. "In the workshop at Fulham they had a man who came in specially to cut it for them". The glass in the modern light is simply too thin.

 

Despite the 1990s extension, and as so often in modern urban Catholic churches, Holy Family is already not really big enough, although it is hard to see that there could ever be another expansion. We walked along Munro Cautley's south aisle, and at that time the stations of the cross were simple wooden crosses. However, about three months after my conversation with Mrs Rope, the World Trade Centre in New York was attacked and destroyed, and among the three thousand people killed were two local Kesgrave brothers who were commemorated with a new set of stations in cast metal.

 

Here also is a 1956 memorial window by Margaret Rope's cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, to Mrs Rope's mother Alice Jolly, depicting the remains of the shrine at Walsingham and the Jolly family at prayer before it. Another MEA Rope window is across the church in the galilee, a Second World War memorial window, originally on the east side of the first church before Cautley's extension. It depicts three of the English Martyrs, Blessed Anne Lynne, Blessed Robert Southwell and Blessed John Robinson, as well as the shipwreck of Blessed John Nutter off of Dunwich, with All Saints church on the cliffs above.

 

The galilee is designed for families with young children to play a full part in mass, and is separated from the church by a glass screen. At the top of the screen is a small panel by Margaret Rope which is of particular interest because it depicts her and her family participating in the Easter vigil, presumably in Shrewsbury Cathedral. This is hard to photograph because it is on an internal window between two rooms.

 

A recent addition to the Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope windows here is directly opposite, newly installed on the south side of the nave. It was donated by her great-nephew. It depicts a nativity scene, the Holy Family in the stable at Bethlehem, an angel appearing to shepherds on the snowy hills beyond. It is perhaps her loveliest window in the church.

 

Finally, back across the church. Here, beside the brass memorial to Margaret Rope, is a window depicting the Blessed Virgin and child, members of the Rope family in the Candlemas procession beneath. The inscription reminds us to pray for the soul of Sister Margaret of the Mother of God, mistress of novices and stained glass artist, Monastery of the Magnificat of the Mother of God, Quidenham, Norfolk, entered Carmel 14th September 1923, died 6th December 1953. Sister Margaret of the Mother of God was, of course, Margaret Rope herself. She was buried in the convent at Quidenham, a Shrewsbury exile at rest in the East Anglian soil of her forebears. The design is hers, and the window was made by her cousin Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope.

 

Back in 2001, we were talking about the changing Church, and I asked Mrs Rope what she thought about the recently introduced practice of transferring Holy Days on to the nearest Sunday, so that the teaching of them was not lost. Mrs Rope approved, a lady clearly not stuck in the past. She had a passion for ensuring that the Faith could be shared with children. As we have seen, her church is designed so that young families can take a full part in the Mass. But she was sympathetic to the distractions of the modern age. "The world is so exciting for children these days", she said. "I think it must be difficult to bring them up with a sense of the presence of God." She smiled. "Mind you, my son is 70 now! And I do admire young girls today. They have such spirit!"

 

She left me to potter about in her wonderful treasure house. As I did so, I thought of medieval churches I have visited, which were similarly donated by the Mrs Ropes of their day, perhaps even for husbands who had died young. They not only sought to memorialise their loved ones, but to consecrate a space for prayer, that masses might be said for the souls of the dead. This was the Catholic way, a Christian duty. Before the Reformation, this was true in every parish in England. It remained true here at Kesgrave.

 

And finally, back outside to the small graveyard. Side by side are two crosses. One remembers Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, artist, 1891-1988. The other remembers Lucy Doreen Rope, founder of this church, 1907-2003.

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

The Role of Caves in Buddhism:

 

In a chapter titled “The Beginnings of Architecture,” under the heading, “From Caves to Cities,” Leland Roth, a professor of architectural history, enthusiastically describes early man’s progression from a solitary, cave-dwelling hunter to the communally situated and architecturally aware urban dweller of today, noting, in wonder at the scale of our ensuing achievement, “The earliest ready-made habitations of the human species were apparently naturally hollowed out caves.” Roth’s method of analysis is to describe a series of objects, (ie. Stonehenge, Terra Amata, and Skara Brae,) all considered archetypes of early architecture, and then to infer statements about the nature of man from the formal qualities of those objects. The assumption is that man’s motivation in enclosing space has remained more or less unchanged since a mythical point of origin long before recorded history. Moreover, Roth is not the only one to take this view of history, two other authors, anthropologists Ellen Schattschneider and Helen Hardacre, both of whom directly address caves and their corresponding rituals, write extensively in unrelated articles about the visceral nature of their experience in caves. As the experience of these Japanese Buddhists indicates, intense engagement with the physical world leads to a visceral engagement with the self.

There are several problems with Roth’s approach. First, a student of architecture reading a book that discusses the issue of positive and negative space, experiences those concepts removed from their original sequence in space; they appear as a disjointed reality to be imagined in the mind of the listener rather than experienced and then explained by the mind afterward. A student looking at a slide image is viewing a void into which another void has been projected and isolated by the frame. Therefore, the only experience of the void is a view of the objects that fill the void. Second, by removing the student from the original experience of the cave in situ, his senses are stripped of the majority of the information he would otherwise have received. Touch, smell, and hearing are discombobulated by their delivery in a setting removed from the original context. Finally, by relating the caves to architecture, and not architecture to the caves, Roth puts forth only a collection of objects, because while he has attempted with the help of his colleagues to convey an experience of connectivity, there are no negative component states attached to the positive landmarks along which the survey is based.

The anthropologist, Ellen Schattschneider, takes a different approach to modes of worship, immersing herself in the experience of her subject in order to better understand the processes at work in the mind of her subject. In her work, My Mother’s Garden: Transitional Phenomena on a Japanese Sacred Mountain, Schattschneider describes the experience of female Japanese ascetics as they engage in the rituals of mountain worship. Schattschneider bases her analysis of Japanese asceticism on the theories of Donald Winnicott, a developmental psychologist. As Schattschneider explains, “There are structural psychological parallels between the processes of shugyo (ascetic discipline) and the processes of early [childhood] development. In both cases, the developing person comes into awareness of her dependence on powerful beings and forces, as well as her linkages to those separate entities.” To understand Schattschneider’s attachment to Winnicott’s theories, it is helpful to view the subject in terms of biological time. Whatever experience of time we may have on a perceptual level, the bodies through which we perceive are bound to strict rules of longevity, varying only slightly in their period of material existence. Therefore, in Schattschneider’s terms, the ascetic, Fumiko, who serves as teacher and guide to the anthropologist as she undertakes shugyo, is simply the manifestation of a biological reality existing in a time contemporaneous with Schattschneider’s own existence. This may seem obvious, but it is a very different conception of time than is presented by Roth, to whom the objects of his study form a timeless objective reality, subject only to the weathering imposed by nature on the material forms of his discussion. In contrast, Schattschneider’s conception of her subject is framed by the development of biological man, who passes from childhood to adulthood through a predictable series of transitional phenomena, or crises.

While Roth’s survey of world architecture is focused almost entirely on constructed positive space, Schattschneider engages with deconstructed negative space; that is, caves. Construction of a positive space demands a preexisting void in which to work, Chartres needs its medieval town and the Freedom Tower, New York. In both cases the positive space of the constructed object requires a corresponding void in which to demonstrate its presence. Conversely, a deconstructed void requires a preexisting positive space within which to maintain its absence. As Schattschneider notes, this leads to the creation of an inverted mythology, “For esoteric Buddhist yamabushi ascetics, holy mountains are often understood as wombs in which ‘the disciple is newly conceived, grows, and emerges into the world with the cry of a newly born child.’” In one rite, which Schattschneider undergoes, herself, the worshipper passes through a narrow tunnel deep in the mountain. The tunnel is only as wide as a person, and Schattschneider describes the terror she felt at having to squeeze through such an inflexible passageway. To ascetics, the process represents childbirth, in which the fetus squeezes head first through the narrow canal of her mother’s body.

Helen Hardacre, also an anthropologist, adopts a view of caves similar to Schattschneider’s in her paper, The Cave and the Womb World, in which she delineates the experiential gap between male and female approaches to Buddhist asceticism. Hardacre bases her essay on the ritual ascent of Omine-san, a sacred mountain in the Nara prefecture of Japan. During performance of the rite, the ascetic must descend into a cave at the top of the mountain. The cave is composed of two caverns, which are connected by a narrow vertical shaft in which metal bars have been mounted to serve as a basic ladder. The ascetics congregate in the first cavern, squeezing into a space just large enough to hold them, then climb one by one in a line up the shaft to the second cavern, which is enclosed within the mountain. Here they pray at an altar before turning around and reversing the process. Although the ritual is very similar to the one described by Schattschneider, it differs in the sense that the women Hardacre accompanies arrive by bus the night before. For these ascetics, the mountain is part of a pilgrimage, rather than a daily reality, as experienced by ascetics like Fumiko.

A similar space to the cave in Omine-san is represented in Thomas Barrie’s The Sacred In-Between, a survey of religious architecture. However, the image in Barrie’s book is a plan of a Renaissance cathedral, a space defined in terms of Christianity, but which, nevertheless, may be seen as a path between birth and death, or from the baptismal font to the altar, the ceremonial symbols of birth and death in the Christian faith. In both cases, it is interesting to note that the “birth” is actually a re-birth, facilitated in the case of the Christian church by the priest or preacher, but in the case of the Buddhist ascetics, by the older women in the confraternity, the social gathering of Buddhist worshippers for the purpose of pilgrimage. In the church, this relationship of teacher and student is related to the relationship between shepherd and flock, while in Buddhist practice, it is more similar to a line of individuals, each following as well as leading and constantly learning from both roles; teachers may be stationed along the way, but it is the responsibility of the individual to form a consistent and increasingly reliable link in the chain of human existence. It is also worth noting that in both cases, the relationship of student and teacher is fraught with conflict. The relationship between priests and their communities may develop tension in many forms, and both anthropologists note the propensity for Buddhist ascetic circles toward older women as the authoritarian nuclei of their biological families.

“Climbing the path up the mountain marks a separation from the mundane world,” writes Hardacre, but it is the rites of the sacred chamber that form the core of the practice. “In Buddhist esoteric terms, to enter the second chamber is to be united with Dainichi, and this constitutes the attainment of Buddhahood in this very existence. Further, because En no Gyoja, Acala, and the eight Nagas are enshrined there, the ascetic incorporates their powers as well… entering the second chamber completes the telescoped passage through the ten worlds.” To the anthropologist, Hardacre, what is most interesting about this practice is how it differs from men to women. Although both travel similar routes through the space, the meaning for men and women is utterly different. To female ascetics, undergoing this ritual is seen as way of connecting to a deeper maternal being, whose wisdom is then released to the ascetic during her journey through the ritual. For male ascetics, the process is about rebirth from a maternal figure, since their bodies are not involved in childbirth.

In both mountain rituals, the basic timeline remains the same. The ascetic removes herself from reality by entering into a spirit world, in both cases embodied by the respective mountain, which has been imbued with a divinity as the summation of its physical presence. While holding this divinity in her mind, the ascetic undergoes a journey, each step of which holds a unique learned meaning. For female ascetics, the image of the womb seems to be especially powerful, and as Hardacre notes, the male ascetics climb a different, slightly higher mountain that women are not allowed to climb; she does not elaborate the terms of their ritual except to say that it is different from the female ascetics.

In The Hermeneutics of Sacred Architecture, Lindsay Jones discusses the significance of the senses to our understanding of the space around us. “If we locate the productive experience of architecture fully within the realm of hermeneutical reflection, we are compelled, then, to imagine that process not as an instance of ‘looking at buildings’ or of ‘reading a text’; instead, human interactions with religious architecture must be conceived as participatory involvements in conversation-like, or game-like, ceremonial occasions.” In the case of Roth’s survey of architecture, his explanation of architecture’s significance, as well as our interaction with it is based soundly in what Jones terms ‘looking at buildings.’ That is, the buildings exist only insofar as they may be discussed. According to Jones, it is the fundamental involvement of the senses that locates the viewer within a work of architecture. In other words, were my eyes closed and my ears covered, I would not actually be ‘in’ a work of architecture so long as I did not touch, smell, or taste anything either. This ties in well with both Schattschneider’s account of Fumiko’s mountain worship and Hardacre’s description of the group pilgrimage to Omine-san, as both scholars described the visceral connection they felt as a result of their experience, even though they are not necessarily Buddhist ascetics, themselves.

Although the rituals take place on different mountains and over very different periods of time, ten years in the case of Fumiko, the ascetic, and a day and night for Hardacre’s group, they share some important aspects, such as the ordering of the spaces, as well as their relationship to the dimensions of the human body. Schattschneider writes, “This visceral, embodied experience of spatial, corporeal adjustment is a basic component of the shugyo process; the worshipper’s body learns to transpose itself from its normal expanded comportment into confined disciplinary spaces created for it.” In both cases, the ascetic feels that she has undergone a spiritual rebirth because her body has performed the actions necessary in actual birth, a connection the ascetic holds in her mind by associating aspects of her experience with different deities. In the negative space of the cave, the ascetic’s senses are engaged in a similar way to when she was undergoing her actual birth, an experience she does not consciously remember. In both cases, the tunnel is wet and dark, and encloses the entire body. Schattschneider relates this experience to Winnicott’s theory of recurrent crises of separation that take place between mother and child. In other words, by physically undergoing a transition that engages both body and mind to such a high degree, the ascetic is able to push beyond the crisis, reconciling her conscious present with her unconscious infinitude. She writes, “healthy engagement with transitional phenomena, which mediates between subjective interior experience and objective external reality, continues through adulthood.”

Since Buddhism may be understood as a method of traversing life’s challenges, or of traveling on a path which has no known outcome except hardship, as evidenced by the persistence of the traveler or merchant character in the Jataka tales, it makes sense to look at Buddhist space in terms of objects and voids; that is, the objects that compose the path, as well as the distance between them, which must be walked by the traveler over the course of his lifetime. The ascetic, Fumiko, bounds up the mountain in front of the winded anthropologist who follows behind. Schattschneider notes that Fumiko seems to have a different language for her feet when they interact with the mountain, as if by walking in a particular way, Fumiko is able to derive information back from the mountain. In physics there is understood to be equal and opposite reaction, so it does not seem so strange that the same might be true of other aspects of our reality. If, as Buddhists believe, this reality is understood as an infinite complexity, then the act of traveling the path becomes the driving motivation of the individual.

This, in turn, lends credibility to the claims of the ascetics who underwent the ritual of rebirth in Hardacre’s article that the mountain spoke back to them as they passed through the metaphorical womb space within it. By locating the physical existence of a psychological phenomenon, and reorienting themselves within that space to recall the original circumstances, they were able to recall past experiences of similar events, although, as Hardacre points out, it is their drive to make the connections between their experiences that is of fundamental importance to the ascetics. If then, as Winnicott suggests separately from the discussion of Buddhism, there are an inherent series of crises over the course of a lifetime, caused as the intangible and often changing consciousness is confronted with the material reality of the space around it as well as the body that contains it. It is not unreasonable to assume that awareness of these psychological phenomena is beneficial to the consciousness of the individual, however that awareness is arrived at. Buddhism may therefore be identified as the search, or the impulse to search for an original consciousness, unencumbered by the conflations and contradictions inherent to contemporary life. Although it might seem counterintuitive to assume the continuity of man -after all, so much has changed about his circumstances in the last few thousand years alone, there is certainly something attractive about a coherent theory of our evolution, both in our attachment to our tangible past, but also in relation to our newly imagined future.

  

Works Cited

Barrie, Thomas. The sacred in-between: The mediating roles of architecture. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2010.

Britton, Karla. Constructing the ineffable: Contemporary sacred architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Architecture, 2010.

Hardacre, Helen. "The Cave and the Womb World." Japanese Journal of Religious Studies (1983): 149-76. JSTOR. JSTOR.

Jones, Lindsay. The hermeneutics of sacred architecture: Experience, interpretation, comparison. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP for Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, 2000.

Roth, Leland M. Understanding architecture: Its elements, history, and meaning. New York, NY: Icon Editions, 1993.

Schattschneider, Ellen. "My Mother's Garden: Transitional Phenomena on a Japanese Sacred Mountain." Ethos 28 (2000): 147-73.

 

1903 Avenue F, Galveston, TX

 

HISTORY of FIRST PRESBYTERIAN, GALVESTON

 

A hundred and seventy-one years ago, Galveston became a city in its own right instead of a pirate stronghold. Texas had won her freedom from Mexico, and Galveston almost at once became the gateway to the newborn Republic with a bustling population of some 300 people. Until this time the only religious life known to the people, and that rather sketchily, was Roman Catholicism. The preaching of Protestantism was prohibited. But in 1836, the same year that these momentous events were becoming history, the first Protestant sermon was given in Galveston in the open air near the old Navy Yard, located on the flats at the foot of 24th street--and it was preached by Presbyterian. The preacher was Rev. Henry Reid of Hopewell Presbytery, Georgia.

 

The next authentic Presbyterian sermon was preached in the same place two years later by Rev. W.Y. Allen of the Presbytery of South Alabama. In 1839 he brought to Galveston Rev. John McCullough, a missionary from the United States, who began to preach whenever and wherever he found a convenient place, eventually centering his work in a City Company house on the northwest corner of Church and 19th Streets, which became known as "The Academy," or Galveston University--evidently recognized as a seat of learning, as well as of religion.

 

At this time, Galveston had a population of 3000 people but no church. On December 1, 1839, a meeting of citizens was called to consider ways and means of meeting the need of a churchless town. Mr. McCullough preached a sermon and the meeting was called to order with the Presbyterian minister in the chair. Mr. Gail Borden, later of condensed milk fame, was secretary. It was then and there decided to proceed with the building of a Presbyterian church toward which $3,000 had been subscribed. Nine trustees were chosen to contract for the building and to superintend its construction. This action was taken not only because the only minister in the city was a Presbyterian, but over three-fourths of the church-going people were of the same persuasion. The First Presbyterian Church became an organization on January 1, 1840, with fourteen charter members and Rev. John McCullough as pastor. It was the fifth church in order entered on the rolls of the Brazos Presbytery at the time of the Presbytery's organization on April 3, 1840.

 

The First Presbyterian Church building, completed in 1843, was the first church constructed on the Island, followed soon after by the first Catholic Church which was completed in 1847. Of frame construction, the building was erected on the southwest corner of 19th and Church Streets, where it stood for 30 years until it was displaced by what eventually became the present magnificent structure. This current building, dedicated on February 24, 1889, was called "Bunting's Folly" because Dr. R.F. Bunting, known as the "Fighting Parson" as a result of his Civil War record, was the moving spirit in the great undertaking, which required sixteen years to complete, and cost $90,000. The building has been recognized by architectural experts as being the finest example of Norman architecture in the Southland, if not the whole country. It was the first major architectural endeavor of Nicholas J. Clayton, who supervised its construction. Clayton was the first professional architect in Texas and later earned fame as the designer of many prominent commercial, religious and residential buildings throughout the State.

 

An unusual feature of the church building which attracted much attention, but was eminently practical considering the church's location and the date of its construction, was the room off the left of the narthex which was fitted up as a mortuary where bodies could be placed after funeral services and held until it was convenient for friends or relatives to arrange for burial. In subsequent years as the need for this facility diminished, the room was converted to other uses.

 

The sanctuary has been enhanced by many gifts of devoted past members. The Hook & Hastings pipe organ, a gift of Mrs. George Ball, was constructed for the church at a cost of $7,000 and includes pipes from other organs.

 

The communion table, two chairs and a set of offering plates were carved of oak by a young woman, Virginia Stowe Hutches, around 1894. She married Rev. Henry Austin in 1896. Symbols carved into the communion table include an alpha superimposed on an omega signifying the infinity of God; a loaf and a cup of the Lord's Supper; lilies, symbolic of the resurrection; the Star of David, showing the lineage of Christ and the fulfillment of God's promise to Moses and his people of the coming of the Messiah; a crown of thorns, a symbol of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins; a descending dove, symbolic of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

Of the ten stained glass windows, three are outstanding examples of Tiffany's work. Five of the windows are memorials to former members: Sarah Catherine Perry Ball, who was 15 years of age when the church was organized and was one of the first young people baptized in the church; Sarah Barker Perry, mother of Sarah Ball; Anne T. Trueheart, a prominent member of the early church and organizer of a mission Sunday School in the west end of Galveston which eventually evolved into the present Westminster Church; and beloved members Agnes Davie Killough and Nellie Pitt.

 

The ten overhead lights were made by member L.O. Sharp in 1939 from designs prepared by his daughter employing the designs from the ceiling beam points which were inverted.

 

In 1912, the T. William English Memorial room was built for the use of the Ida Austin Sunday School Class. In 1955, the room was fitted with pews for use as a chapel. The Chapel was substantially damaged in Hurricane Ike & awaits restoration.

 

The present church building has stood unshaken, but not undisturbed, through the years. In the great fire of 1885, which swept across forty blocks of the city, the church escaped because it was practically fireproof. At that time, it was offered to the school board for use to meet the emergency of the loss of the school.

 

The church has stood the test of many hurricanes, and has suffered damage from time to time. In the 1900 storm, it was a place of refuge for many homeless, and the mortuary was used for many killed in that storm. Twenty-two members of the church lost their lives in that tragic disaster which claimed over 6,000 victims. Previous to Hurricane Ike in 2008, the most extensive damage to the church had been from the ravages of Hurricane Carla and her attendant tornadoes in 1961. This threatened the very existence of the church, but thanks to a wisely patient committee, and the efficient and faithful supervision by Adolph Johnson, a contractor whose membership and heart's interest were in the Church, the restoration was completed even to the virtually priceless stained glass memorial windows.

 

The ministry of the First Presbyterian Church of Galveston has been marked by its loyalty to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the Holy Scriptures. For many years, its pulpit has been graced and blessed by the preaching of outstanding preachers of the Word. One of the most noted of these, Dr. Wil R. Johnson, served this Church as pastor from 1922 until 1952, and then as pastor emeritus until his death in 1964.

 

For the congregation's Sesquicentennial celebration in 1990, Retta Lou Weber & her daughter Gayle Weber Strange published a large format, hardcover, illustrated history of First Presbyterian and its involvement in Galveston life, entitled "Lively Stones." (Copies are still available - contact the church office for more information: 409-762-8638.) Former pastor of First Presbyterian Church Galveston, the Rev. Jack K. Bennett, served as Pastor Emeritus of FPC Galveston from 2002 until his death in 2010.

 

Our installed pastor, the Reverend David H. Green, began his ministry at First Presbyterian on April 1, 2006.

 

Long-time organist, Bonnye Karger, who retired in the summer of 2010, has been named Organist Emeritus of First Presbyterian Galveston.

 

Hurricane Ike in September 2008 created more damage to the church building than any previous hurricane, including 1900. Significant damage was done to the first floor of the building, with flooding of the sanctuary, fellowship hall, chapel, parlor, pastor's & administration offices, kitchen, downstairs classrooms & nursery, Luke Society medical supply closet, storage & utility spaces, four East End Preschool classrooms & the East End Preschool office & library. Flooding like this did not occur during the 1900 storm. Conservation and restoration work began immediately and continues today.

 

Returning home after Ike! The first worship service held in the church building, post-Ike, was on Thanksgiving Eve, November 25, 2009, and Sunday morning worship resumed on November 29, 2009.

 

On October 4, 2010, restoration work began on the sanctuary.

 

From the church's own webpage

I was asked a few weeks back, if I fancied meeting up with friends, Simon and Cam for a few bears and a crawl round Ipswich.

 

Seemed a great idea, but checking Network Rain this week, I found that there were replacement buses out of Liverpool Street to Whitham and out of Cambridge. The first added an hour to the trip to Ipswich, the second, 90 minutes.

 

Jools said she would enjoy a trip out and a walk around Manningtree, so we could go in the car, I would drive up, she would drive back, and we would both have some exercise and I would meet friends.

 

Perfect.

 

Although we had planned to go to Tesco first, in the end we had breakfast and set off at half seven, eager to get some miles under our belts before traffic really built at Dartford.

 

Up the A2 in bright sunshine, it was a great day for travel, but also I thought it might have been good for checking out orchid woods back home. But a change is always good, and it has been nearly 9 years since Simon invited me for a tour round historic Ipswich, showing there was almost as much history there than in Norwich to the north.

 

Into Essex before nine, and arriving in Ipswich before ten, we decided to find somewhere for breakfast first before going our separate ways.

 

A large breakfast later, we split up, and I went to wander north to St Margaret's church, which I had been into on that trip 9 years back, but my shots not so good.

 

I found many interesting places in-between the modern buildings and urban sprawl, timber framed houses, Tudor brick and much more beside.

 

Sadly, St Margaret was locked. I could see the notice on the porch door, so I didn't go up to see what it said.

 

I wandered back, found St Mary le Tower open, so went in and took over a hundred shots, soaking in the fine Victorian glass and carved bench ends, even if they were 19th century and not older.

 

In the south chapel, a group were talking quietly, so I tried not to disturb them, only realising how loud the shutter on the camera was.

 

The font took my eye first, as it is a well preserved one from the 15th century. Though these are common in East Anglia, not so in deepest Kent, so I snapped it from all directions, recording each mark of the carver's tools.

 

The clocked ticked round to midday, and so I made my way to the quayside where I was to meet my friends.

 

Simon lives in Ipswich, but Cam and David had come down on the train from the Fine City. We met at the Briarbank Brewery Tap where I had a couple of mocha porters, which were very nice indeed.

 

From there we went to the Dove where we had two more beers as well as lunch.

 

And finally a walk to The Spread Eagle for one final beer before I walked back to Portman Road to meet Jools at the car.

 

Jools drove us back to the A12, and pointed the car south. As we drove, dusk fell and rain began to fall. Not very pleasant. But at least traffic was light, so in an hour we were on the M25 and twenty minutes later over the river and back in Kent.

 

Rain fell steadily as we cruised down the M20, past the familiar landmarks until we were back in Dover. Where we had to make a pit stop at M and S, as we needed supplies, and something for supper.

 

Not sure that garlic bread and wine counts as a meal, but did for us, so at half nine, we climbed the hill to bed.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Ipswich is the county town of Suffolk, and is also probably the longest continuously occupied town in England. Here on the River Gipping, in the south of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of East Anglia, a number of 7th Century industrial villages grew together, and since then Ipswich has always been an industrial and commercial town, processing the produce of the land round about, and exporting it up the River Orwell to other parts of England and the continent. It was wealthy in the late medieval period, but it suffered from being cut off from its European markets by the outfall from the Reformation. A strongly puritan town in the 17th Century, a quiet backwater in the 18th Century, it was not until the Industrial Revolution that it rose to commercial prominence again, with heavy industry producing agricultural machinery, vehicles and other ironwork. It would continue to be important industrially until the 1980s, but then most of the factories closed, and the town has not yet recovered.

The townscape is punctuated by church towers and spires, for Ipswich has twelve surviving medieval churches. Remarkably, six of them are still in use, and of these St Mary le Tower is the biggest and most prominent. Its spire rises sixty metres above the rooftops, making it the second tallest building in the town after the Mill apartment block on the Waterfront. There was a church here in 1200, when the Borough of Ipswich came into being in the churchyard by the declaration of the granting of a charter. The medieval church had a spire until it came down in the hurricane of 1661. When the Diocese of Norwich oversaw the restoration of the church in the mid-19th Century the decision was taken for a complete rebuild in stone on the same site. It is almost entirely the work of diocesan surveyor Richard Phipson, who worked on it over a period of twenty years in the 1850s and 1860s, including replacing the spire, and so this is East Anglia's urban Victorian church par excellence. The rebuilding was bankrolled by the wealthy local Bacon banking family. It is a large church, built more or less on the plan of its predecessor, full of the spirit of its age. One could no more imagine Ipswich without the Tower than without the Orwell Bridge.

 

The length of the church splits the churchyard into two quite separate parts, the south side a public space, the walled north side atmospheric and secretive. The large cross to the south-west of the tower is not a war memorial. It remembers John Patteson, Bishop of Melanesia, murdered by some of his flock in the 1870s. Treated as a martyr by the press of the day, Patteson appears to have had no local connection, but the Pattesons had intermarried with the Cobbolds, an important local family, and Patteson Road by Ipswich docks also remembers him. There never was a north door, and the west doors are beautiful and liturgically correct but perhaps not useful, since they are below street level and the path merely leads round to the south, allowing processions but no access from Tower Street. The flushwork is exuberant, and makes you think that being a flint-knapper must have been a good living in the 1860s. As with the medieval predecessor, the entrance is through the tower which forms a porch on the south side, in common with about thirty other East Anglian churches. Until the 1860s there was a further castellated porch on the south side of the tower, something in the style of the Hadleigh Deanery tower, but this was removed. You can see it in as photograph at the top of this page. And looking at this photograph, it is hard not to think that Phipson retained at least part of the lower stage of the tower.

 

There is a small statue of the church's patron saint in the niche above the entrance, by the sculptor Richard Pfeiffer. Away to the east, the same sculptor produced St John the Evangelist and St Mary of Magdala on the end of the chancel, and there is more of his work inside. You step into the tower porch under vaulting. A small door in the north-east corner leads up into the ringing chamber and beyond that the belfry, with a ring of twelve bells. The south doorway into the church has stops representing the Annunciation, with the angel to the west, and Mary at her prayer desk to the east. As part of a Millennium project this doorway was painted and gilded. It leads through into the south aisle, beyond which the wide nave seems to swallow all sound, a powerful transition from the outside. Polished wood and tile gleam under coloured light from large windows filled with 19th Century glass. At one time the walls were stencilled, but this was removed in the 1960s. The former church was dark and serious inside, as a drawing in the north aisle shows, so it must have made quite a contrast when the townspeople first entered their new church.

 

The font by the doorway is the first of a number of significant survivals from the old church. It's one of the 15th Century East Anglian series of which several hundred survive, all slightly different. It is in good condition, and you can't help thinking that this is ironically because Ipswich was a town which embraced protestantism whole-heartedly after the Reformation, and it is likely that the font was plastered over in the mid-16th Century to make it plain and simple. The lions around the pillar stand on human heads, and there are more heads beneath the bowl. The next survival that comes into view is the pair of 15th Century benches at the west end of the nave. The bench ends are clerics holding books, and above them memorable finials depicting two lions, a dragon and what might be a cat or a dog.

  

The box pews were removed as part of Phipson's restoration and replaced with high quality benches. The front row are the Borough Corporation seats, a mace rest and a sword rest in front of them. The carvings on the ends of the benches are seahorses, the creatures that hold the shield on the Ipswich Borough arms, and on the finials in front are lions holding ships, the crest of the Borough. As you might expect in Ipswich these are by Henry Ringham, whose church carving was always of a high quality, and is perhaps best known at Woolpit and Combs. His workshop on St John's Road employed fifty people at the time of the 1861 census, but by the following year he was bankrupt, and so the work here is likely some of the last that he produced. He died in 1866, and Ringham Road in East Ipswich remembers him.

 

Moving into the chancel, the other major survival is a collection of late 15th and early 16th Century brasses. Altogether there are ten large figures, but in fact some of them represent the same person more than once. The most memorable is probably that of Alys Baldry, who died in 1507. She lies between her two husbands. The first, Robert Wimbill, is on the right. He died in about 1477. He was a notary, and his ink pot and pen case hang from his belt. Her second husband, Thomas Baldry, is on the left. He died in 1525. He was a merchant, and his merchant mark is set beneath his feet next to Alys's five daughters and four sons.

 

Alys Baldry, Robert Wimbill and Thomas Baldry are all depicted in further brasses here. The best of these is that to Robert. It was commissioned by his will in the 1470s. He lies on his own with a Latin inscription which translates as 'My hope lies in my heart. Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy on me.' His ink pot and pen case hang from his belt again, and between his feet are a skull and scattered bones, an early memento mori. Thomas Baldry's own brass memorial shows him lying between his two wives, Alys who we have already met, and his second wife Christian. The other group of three figures depicts Thomas Drayll, a merchant, with his wives Margaret and Agnes. Thomas died in 1512. The arms of the Cinque Ports are set above him, and a large merchant mark is beneath his feet. Several inscriptions are missing, and we know that when the iconoclast William Dowsing visited the church on 29th Janary 1644 he ordered the removal of six brass inscriptions with Ora pro nobis ('pray for us') and Ora pro animabus ('pray for our souls'), and Cujus animae propitietur deus ('on whose soul may God have mercy') and pray for the soul in English.

 

The spectacular sanctuary with its imposing reredos, piscina and sedilia was clearly designed for shadowy, incense-led worship. A lush Arts and Crafts crucifixion surmounts the altar. East Anglian saints flank the walls. James Bettley, revising the Buildings of England volume for East Suffolk, records that it was the work of Somers, Clarke & Micklethwaite in the 1880s. The chancel is only lit from the east window, emphasising the focus from the rest of the church. The set of twelve apostles and twelve angels on the choir stalls are also by Pfeiffer. You can see his signature on the back of St Luke's icon of the Blessed Virgin. This sanctuary is the ultimate expression of late 19th Century Tractarianism in Suffolk. Back in the nave, the early 18th Century pulpit speaks of a different liturgical age, when this church was a preaching house rather than a sacramental space. James Bettley credits its carving to James Hubbard, and notes its similarity to that in the Unitarian Meeting House a few hundred yards off. The 19th Century screen that stood in the chancel arch and separated these two liturgical ages was moved to the east end of the north aisle as an organ screen some time in the 20th Century.

 

Another screen separates off the Lady Chapel from the south aisle and the chancel. The chapel is a pleasing period piece, furnished sentimentally. The reredos, by Arthur Wallace in 1907, depicts the Supper at Emmaus flanked by Moses and Elijah in an echo of the Transfiguration. The early 20th Century paintings on the south wall are lovely, especially the infant Christ as he plays at the feet of St Joseph. But the overwhelming atmosphere of this church comes from its extensive range of 19th Century glass, the largest collection in Suffolk. It provides a catalogue of some of the major 19th Century workshops over a fairly short period, from the 1850s to the 1880s. Much of it is by Clayton & Bell, who probably received the commission for east and west windows and south aisle as part of Phipson's rebuilding contract. Other major workshops include those of William Wailes, the O'Connors and Lavers, Barraud & Westlake. A small amount of 1840s glass in the north aisle was reset here from the previous church. There are photographs of the glass at the bottom of this page.

 

As was common in major 19th Century restorations, the memorials that once flanked the walls were collected together and reset at the west end of the nave. At St Mary le Tower this was a major task, for there are a lot of them. The most famous is that to William Smart, MP for Ipswich in the late 16th Century. It is painted on boards. His inscription is a long acrostic, and he kneels at the bottom opposite his wife. between them is a panoramic view of the Ipswich townscape as it was in 1599, the year that he died, a remarkable snapshot of the past. Other memorials include those of the 17th Century when Ipswich was the heartland of firebrand protestant East Anglia. Matthew Lawrence, who died in 1653, was the publike preacher of this towne. There are more memorials in the north chancel aisle, now divided up as vestries. The best of these is to John and Elizabeth Robinson. He died in 1666. They kneel at their prayer desks, and below them are their children Thomas, John, Mary and Elizabeth, who all predeceased their mother. Also here are memorials to a number of the Cobbold family, who were not only important locally but even provided ministers for this church.

 

There are more Cobbold memorials in the nave, including one in glass at the west end of the north aisle. It is dedicated to Lucy Chevallier Cobbold, and depicts her with her daughter at the Presentation in the Temple. The Cobbold family embraced Tractarianism wholeheartedly, being largely responsible for the building of St Bartholomew near their home at Holywells Park. They probably had an influence over the Bacon family, whose wealth went towards the rebuilding, and whose symbol of a boar can be seen in the floor tiles. A good set of Stuart royal arms hangs above the west doorway.

 

I can't imagine what the 17th Century parishioners would make of this church if they could come back and see it now. Trevor Cooper, in his edition of The Journals of William Dowsing, recalls that the atmosphere in the town was so strongly puritan that in the 1630s the churchwardens were excommunicated for refusing to carry out the sacramentalist reforms of Archbishop Laud. The reforms demanded that the altar be returned to the chancel and railed in, but this was considered idolatrous by the parishioners. When the visitation commissioners of the Bishop of Norwich came to the church in April 1636 to see if the commands had been carried out, the churchwardens refused to give up the keys... verbally assaulting them and and confronting them with 'musketts charged, swords, staves and other weapons'.

 

Frank Grace, in his 'Schismaticall and Factious Humours': Opposition in Ipswich to Laudian Church Government, records a number of other incidents both here and in other Ipswich churches in the late 1630s, including an attack on 'a conformable minister' (that is to say one faithful to the Bishop) by a mob as well as a stranger who was invited by the town bailiffs to preach a very factious and seditious sermon in Tower church to a large congregation against the authority of the incumbent, who no doubt was held at bay while the ranting went on. As with all the Ipswich churches, the iconoclast William Dowsing was welcomed with open arms by the churchwardens here on his visit of January 1644. Looking around at Phipson's sacramental glory, it is hard to imagine now.

  

Simon Knott, December 2022

 

www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/stmaryletower.htm

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

former site of the Shrine of Our Lady of Ipswich, Lady Lane, Ipswich

 

On January 8th, 1297, a royal wedding took place in Ipswich. Princess Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward I, married the Count of Holland. Fitch, in his annals, records that Edward I stayed in the town for the ceremony with 'a splendid court', and that the three minstrels were paid 50s each for their services.The wedding took place, not in any of the parish churches of the town, but in one of England's major shrines of Marian pilgrimage; a shrine to which we may presume Edward I had a special devotion. This was the Shrine of Our Lady of Grace, also referred to in contemporary records as Our Lady of Ipswich.

 

This wedding is just the earliest record we have of a royal occasion at the shrine. Thereafter, a succession of visitors come here on pilgrimage, culminating in the early 16th century, when the pilgrimage cult was at its height. Between 1517 and 1522, both Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon made journeys to the shrine, set beside the Westgate in the parish of St Matthew. Other visitors included the local dignitary Cardinal Wolsey, and the future saint Thomas More.

 

It is hard for us to understand today the part that Mary played in the medieval economy of grace. Contrary to popular belief, there is considerable (and growing) evidence that the people of rural medieval England had an articulate and sophisticated understanding of the nature and purposes of intercessionary prayer. Although there may have been abuses, when people, in some sense, offered 'worship' to images of the Madonna, this was not a general practice, or even a common one. Mary was seen as a focus of prayer; contemporary images of medieval people frequently show them carrying their rosary beads.

 

To have some understanding of the role of Our Lady in the hearts and minds of medieval Suffolkers, we need to look at the church in southern Europe today. The spectacular processions, the colourful images, the celebrations and devotions would all have been a part of medieval Suffolk life. Fundamentally, the people of medieval Suffolk, in all their daily trials and tribulations, in the midst of their suffering and expectation of an early death, saw Mary as being on their side.

 

A surprising amount of evidence of the medieval affection for Mary survives in Suffolk, considering how this cult outraged the reformers of the 1540s, and was attacked by Puritans and Anglicans throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. A brief survey of churches with entries on this site will find the rosary dedication at the base of the tower at Helmingham, the Hail Mary monograms on each side of the tower at Stonham Parva, the so-called Doom painting at Cowlinge, where Mary tips the scales in favour of sinners, and many more. About half of the medieval churches in Suffolk are dedicated to St Mary. Although Orme has shown us that many current Anglican dedications are well-meaning 18th century inventions, will evidence proves that many of the Suffolk dedications to Mary are correct; except that the dedication would usually be to a Marian solemnity or devotion, most commonly the Assumption. This dedication has been restored correctly by the Anglo-catholics at Ufford. Of the churches not dedicated to Mary, all would have contained a Marian shrine.

 

These shrines were most commonly at the east end of the south aisle, and were often restored by the Victorians as a 'lady chapel'. Some of these shrines became famous as a result of reports of their efficacy. Some became so popular that they were translated to buildings of their own. This is probably how the shrine of Our Lady of Grace came to be, although its actual origins are lost in the mists of time.

 

There were four churches within a stones throw of the shrine, of which two, St Mary Elms and St Matthew, survive today. Edward I's visit to Ipswich came two hundred years after the founding of the greatest English Marian shrine at Walsingham, about sixty miles from Ipswich. We may assume that the fame of Ipswich grew in a similar way to that of Walsingham.There were other major shrines in Eastern England at Kings Lynn, Ely and Lincoln; in Suffolk, we know that pilgrimages were made to Bury, Woolpit and Sudbury, amongst others.

 

The fame and influence of the Ipswich shrine reached its peak in the early years of the 16th Century, after an incident known as the Miracle of the Maid of Ipswich. This occured in 1516 and was held in renown all over England in the few short years left before the Reformation intervened. The popularity of the Miracle, in which Joan, a young Ipswich girl, has a near-death encounter and experiences visions of the Virgin Mary, was widely used by the Catholic Church as a buttress against the murmurings of reformers.

 

The late Dr John Blatchly, in his book The Miracles of Lady Lane showed convincingly that the font in nearby St Matthew's church was paid for by the Rector John Bailey to celebrate the Miracle of the Maid of Ipswich, and the visit to Ipswich of Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon soon afterwards. The panels of the font depict events in the devotional story of Mary, mother of Jesus. These five reliefs, and a sixth of the Baptism of Christ, are amazing art objects. They show the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin with Gabriel unfurling a banner from which a dove emerges to whisper in Mary's ear; The Adoration of the Magi, with the wise men pulling a blanket away from the Blessed Virgin and child as if to symbolise their revelation to the world; the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, with Mary radiating glory in a mandala, which four angels use to convey her up to heaven in bodily form; the Coronation of the Queen of Heaven, the crowned figures of God the Father and God the Son placing a crown on the Blessed Virgin's head while the Dove of the Holy Spirit races down directly above her; and the Mother of God Enthroned, the crowned figure of the Blessed Virgin sitting on the left of and looking at (and thus paying homage to) her crowned son on the right, who is holding an orb.

 

Dr Blatchly thought that this last panel was a representation of Katherine of Aragon and her husband Henry VIII, which I think a little unlikely, although of course it could be both, one representing the other. Remarkably, two of the four figures around the base are probably intended as Joan, the Maid of Ipswich, and John Bailey the Rector himself.

 

In The Miracles of Lady Lane, which Dr Blatchly co-authored with Diarmaid MacCulloch, there is a fascinating if somewhat convoluted account of the battles between Bailey and Cardinal Wolsey, who was trying to consolidate his power in Ipswich by taking over the Shrine of Our Lady of Ipswich, which was in the parish of St Matthew. It is the kind of thing Trollope would have written about if he had been around in the 16th Century. Bailey's celebration of the Miracle was partly a way of competing with Wolsey for fame and influence, but Bailey's death in 1525 left the way open for the Cardinal, who in his turn would completely over-reach himself and fall in his own way.

 

The book is memorable as a picture of the incredible religious fervour in Ipswich in the early years of the 16th Century, enthusiasms that would spill over into passion and violence. Blatchly notes that the sequence of at least some of the Marian images on the font was replicated by a sequence of inns down the mile of Ipswich's main street, now Carr Street, Tavern Street and Westgate Street, which led to the shrine. One of the inns, the Salutation (ie, Annunciation) at the start of Carr Street, survives in business under the same name to this day. But in time of course Ipswich would become well-known as the most puritan of towns in the most puritan of England's regions.

 

The focus of any Marian shrine would be the statue of Mary, most often with the infant Christ on her knee. When the reformers of the 16th century set out to break the hold of the Church on the imagination of the people, statues of Mary and the saints were the first things to go. Poor William Dowsing, who inspected Suffolk churches for 'superstitious imagery' 100 years later in 1644, is often blamed for the destruction of these statues; but his meticulous journals do not suggest that a single one of them had survived to his time.

 

The shrines were suppressed in the spring of 1538, and Sir Charles Wriothesley, in his Chronicle, writes that in the moneth of July, the images of Our Lady of Wallsingham and Ipswich were brought up to London with all the jewelles that hang about them, at the Kinge's commandment, and divers other images... because the people should use noe more idolatrye unto them, and they were burnt at Chelsey by my Lord Privy Seal. Wodderspoon, in his memorials, records that (Thomas) Cromwell... caused this image of Our Lady to be pulled down from her niche, and after despoiling the effigy of its rich habilements and jewels... it was conveyed to London and destroyed. John Weever, writing a century after the event, reports that all the notable images, as the images of Our Lady of Walsingham, Ipswich, Worcester, the Lady of Wilsdon, the rood of grace of Our Lady of Boxley, and the image of the rood of St Saviour at Bermondsey, were brought up to London and burnt at Chelsey, at the commandment of the aforesaid Cromwell.

 

This is a particularly folkloric account, since we know that several of the images mentioned were not burnt at Chelsea, but were destroyed elsewhere. There is no evidence that any of the surviving reports are by eye-witnesses, and although there are many other reports of the burning, all are circumstantial, and most seem to be based on Wriothesley's Chronicle. Stanley Smith, in his majestic The Madonna of Ipswich, concludes that the conflagration took place at Thomas Cromwell's house at Chelsea on 26th September 1538, under the orders of Bishop Latimer, and before the eyes of the Lord Privy Seal. The Ipswich statue certainly made it to Chelsea. Thomas Cromwell's steward wrote to him that he had received it, with 'nothing about her but two half shoes of silver'. This report will be crucial, as our story develops.

 

In general, where a Marian shrine was not in a parish church, the building that had housed it did not survive for much longer. During the 17th and 18th centuries, several legal documents, especially those dealing with the transfer of ownership of land, make reference to the remains of the Shrine of Our Lady of Grace. John Waple bought land 'at the south end of the La. chapel wall' in 1566. In 1650, Edward Bartle was granted 'land on which once stood a chapel, called the Lady of Grace chapel, land whereon a stable is now built'. In 1761, a Mr Grove visiting from Richmond reports that 'there is scarce one stone left upon another'. Of course, the terrible irony of this is that we can use these land documents to pinpoint exactly where the shrine of Our Lady of Grace was. Another advantage to locating the shrine is that the general layout of streets in the centre of Ipswich has changed little since Saxon times, despite the best efforts of Sixties town planners.

 

The shrine, then, was just outside the west gate of the town wall. This was demolished in 1782, but photographs exist of a rather fanciful reconstruction put up for the Jubilee celebrations of 1887. The gate stood in Westgate Street, just beyond where a footpath now cuts through to the Civic Centre. The shrine stood on the next corner, where a Sixties block once housed a shoe shop and Tesco, but now contains rather dismal discount stores. The narrow road to the left here is called Lady Lane, and was certainly called that in 1761, although I cannot discover if this name was contemporary with the shrine.

 

We can also form some idea of what the shrine looked like. Stanley Smith records surviving wills which bequeathed items, including, in 1498, a porch and glass for the east and west windows. There was almost certainly a burial ground; this is referred to in a land transfer document and a will, and human remains were found on the site in the early 20th century. When Tesco was built in 1964, chunks of church masonry were discovered on the site; however, we should remember that, after the Reformation, rubble from many demolished religious buildings (of which Ipswich had plenty) were used in the construction of other buildings.

 

What appears to be a pilgrim's token was also found near the site; but, as Stanley Smith points out, pilgrim's tokens from many shrines have been found around Walsingham, and there is no reason to believe that this particular medal originally came from Ipswich.

 

In Lady Lane itself, a small statue was put up in the early 1990s as a memorial to the shrine; it replaced a 1960s plaque. This statue repays close inspection, because the story gets slightly more exciting at this point. Despite the conflagration at Chelsea in 1538, there is some evidence that the statue of Our Lady of Grace survived, and still exists today; and that this memorial statue is a true copy of it. In the Italian city of Nettuno, most famous perhaps for its harbour of Anzio, there is a shrine to Our Lady of Grace. There is a story that the image there was brought to Nettuno from England during the Jubilee year of 1550. There is some evidence in the town archives to support this. And the town archives also mention Ipswich.

 

It wouldn't be that improbable. Western mainland Europe is full of statues and sculptures produced in England during the 12th and 13th centuries. Many of them must have been exported at the time; Nottingham alabaster work, for instance, was greatly prized throughout Europe. But much probably went abroad at the time of the Reformation. It must be remembered that the Reformation in England placed quite a low priority on the new teachings of Luther and Calvin; they were the job of the theologians. But the state, which enforced the Reformation in England, was more concerned with wresting political power from the church, and enriching itself on the wealth of the churches, shrines and monasteries. It achieved both of these goals extremely successfully; the first is shown by the fact that there was no religious war in this country, and the second by the fact that the Tudor royal family amassed riches beyond its wildest dreams, much of it to be squandered by Elizabeth I and James I on high living and piratical expeditions to the 'New World'.

 

There was no evangelical agenda on behalf of the English state as there would be 100 years later under Oliver Cromwell. It is hard to imagine William Dowsing selling images abroad, but there is a great amount of circumstantial evidence that the cronies of Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer in the 1530s and 1540s did exactly this. It was a pragmatic approach; they wanted rid of images, and they wanted to accrue the wealth of the church. That said, the Nettuno legend records that the statue was rescued from the flames by secretly Catholic sailors, who spirited it safely abroad. I think the sales story outlined above is more likely, though.

 

The Nettuno image was identified as English as early as 1938 by an historian of 13th century iconography, Martin Gillett. He felt that considerable changes had been made to it; Mary's head had been replaced, and the posture of the infant Christ changed. The throne (no longer in existence) was a 19th century replacement. But the folds in the material, the features of the Christ child, the position of the infant on the right knee rather than the left, and the carving style, all strongly suggest an English origin.

 

And then war intervened. Anzio and Nettuno were the site of some of the fiercest fighting during the Allied landings in Italy, and the statue was seriously damaged. During its restoration on 1959, an antiquated English inscription was found below the Madonna's right foot: IU? ARET GRATIOSUS (thou art gracious). This supports, as Stanley Smith says, the local dedication of Madonna della Grazie. The inscription had been overwritten SANCTA MARIA, ORA PRO NOBIS, probably in the late 16th century.

 

Interestingly, no other major English Marian shrine was dedicated to Our Lady of Grace. Even more striking, when Martin Gillett first examined the statue in 1938, it was wearing two half shoes made of English silver, just like those described by Thomas Cromwell's steward 400 years before.

 

Obviously, there is a great yearning for it to be true. I think, on balance, that the statue at Nettuno probably is the statue of Our Lady of Ipswich. Other people seem certain of the fact; hence the replica in Lady Lane.

 

The Guild of Our Lady of Ipswich is an ecumenical group formed in the 1980s by people from the Catholic church of St Pancras and the Anglican church of St Mary Elms. They have re-established Marian shrines in both these churches, and meet monthly. They have also re-established the procession which Cardinal Wolsey instituted from St Peter (by his college) to the site of the shrine. They make this walk every year on the date of its predecessor, 7th September. Even more excitingly, they have also placed a replica of the Nettuno statue in the church at St Mary Elms. It was dedicated with great ecumenical ceremony under the watchful eye of the Guild in September 2002.

I have passed Marylebone many time, either in a taxi or underneath on the Tube, and have always meant to go in. And with a morning spent in the area last month, I walked over Euston Road to find all three doors open, and a good number of people coming and going.

 

From the outside it could be a City Wren church, inside it has lots of space and a fine painted chancel.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Marylebone Parish Church is a place of active and engaged Christian witness, set at the very heart of central London. With a history stretching back nearly 900 years, those of us who worship here continue seek to offer God worship that has long been renowned for musical and liturgical excellence and to serve the diverse community in which we are set.

 

For more than 30 years, St Marylebone, just a few metres from Harley Street, has pioneered the work of Christian healing and, as well as being home to the internationally respected St Marylebone Healing and Counselling Centre, which offers low-cost analytical psychotherapy and spiritual direction, the Crypt at St Marylebone also houses an innovative NHS doctor’s surgery - the Marylebone Health Centre. Our work is enhanced by maintaining close and active links with some of medicine’s Royal Colleges and through our provision of chaplaincy to The London Clinic and King Edward VII’s Hospital.

 

St Marylebone has a flourishing Young Church, which complements our two schools: The St Marylebone Church of England School, an Outstanding Academy, National Teaching School and Maths Hub, and The St Marylebone Church of England Bridge School, a Free Special School working with secondary school age students who have speech, language and communication difficulties. Alongside our two schools St Marylebone works closely with the Royal Academy of Music and the University of Westminster, providing chaplaincy services to both, and also with Regent’s University.

 

As a parish church in the Diocese of London, we share a vision of a Church for this great world city that is Christ-centred and outward looking. By God’s grace we seek to be more confident in speaking and living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, more compassionate in serving others with the love of God the Father and more creative in reaching new people and places in the power of the Spirit.

 

Construction of the present church was first considered in 1770. A site was given in Paddington Street and plans were prepared by Sir William Chambers, Architect to the King, but the scheme was abandoned and the land purchased for a burial ground. In 1810-11 the present site was secured, and it was intended that this building should be another Chapel of Ease supporting the work of the nearby Parish Church.

 

Plans were prepared by Thomas Hardwick, who was a pupil of Sir William Chambers, and the foundation stone was laid on 5 July 1813. Later, it was decided to enlarge the building and make it the Parish Church; the present tower was erected, the front widened, and the gigantic Corinthian-columned Portico built. A vaulted crypt extended under the whole area of the church, with extensive catacombs under the west side.

 

These catacombs were bricked up in 1853, and in the mid-1980s, with due authority, the coffins were removed from the crypt for reinternment at Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey and the crypt was transformed into the present-day Healing and Counselling Centre, Sacrament Chapel, Jerusalem Chapel and NHS Marylebone Health Centre.

 

The present parish church, opened in February 1817, is the fourth known parish church building to serve this parish.

 

The first, established sometime in the early 12th century, was dedicated to St John the Evangelist and was the parish church of the manors of Tyburn and Lisson (Lillestone); it stood on what is now Oxford Street, on a site near Stratford Place. Indeed, it is thought that the open courtyard of Stratford Place is the graveyard of the first parish church.

 

By 1400, St John's had fallen into disrepair and was demolished; a new parish church was built opposite Tyburn Manor House (now the site of the Duchess of Devonshire Wing of The London Clinic). The site of this parish church and its successor church (is now the Old Church Memorial Garden at the north end of Marylebone High Street); Francis Bacon was married in this Church on the 11th May 1606.

 

In 1740, a new parish church was built on the same site and here you will find buried one of the founders of Methodism, Charles Wesley, along with other members of his family. He is commemorated by an obelisk memorial. Here it was that Lord Byron was christened, and here Lord Nelson attended services and, on the 3rd May 1803, brought his daughter by Lady Hamilton (who had herself been married here) to be baptised. This parish church was associated with many famous figures and the interior was used by William Hogarth for the ‘Marriage of the Rake’ in his ‘Rake’s Progress’ cycle of paintings. Some of the many memorials that crowded its walls, including a memorial to the cupbearer to Ann of Denmark and Queen Henrietta Maria, may be seen in the present parish church’s stairways, to which they were transferred when the old parish church was demolished (following damage in World War II) in 1949. Other people connected with this building include: James Figg, James Gibbs, Edmond Hoyle, John Rysbrack, John Allen, James Ferugson, Alan Ramsay, Stephen Storace, the dukes of Portland and Caroline Watson.

 

The present parish church was originally built (at a cost of some £80,000.00) without its fine Roman Renaissance style frescoed apse; this was added in 1884 by Thomas Harris. The original position of the altar was in what is now the Choir, just below the cross built into the ceiling. This altar (before which Robert Browning married Elizabeth Barrett in 1846) can be seen in the Holy Family Chapel. Above it hangs the painting of the Holy Family donated to the new parish church by Benjamin West, PRA (1738 -1820).

 

The parish church of 1817 is reputed to have sat 3,000 people and, above the present gallery, a second gallery (the remains of which can be seen either side of the organ) wrapped around three sides of the building.

 

The present organ, one of the finest recital instruments in the country, was built by Rieger Orgelbau of Austria and was commissioned in July 1987; it was a joint venture between the parish church and the neighbouring Royal Academy of Music. The organ pipes, which can be seen at the ends of the first floor galleries, belong to earlier instruments.

 

Charles Dickens and his family lived for many years next door to the parish church in Devonshire Terrace. He brought his son here to be baptised and the ceremony is described in his novel Dombey and Son.

 

Bomb damage sustained during World War II destroyed the stained glass windows and also the Georgian roof. Fragments of the destroyed windows were collected and set in the windows you see today.

 

The fine crystal chandeliers were relocated here in 1968 from the old Council Chamber in St Marylebone Town Hall when the Borough of St Marylebone merged with other metropolitan boroughs of Middlesex to form the City of Westminster.

 

A fine collection of memorials adorn the walls of the parish church; many of them belonging to colonial administrators and governors and members of the East India Company

 

St Marylebone Parish Church has always had a fine musical tradition and today the professional choir of ten voices is supported by the Director of Music, the Assistant Director of Music and an Organ Scholar. Sir John Stainer wrote his Oratorio Crucifixion for the choir in 1886 and it has been performed every year since.

 

The Browning Room, which commemorates the marriage of the poets Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett here on 12th September 1846, has a stained glass window gifted by The Browning Society of Winnipeg. Two fine brass bas reliefs of the poets can also be found in this room.

 

The fine apse, the mahogany benches and choir stalls together with the gilded English baroque decorative scheme all date from the mid-1880s and were designed by Thomas Hardwick. Work begun in 1884 and a memorial stone laid by Mrs Gladstone can be seen on the outside wall of the apse. The decoration of the apse was carried out by Edward Armitage, RA; his decorative scheme once included murals between the great windows on the gallery level but these were painted over in the late 1940s.

 

A Christian place of worship has served his part of central London for 900 years. Every London parish church north of Oxford Street, to the east of the Edgware Road and to the west of Cleveland Street, has been ‘planted’ by the Rector and Wardens of this parish. In 2016, the Heritage Lottery Fund awarded the parish church a grant of nearly £4 million to help complete an ambitious programme of works that will repair the ravages of time, extend the crypt and help tell the story of St Marylebone from rural hamlet to urban metropolis. St Marylebone, by God’s Grace, continues its work of Changing Lives and Shaping Community.

 

The Revd Canon Stephen Evans, Rector

 

www.stmarylebone.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Marylebone Parish Church is an Anglican church on the Marylebone Road in London. It was built to the designs of Thomas Hardwick in 1813–17. The present site is the third used by the parish for its church. The first was further south, near Oxford Street. The church there was demolished in 1400 and a new one erected further north. This was completely rebuilt in 1740–42, and converted into a chapel-of-ease when Hardwick's church was constructed. The Marylebone area takes its name from the church. Located behind the church is St Marylebone School, a Church of England school for girls.

 

The first church for the parish was built in the vicinity of the present Marble Arch c.1200, and dedicated to St John the Evangelist.

 

A new, small church built on the same site opened in April 1742. It was an oblong brick building with a small bell tower at the west end. The interior had galleries on three sides. Some monuments from the previous church were preserved in the new building.In 1818 it became a chapel-of-ease to the new parish church which superseded it .[4] It was demolished in 1949, and its site, at the northern end of Marylebone High Street is now a public garden.[5]

 

Charles Wesley lived and worked in the area and sent for the church's rector John Harley and told him "Sir, whatever the world may say of me, I have lived, and I die, a member of the Church of England. I pray you to bury me in your churchyard."[citation needed] On his death, his body was carried to the church by eight clergymen of the Church of England and a memorial stone to him stands in the gardens in High Street, close to his burial spot. One of his sons, Samuel, was later organist of the present church.

 

It was also in this building that Lord Byron was baptised in 1788, Nelson's daughter Horatia was baptised (Nelson was a worshipper here), and Richard Brinsley Sheridan was married to Elizabeth Ann Linley. This is also the church in which the diplomat Sir William Hamilton married Emma Hart (Amy Lyon), later the lover of Admiral Horatio Nelson.[citation needed] The architect James Gibbs was buried there in 1751.[6] The crypt was the burial place of members of the Bentinck family, including William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (died 1809)

 

Construction of a new church was first considered in 1770, with plans prepared by Sir William Chambers and leadership given by the 3rd and 4th Dukes of Portland (owners of much of the area, by now a wealthy residential area to the west of London that had outgrown the previous church), but the scheme was abandoned and the land donated for it in Paddington Street purchased for a burial ground.

 

In 1810–11[citation needed] a site was secured to build a chapel-of-ease on the south side of the new road near Nottingham Place.[8] facing Regent's Park.[9] Plans were drawn up by Chambers's pupil Thomas Hardwick [10] and the foundation stone was laid on 5 July 1813. When construction was almost complete, it was decided that this new building should serve as the parish church, and so alterations were made to the design. On the north front, towards the new road, a Corinthian portico with eight columns (six columns wide, and two deep at the sides), based on that of the Pantheon in Rome, replaced the intended four-column Ionic portico surmounted by a group of figures. A steeple was built, instead of a planned cupola.[11] No changes were made to the design of the interior, but plans to build houses on part of the site were abandoned.[12]

 

Entrance to the church from the north is through three doorways beneath the portico, each leading into a vestibule.[13] There are arched windows above the outer doorways. A blank panel above the central one was intended to house a bas-relief depicting Christ's entry into Jerusalem. Hardwick's church was basically rectangular in plan, with two small extensions behind the entrance front, and two wings placed diagonally flanking the far end (the liturgical east),[14] which originally housed private galleries equipped with chairs, tables and fireplaces.[15][16] Two tiers of galleries, supported on iron columns ran around three sides of the church.[17] The organ case was immediately above the altar screen; in the centre of the organ case was an arched opening with a "transparent painting" by Benjamin West, of the angel appearing to the shepherds. Other church furniture included a large pulpit and reading desk and high box pews.

 

The steeple, placed over the central vestibule, rises around 75 feet (23 m) above the roof (and thus about 120 feet (37 m) above the ground).[18] It is in three storeys;the first, square in plan, contains a clock, the second circular in plan, has twelve Corinthian columns supporting an entablature, while the third is in the form of a miniature temple raised on three steps and surrounded by eight caryatids, with arched openings between them. The whole structure is topped by a dome and weathervane.[19]

 

The vaulted crypt, extending under the whole church, with extensive catacombs under the west side was used for burials until being bricked up in 1853. Since 1987, following the reinterment of the 850 coffins it previously contained at Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey, it has housed a healing and counselling centre.

 

The church was completed in 1817, at an overall cost of £80,000.

 

A local resident was Charles Dickens (1812–1870), in Devonshire Terrace, whose son was baptised in this church (a ceremony fictionalised in "Dombey and Son"). Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett were married in this phase of the church in 1846 (their marriage certificate is preserved in the church archives). The church was also used in location filming for the 1957 film recounting their story, The Barretts of Wimpole Street.[20]

 

Composer Sir John Stainer wrote an oratorio specifically for the choir at St Marylebone; The Crucifixion was first performed in the church on 24 February 1887, which was the day after Ash Wednesday. It has been performed annually at the church ever since, usually on Good Friday.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Marylebone_Parish_Church

 

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama,[note 3] Shakyamuni,[note 4] or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[web 2] He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 5]

 

The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "the enlightened one". "Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being in an era. In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Pali sammāsambuddha, Sanskrit samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age.[note 6] Gautama taught a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism found in the Sramana (renunciation) movement[5] common in his region. He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[4][6]

 

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era in India during the reign of Bimbisara, the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatshatru who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a younger contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain teacher.[7] Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of other influential sramana schools of thoughts like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jain, and Ajñana. It was also the age of influential thinkers like Mahāvīra, Pūraṇa Kassapa , Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, whose viewpoints Buddha most certainly must have been acquainted with and influenced by.[8][9][note 7] There is also evidence to suggest that the two masters, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, were indeed historical figures and they most probably taught Buddha two different forms of meditative techniques.[10] While the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true,[11] most scholars do not consistently accept all of the details contained in traditional biographies.[12][13]

 

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][14] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][15][note 5] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.[20][21][note 9]

 

The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born into the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[23] It was either a small republic, in which case his father was an elected chieftain, or an oligarchy, in which case his father was an oligarch.[23] According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may either be in present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India.[note 1] He obtained his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, gave his first sermon in Sarnath, and died in Kushinagara.

 

No written records about Gautama have been found from his lifetime or some centuries thereafter. One edict of Emperor Ashoka, who reigned from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE, commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to the Buddha's birthplace in Lumbini. Another one of his edict mentions several Dhamma texts, establishing the existence of a written Buddhist tradition at least by the time of the Mauryan era and which may be the precursors of the Pāli Canon.[34][note 11] The oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts are the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, reported to have been found in or around Haḍḍa near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan and now preserved in the British Library. They are written in the Kharoṣṭhī script and the Gāndhārī language on twenty-seven birch bark scrolls, and they date from the first century BCE to the third century CE.[web 10]The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sūtra, Mahāvastu, and the Nidānakathā.[35] Of these, the Buddhacarita[36][37][38] is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[35] The Lalitavistara Sūtra is the next oldest biography, a Mahāyāna/Sarvāstivāda biography dating to the 3rd century CE.[39] The Mahāvastu from the Mahāsāṃghika Lokottaravāda tradition is another major biography, composed incrementally until perhaps the 4th century CE.[39] The Dharmaguptaka biography of the Buddha is the most exhaustive, and is entitled the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra,[40] and various Chinese translations of this date between the 3rd and 6th century CE. Lastly, the Nidānakathā is from the Theravāda tradition in Sri Lanka and was composed in the 5th century CE by Buddhaghoṣa.[41]

 

From canonical sources, the Jātakas, the Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), and the Achariyabhuta Sutta (MN 123) which include selective accounts that may be older, but are not full biographies. The Jātakas retell previous lives of Gautama as a bodhisattva, and the first collection of these can be dated among the earliest Buddhist texts.[42] The Mahāpadāna Sutta and Achariyabhuta Sutta both recount miraculous events surrounding Gautama's birth, such as the bodhisattva's descent from Tuṣita Heaven into his mother's womb.Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[43][44][45] Nevertheless, some of the more ordinary details of his life have been gathered from these traditional sources. In modern times there has been an attempt to form a secular understanding of Siddhārtha Gautama's life by omitting the traditional supernatural elements of his early biographies.

 

Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human:[46]

 

It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.

 

The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist.[47] British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.[48] Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.[11]The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, present-day Nepal, to be the birthplace of the Buddha.[49][note 1] He grew up in Kapilavastu.[note 1] The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown. It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, present-day India,[32] or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal.[50] Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart from each other.[50]

 

Siddharta Gautama was born as a Kshatriya,[51][note 13] the son of Śuddhodana, "an elected chief of the Shakya clan",[4] whose capital was Kapilavastu, and who were later annexed by the growing Kingdom of Kosala during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[53][54] and ten months later[55] Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree.

 

The day of the Buddha's birth is widely celebrated in Theravada countries as Vesak.[56] Buddha's birth anniversary holiday is called "Buddha Purnima" in Nepal and India as Buddha is believed to have been born on a full moon day. Various sources hold that the Buddha's mother died at his birth, a few days or seven days later. The infant was given the name Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha), meaning "he who achieves his aim". During the birth celebrations, the hermit seer Asita journeyed from his mountain abode and announced that the child would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a great holy man.[57] By traditional account,[which?] this occurred after Siddhartha placed his feet in Asita's hair and Asita examined the birthmarks. Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day, and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave a dual prediction that the baby would either become a great king or a great holy man.[57] Kaundinya (Pali: Kondañña), the youngest, and later to be the first arahant other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[58]

 

While later tradition and legend characterized Śuddhodana as a hereditary monarch, the descendant of the Solar Dynasty of Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka), many scholars think that Śuddhodana was the elected chief of a tribal confederacy.

 

Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition.[59] The state of the Shakya clan was not a monarchy, and seems to have been structured either as an oligarchy, or as a form of republic.[60] The more egalitarian gana-sangha form of government, as a political alternative to the strongly hierarchical kingdoms, may have influenced the development of the Shramana-type Jain and Buddhist sanghas, where monarchies tended toward Vedic Brahmanism.[61]Siddhartha was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati.[62] By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.

 

When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal.[62]According to the early Buddhist texts,[web 11] after realizing that meditative dhyana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[web 11]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification, or the Noble Eightfold Path, as was identified and described by the Buddha in his first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.[web 11] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[web 12] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[web 12]

 

Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree—now known as the Bodhi tree—in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth.[70] Kaundinya and four other companions, believing that he had abandoned his search and become undisciplined, left. After a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment.[70][web 13] According to some traditions, this occurred in approximately the fifth lunar month, while, according to others, it was in the twelfth month. From that time, Gautama was known to his followers as the Buddha or "Awakened One" ("Buddha" is also sometimes translated as "The Enlightened One").

 

According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the "Four Noble Truths",[web 13] which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that's free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states,[web 13] or "defilements" (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the "end of the world", in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha.

 

According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach.After his awakening, the Buddha met Taphussa and Bhallika — two merchant brothers from the city of Balkh in what is currently Afghanistan — who became his first lay disciples. It is said that each was given hairs from his head, which are now claimed to be enshrined as relics in the Shwe Dagon Temple in Rangoon, Burma. The Buddha intended to visit Asita, and his former teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, to explain his findings, but they had already died.

 

He then travelled to the Deer Park near Varanasi (Benares) in northern India, where he set in motion what Buddhists call the Wheel of Dharma by delivering his first sermon to the five companions with whom he had sought enlightenment. Together with him, they formed the first saṅgha: the company of Buddhist monks.

 

All five become arahants, and within the first two months, with the conversion of Yasa and fifty four of his friends, the number of such arahants is said to have grown to 60. The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, with their reputed 200, 300 and 500 disciples, respectively. This swelled the sangha to more than 1,000.For the remaining 45 years of his life, the Buddha is said to have traveled in the Gangetic Plain, in what is now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and southern Nepal, teaching a diverse range of people: from nobles to servants, murderers such as Angulimala, and cannibals such as Alavaka. Although the Buddha's language remains unknown, it's likely that he taught in one or more of a variety of closely related Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, of which Pali may be a standardization.

 

The sangha traveled through the subcontinent, expounding the dharma. This continued throughout the year, except during the four months of the Vāsanā rainy season when ascetics of all religions rarely traveled. One reason was that it was more difficult to do so without causing harm to animal life. At this time of year, the sangha would retreat to monasteries, public parks or forests, where people would come to them.The first vassana was spent at Varanasi when the sangha was formed. After this, the Buddha kept a promise to travel to Rajagaha, capital of Magadha, to visit King Bimbisara. During this visit, Sariputta and Maudgalyayana were converted by Assaji, one of the first five disciples, after which they were to become the Buddha's two foremost followers. The Buddha spent the next three seasons at Veluvana Bamboo Grove monastery in Rajagaha, capital of Magadha.

 

Upon hearing of his son's awakening, Suddhodana sent, over a period, ten delegations to ask him to return to Kapilavastu. On the first nine occasions, the delegates failed to deliver the message, and instead joined the sangha to become arahants. The tenth delegation, led by Kaludayi, a childhood friend of Gautama's (who also became an arahant), however, delivered the message.

 

Now two years after his awakening, the Buddha agreed to return, and made a two-month journey by foot to Kapilavastu, teaching the dharma as he went. At his return, the royal palace prepared a midday meal, but the sangha was making an alms round in Kapilavastu. Hearing this, Suddhodana approached his son, the Buddha, saying:

 

"Ours is the warrior lineage of Mahamassata, and not a single warrior has gone seeking alms."

 

The Buddha is said to have replied:

 

"That is not the custom of your royal lineage. But it is the custom of my Buddha lineage. Several thousands of Buddhas have gone by seeking alms."

 

Buddhist texts say that Suddhodana invited the sangha into the palace for the meal, followed by a dharma talk. After this he is said to have become a sotapanna. During the visit, many members of the royal family joined the sangha. The Buddha's cousins Ananda and Anuruddha became two of his five chief disciples. At the age of seven, his son Rahula also joined, and became one of his ten chief disciples. His half-brother Nanda also joined and became an arahant.

 

Of the Buddha's disciples, Sariputta, Maudgalyayana, Mahakasyapa, Ananda and Anuruddha are believed to have been the five closest to him. His ten foremost disciples were reputedly completed by the quintet of Upali, Subhoti, Rahula, Mahakaccana and Punna.

 

In the fifth vassana, the Buddha was staying at Mahavana near Vesali when he heard news of the impending death of his father. He is said to have gone to Suddhodana and taught the dharma, after which his father became an arahant.

 

The king's death and cremation was to inspire the creation of an order of nuns. Buddhist texts record that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women. His foster mother Maha Pajapati, for example, approached him, asking to join the sangha, but he refused. Maha Pajapati, however, was so intent on the path of awakening that she led a group of royal Sakyan and Koliyan ladies, which followed the sangha on a long journey to Rajagaha. In time, after Ananda championed their cause, the Buddha is said to have reconsidered and, five years after the formation of the sangha, agreed to the ordination of women as nuns. He reasoned that males and females had an equal capacity for awakening. But he gave women additional rules (Vinaya) to follow.Dhyana and insight[edit]

A core problem in the study of early Buddhism is the relation between dhyana and insight.[82][95][84] Schmithausen, in his often-cited article On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism notes that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the Rupa Jhanas, is a later addition to texts such as Majjhima Nikaya 36.[85][81][82]

I thought I had visited St Mary years ago. And indeed I had, or stood on the green in front of it, but didn't set foot inside.

 

This I didn't realise until Saturday when I was standing outside it looking at the row of cottages leading to the lych gate, I knew the scene was new to me.

 

The drizzle was still falling, so I could not linger in the churchyard, and scampered along the south side of the building, looking for the porch, but there wasn't one. Instead a simple door near to the chancel gave way when I turned the handle, after stepping over the void that acts as a drain for rainwater falling from the roof.

 

I tried hard to find the lightswitches, as in the gloom of the early afternoon, it was almost dark inside. Even when I found the switches in the south chapel, there seemed to be no power to them, so the church remained in half darkness.

 

What I did see, and was dazzled by, were tiles used to line the lower part of the chancel walls, like a mosaic, creating fantastic patterns.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

A mainly thirteenth century church restored by Sir George Gilbert Scott. There is a high window which originally shed light onto the Rood figures (see also Capel le Ferne). Some medieval glass survives in the heads of the windows in the chancel showing angels holding crowns. The west window was designed by Morris and Co in 1874 to commemorate a former Rector, whilst the south chapel has a set of continental glass brought here by the Beckingham family from their house in Essex. Above the nave arcade is a good set of murals including a figure of St Nicholas. The famous Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker is commemorated in the chancel.

 

www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Bishopsbourne

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Bishopsbourne is another example of a parish church belonging to the church (the archbishop, in this case), which was totally rebuilt on a large(r) scale in the 13th century (cf. Chartham). The chancel, as rebuilt, was as wide as the nave, and there is no chancel arch (and probably never has been).

The nave and chancel both show at least two phases of work of about the mid to later 13th century, so it seems likely that a rebuilding programme was being carried on in stages during the 2nd half of the 13th century (no sign exists, above-ground, of the earlier church).

Perhaps the earliest visible work are the two pairs of two-light windows on either side of the chancel. They have geometrical tracery and all sit on an internal moulded string course (there is medieval glass at the top of all these windows). This string course rises up in the east wall, and has on it the five-light east window, within trefoiled lancets, which is perhaps slightly later in date. There is also a late 13th century piscina at the east end of the south wall (though with a 19th century back wall). Externally the N.E. and S.E. corners of the chancel have angle buttresses, but these are heavily restored. It is also just possible that there were further geometrical windows further west in the chancel, which were covered/removed when the 15th century additions were made.

In the nave, as John Newman has pointed out, the two slender arcades have slight differences (N. capitals more complex than the S. ones). Also that the nave abaci are undercut, while the chancel string course is not. Originally the south arcade was at least three bays long (ie. longer than the present nave), but on the north this is not so clear. The aisles themselves are very narrow, with shed roofs continuing the slope of the main nave roof (though this shape may only be 15th century when the aisles were remodelled). The only surviving feature of the 13th century in the outer aisle walls (again heavily restored externally in the 19th century) is the north doorway with its niche (called a stoup by some writers, but not necessarily one) immediately to the east. This doorway has slightly projecting pilasters on either side, and the whole was covered by a porch until 1837.

The second main phase of work took place in the later 15th century. First, the whole of the west end of the church was demolished and a new tower was constructed with diagonal buttresses. The tower is of three main stages with the top stage rendered. The whole of the south face is mostly rendered. As this was being built, short walls were erected from the eastern diagonal buttresses to the 13th century arcade (ie. leaving the western ends of the aisles outside). (This is perhaps due to a population decrease in the parish). New west walls (containing two light perpendicular square headed windows) to the shortened aisles were also built, and four new 2-light perpendicular windows were inserted into the outer aisle walls. Along the top of the inside of the aisles walls a new moulded timber stringcourse was made (the roofs were perhaps also remade, but they are hidden beneath plaster in the aisles, and the main nave roof was replaced in 1871). At the west end of the nave the new short north and south walls contain five 3-light windows with perpendicular tracery under a 2-centred arch in their heads. On the upper nave walls, above the arcade, are remains of some fine painted figures on a painted 'ashlar' background. These were perhaps painted after the 15th century rebuilding (a date of around 1462 for the rebuilding is perhaps suggested by the will of William Harte (see below). At the extreme west end of the nave are two areas (N. and S.) of in situ medieval floor tiles. It is just possible that they predate the tower building work. (They must continue eastwards under the pews). There is also a 15th cent. octagonal font bowl (on a 1975 base). The southern chapel (the Bourne Pew after the Reformation) with its diagonal buttresses and 3-light east window is also 15th century but it was very heavily restored in c. 1853 (date over new S. door). It has a separate roof (and plaster ceiling). The rectangular N. addition with a plinth is also 15th century and was perhaps built as a vestry. It had an external door and only a small door into the chancel until the rebuilding of 1865, when a massive new arch was put in to accommodate a new organ (earlier the organ was under the tower arch). At this time also a totally new pitched roof was built over the vestry, perhaps replacing a low pitched 15th century roof. There is a high up window on the north side above the pulpit, with some old glass in it.

A new boiler house was dug under the western half of the vestry (in the 1880s - date on radiator), and its N.W. corner was rebuilt, incorporating a fireplace and chimney. The cut through N. chancel wall (and foundation) can be seen in the boiler room below.

The door into the Rood loft is in the S.E. corner of the nave.

In 1871-2 a major restoration took place under Scott, when the boarded wagon roofs were put in (nave and chancel) and new pews were installed (and choir stalls). The c. 18th century pulpit was remodelled and has its larger tester removed. The west window contains 1874 Morris & Co glass with figures by Burne Jones. There is also much c. 1877 mosaic work on the lower chancel walls and a large Reredos. The chancel floor was also raised.

 

BUILDING MATERIALS (Incl. old plaster, paintings, glass, tiles, etc.):

The main building materials are flintwork with Rag and Caenstone quoins/jambs, etc. However much of this has been removed externally by the heavy 19th century restoration. The nave arcades are of Reigate stone. The 15th century tower has fine large quoins of Kent Rag (Hythe/Folkestone stone with boring mollusc holes), and a few reused pieces of Caen, Reigate and Roman brick.

The south chapel was "partly of brick" in 1846 (Glynne) but this has now gone in the Restoration. There is also some fine early post-medieval glass in the east window of this chapel.

 

(For medieval glass, wall paintings and floor tiles ,see above).

 

(Also 15th century choir stalls, see below). There are also the arms and Cardinals Cap of Cardinal Morton (hence 1494-1500) in the S.W. chancel window.

 

There are now 4 bells (2 J Hatch of 1618; Christopher Hodson 1685 and Robert Mot 1597). The later from St. Mary, Bredman, Canterbury was installed in 1975 (a cracked bell was 'discarded').

 

A late medieval brass (of John and Elizabeth Colwell) lies under the organ - another of 1617 (John Gibon) is under the choir stalls.

 

EXCEPTIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCH To Richard Hooker (1633) - originally on N chancel wall and moved to S chancel will c. 1865.

 

Also John Cockman (+1734) - also on N. chancel wall and moved to E. wall of N. aisle c. 1865 (when the organ was put under new vestry arch).

 

Also a fine Purbeck marble (14th century) grave slab under the N.E. corner of the tower.

 

There are also two fine 15th century (c. 1462) stall fronts in the chancel with carved panels and ends (and 'poppy heads'). The added Victorian choir stalls copy them.

 

CHURCHYARD AND ENVIRONS:

Shape: Rectangular

 

Condition: Good

 

Earthworks:

enclosing: drop on N. and W. sides (?Ha-Ha) into Bourne Park adjacent:

 

Building in churchyard or on boundary: Lychgate of 1911

 

HISTORICAL RECORD (where known):

Earliest ref. to church: Domesday Book

 

Evidence of pre-Norman status (DB, DM, TR etc.):

 

Late med. status: Rectory

 

Patron: The Archbishop

 

Other documentary sources: Test. Cant. (E. Kent 1907) 23 mentions 'one piece of that stone on which the Archangel Gabriel descended when he saluted the 'BVM' to the Image of the BVM of the church of Bourne. Towards the work of the Church of Bourne, of the stalls and other reparations, 4 marcs. Wm. Haute (1462). Also 'Beam, now before altar of B. Mary in the church' (1477) and Lights of St. Mary, St. Katherine and St. Nicholas (1484) and light of Holy Cross (1462) and 'The altar of St. Mary and St. Nicholas in the nave' (1476).

 

SURVIVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS:

Inside present church: Good - main nave and chancel floor raised in 19th century (earlier levels should be intact beneath (except where burials, etc.).

 

Outside present church: Drainage trench cut round outside of church.

 

Quinquennial inspection (date\architect): October 1987 David Martin

 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT:

The church and churchyard: A fine 13th and 15th century church, with an impressive collection of medieval wall paintings, stained glass, floor tiles and pew fronts inside. The 13th century architectural details of the chancel windows and nave arcade are very good. There are, no doubt, the remains of the earlier church beneath.

 

The wider context: One of a group of fine later 13th century rebuildings (cf. Hythe, Chartham, Adisham, etc.)

REFERENCES: Notes by FC Elliston Erwood, Arch. Cant. 62 (1949), 101-3 (+ plan) + S. R. Glynne Notes on the Churches of Kent (1877), 130-1 (He visited in 1846); Hasted IX (1800), 335-7; Newman BOE (N.E. and E Kent) (3rd ed. 1983) 144-5.

 

Guide book: by Miss Alice Castle (1931, rev. 1961, 1969, 1980) - no plan.

 

Plans & drawings: Early 19th century engraving of interior looking W. NW (before restoration).

 

DATES VISITED: 25th November 1991 REPORT BY: Tim Tatton-Brown

 

www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/01/03/BIS.htm

 

-------------------------------------------

 

BISHOPSBORNE

LIES the next parish eastward from Bridge, described before, in the hundred of that name. It is called in Domesday, Burnes, that is, borne, from the bourn or stream which rises in it, being the head of the river, called the Lesser Stour; and it had the name of Bishopsborne from its belonging to the archbishop, and to distinguish it from the several other parishes of the same name in this neighbourhood. There is but one borough in this parish, namely, that of Bourne.

 

THIS PARISH lies about five miles eastward from Canterbury, just beyond Bridge, about half a mile from the Dover road, and the entrance of Barham downs in the valley on the left hand, where the church and village, the parsonage, the mansion and grounds of Bourne place, and the seat of Charlton at the opposite boundary, with the high hills behind them, topped with woods, from a most pleasing and luxuriant prospect indeed. In this beautiful valley, in which the Lesser Stour rises, and through which the Nailbourne at times runs, is the village of Bourne-street, consisting of about fifteen houses, and near it the small seat of Ofwalds, belonging to Mr. Beckingham, and now inhabited by his brother the Rev. Mr. Beckingham, and near it the church and court-lodge. On the rise of the hill is the parsonage, an antient building modernized, and much improved by the present rector Dr. Fowell, and from its whiteness a conspicuous object to the road and Barham downs. About a mile distant eastward, in the vale, close to the foot of the hills, is Charlton, in a low and damp situation, especially when the nailbourne runs. On the opposite side of the church westward, stands the ornament of this parish, the noble mansion of Bourne-place, (for several years inhabited by Sir Horace Mann, bart. but now by William Harrison, esq.) with its paddocks, grounds, and plantations, reaching up to the downs, having the bourn, which is the source of the Lesser Stour, which rises here in the front of it, directing its course from hence to Bridge, and so on by Littleborne, Ickham and Wickham, till it joins the Greater Stour river. This valley from this source of the bourn upwards, is dry, except after great rains, or thaws of snow, when the springs of the Nailbourn occasionally over flow at Liminge and Elham, and directing their course through this parish descend into the head of the bourn, and blend their waters with it. From this valley southward the opposite hills rise pretty high to the woodland, called Gosley wood, belonging to Mr. Beckingham, of large extent, and over a poor, barren and stony country, with rough healthy ground interspersed among it, to the valley at the southern boundary of the parish, adjoining to Hardres; near which is the house of Bursted, in a lonely unfrequented situations, hardly known to any one.

 

THE MANOR OF BOURNE, otherwise Bishopsborne, was given by one Aldhun, a man of some eminence in Canterbury, from his office of præfect, or bailiff of that city, (qui in hac regali villa bujus civitatis prafectus suit), (fn. 1) to the monks of Christ-church there, towards the support of their refectory. After which, anno 811, the monks exchanged it, among other estates, with archbishop Wlfred, for the manor of Eastry, and it continued part of the possessions of the see of Canterbury, at the time of taking the survey of Domesday, in which it is thus entered, under the title of the archbishop's lands:

 

In Berham hundred, the archbishop himself holds Burnes in demesne. It was taxed for six sulings. The arable land is fifty carucates. In demesne there are five carucates, and sixty-four villeins, with fifty-three borderers having thirty carucates and an half. There is a church, and two mills of eight shillings and six pence, and twenty acres of meadow. Wood for the pannage of fifteen hogs. Of herbage twenty-seven pence. In its whole value, in the time of king Edward the Confessor, and afterwards, it was worth twenty pounds, now thirty pounds.

 

The manor of Bishopsborne appears by the above entry to have been at that time in the archbishop's own hands, and it probably continued so as long as it remained part of his revenues, which was till the 35th year of king Henry VIII. when archbishop Cranmer, by an act specially passed for the purpose, exchanged this manor with the park, grounds and soil of the archbishop in this parish, called Langham park, with Thomas Colepeper, sen. esq. of Bedgbury, who that year alienated it to Sir Anthony Aucher, of Otterden, who gave this manor, with the rest of his possessions in this parish, to his second son Edward. Since which it has continued in the same line of ownership as Bourne-place, as will be more particularly mentioned hereafter, down to Stephen Beckingham, esq. the present owner of it. A court leet and court baron is held for this manor.

 

BOURNE-PLACE, formerly called the manor of Hautsbourne, is an eminent seat in this parish, for the manor has from unity of possession been for many years merged in the paramount manor of Bishopsborne. It was in very early times possessed by a family who took their name from it. Godric de Burnes is mentioned in the very beginning of the survey of Domesday, as the possessor of lands in it. John de Bourne had a grant of free-warren and other liberties for his lands in Bourne and Higham in the 16th year of king Edward I. He left an only daughter Helen, who carried this estate in marriage to John de Shelving, of Shelvingborne, whose grandson, of the same name, died anno 4 Edward III. at which time this manor had acquired from them the name of Shelvington. He left an only daughter and heir Benedicta, who carried it in marriage to Sir Edmund de Haut, of Petham, whose son Nicholas Haut gave to William, his youngest son, this estate of Bishopsborne, where he afterwards resided, and died in 1462, having been knight of the shire and sheriff of this county. From him it descended down to Sir William Haut, of Hautsborne, sheriff in the 16th and 29th year of king Henry VIII. whose son Edmund dying unmarried in his life-time, his two daughters, Elizabeth, married to Thomas Colepeper, esq. of Bedgbury, and Jane, to Sir Thomas Wyatt, of Allington-castle, became his coheirs, and on the division of their estates, this of Hautsborne was allotted to the former, and her hus band Thomas Colepeper, in her right, became possessed of it, and having acquired the manor of Bishopsborne by exchange from the archbishop, anno 35 Henry VIII. immediately afterwards passed away both that and Hautsborne to Sir Anthony Aucher, of Otterden, whose family derived their origin from Ealcher, or Aucher, the first earl of Kent, who had the title of duke likewise, from his being intrusted with the military power of the county. He is eminent in history for his bravery against the Danes, in the year 853. They first settled at Newenden, where more of the early account of them may be seen. He at his death gave them to his second son Edward, who afterwards resided here at Shelvington, alias Hautsborne, as it was then called, whose great-grandson Sir Anthony Aucher was created a baronet in 1666, and resided here. He left surviving two sons Anthony and Hewitt, and two daughters, Elizabeth, afterwards married to John Corbett, esq. of Salop, LL. D. and Hester, to the Rev. Ralph Blomer, D. D. prebendary of Canterbury. He died in 1692, and was succeeded by his eldest son, who dying under age and unmarried, Hewitt his brother succeeded him in title and estate, but he dying likewise unmarried about the year 1726, the title became extinct, but his estates devolved by his will to his elder sister Elizabeth, who entitled her husband Dr. Corbett afterwards to them, and he died possessed of the manor of Bishopsborne, with this seat, which seems then to have been usually called Bourneplace, in 1736, leaving his five daughters his coheirs, viz. Katherine, afterwards married to Stephen Beckingham, esq. Elizabeth, to the Rev. Thomas Denward; Frances, to Sir William Hardres, bart. Antonina, to Ignat. Geohegan, esq. and Margaret-Hannah-Roberta, to William Hougham, esq. of Canterbury, the four latter of whom, with their respective husbands, in 1752, jointed in the sale of their shares in this estate to Stephen Beckingham, esq. above-men tioned, who then became possessed of the whole of it. He married first the daughter of Mr. Cox, by whom he had the present Stephen beckingham, esq. who married Mary, daughter of the late John Sawbridge, esq. of Ollantigh, deceased, by whom he had an only daughter, who married John-George Montague, esq. eldest son of John, lord viscount Hinchingbrooke, since deceased. By his second wife Catherine, daughter of Dr. John Corbet, he had two daughters, Charlotte and Catherine, both married, one to Mr. Dillon and the other to Mr. Gregory; and a son John Charles, in holy orders, and now rector of Upper Hardres. They bear for their arms, Argent, a sess, crenelle, between three escallop shells, sable. He died in 1756, and his son Stephen Beckingham, esq. above-mentioned, now of Hampton-court, is the present owner of the manor of Bishopsborne, and the mansion of Bourneplace.

 

BURSTED is a manor, in the southern part of this parish, obscurely situated in an unfrequented valley, among the woods, next to Hardres. It is in antient deeds written Burghsted, and was formerly the property of a family of the same name, in which it remained till it was at length sold to one of the family of Denne, of Dennehill, in Kingston, and it continued so till Thomas Denne, esq. of that place, in Henry VIII.'s reign, gave it to his son William, whose grandson William, son of Vincent Denne, LL. D. died possessed of it in 1640, and from him it descended down to Mr. Thomas Denne, gent. of Monkton-court, in the Isle of Thanet, who died not many years since, and his widow Mrs. Elizabeth Denne, of Monktoncourt, is the present possessor of it.

 

CHARLTON is a seat, in the eastern part of this parish, which was formerly the estate of a family named Herring, in which it continued till William Herring, anno 3 James I. conveyed it to John Gibbon, gent. the third son of Thomas Gibbon, of Frid, in Bethers den, descended again from those of Rolvenden, and he resided here, and died possessed of it in 1617, as did his son William in 1632, whose heirs passed it away to Sir Anthony Aucher, bart. whose son Sir Hewitt Aucher, bart. in 1726, gave it by will to his sister Elizabeth, and she afterwards carried it in marriage to John Corbett, LL. D. of Salop, who died possessed of it in 1735, leaving his window surviving, after whose death in 1764 it came to her five daughters and coheirs, who, excepting Frances, married to Sir William Hardres, bart. joined with their husbands in the sale of their respective fifth parts of it in 1765, to Francis Hender Foote, clerk, who resided here. Mr. Foote was first a barrister-at-law, and then took orders. He married Catherine, third daughter of Robert Mann, esq. of Linton, by whom he had three sons, John, mentioned below, who is married and has issue; Robert, rector of Boughton Malherb, and vicar of Linton, who married Anne, daughter of Dobbins Yate, esq. of Gloucestershire, and Edward, in the royal navy; and three daughters, of whom two died unmarried, and Catherine, the second, married first Mr. Ross, and secondly Sir Robert Herries, banker, of London. Mr. Foote died possessed of them in 1773, leaving his wife Catherine surviving, who possessed them at her death in 1776, on which they descended to their eldest son John Foote, esq. of Charlton, who in 1784, purchased of the heirs of lady Hardres, deceased, the remaining fifth part, and so became possessed of the whole of it, of which he is the present owner, but Mr. Turner now resides in it.

 

Charities.

MRS. ELIZABETH CORBETT, window, executrix of Sir Hewit Aucher, bart. deceased, in 1749, made over to trustees, for the use and benefit of the poor, a tenement called Bonnetts, and half an acre of land adjoining, in this parish; now occupied by two poor persons, but if rented, of the annual value of 3l.

 

The poor constantly relieved are about eleven, casually seven.

 

THIS PARISH is within the ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION of the diocese of Canterbury, and deanry of Bridge.

 

¶The church, which is dedicated to St. Mary, is a large building, consisting of three isles and three chancels, having a tower steeple at the west end, in which are four bells. This church is a large handsome building, but it is not kept so comely as it ought to be. In the chancel is a monument for Richard Hooker, rector of this parish, who died in 1600; on it is his bust, in his black gown and square cap. A monument for John Cockman, M. D. of Charlton. His widow lies in the vault by him, obt. 1739; arms, Argent, three cocks, gules, impaling Dyke. Memorial for Petronell, wife of Dr. John Fowell, the present rector, second daughter of William Chilwich, esq. of Devonshire, obt. 1766. She lies buried in a vault under the altar. A large stone, twelve feet long, supposed to be over the remains of Mr. Richard Hooker. A memorial on brass for John Gibbon, gent. of this parish, obt. 1617; arms, Gibbon, a lion rampant-guardant, between three escallops, impaling Hamon, of Acrise, quartering Cossington. Memorials for Mrs. Jane Gibbon, his wife, obt. 1625, and for William Gibbon, gent. obt. 1632. A memorial for William Gresham, obt. 1718. In one of the windows are the arms of the see of Canterbury impaling Warham. In the middle isle, in the south wall, above the capital of the pillar, opposite the pulpit, is a recess, in which once stood the image of the Virgin Mary, the patron saint of this church, to which William Hawte, esq. by will anno 1462, among the rest of his relics, gave a piece of the stone on which the archangel Gabriel descended, when he saluted her, for this image to rest its feet upon. On the pavement near this, seemingly over a vault, is a stone with an inscription in brass, for William, eldest son of Sir William Hawt. A memorial for Farnham Aldersey, gent. of this parish, only son of Farnham Aldersey, gent. of Maidstone, obt. 1733. Memorials for several of the Dennes, of this parish. In a window of the south isle, are the arms of Haut, impaling Argent, a lion rampant-guardant, azure. The south chancel is inclosed and made into a handsome pew for the family of Bourne-place, under which is a vault appropriated to them. The window of it eastward is a very handsome one, mostly of modern painted glass; the middle parts filled up with scripture history, and the surrounding compartments with the arms and different marriages impaled of the family of Beckingham. On each side of this window are two ranges of small octagon tablets of black marble, intended for the family of Aucher, and their marriages, but they were not continued. In the church-yard, on the south side, is a vault for the family of Foote, of Charlton, and a tomb for Mrs. Elizabeth Corbett, obt. 1764; arms, Corbett, which were Or, two ravens, sable, within a bordure, gules, bezantee. At the north-east corner of the church-porch are several tombs for the Dennes.

 

The church of Bishopsborne, with the chapel of Barham annexed, was antiently appendant to the manor, and continued so till the exchange made between the archbishop and Thomas Colepeper, in the 35th year of king Henry VIII. out of which the advowson of this rectory was excepted. Since which it has continued parcel of the possessions of the see of Canterbury to the present time, his grace the archbishop being the present patron of it.

 

This rectory, (including the chapel of Barham annexed to it) is valued in the king's books at 39l. 19s. 2d. and the yearly tenths at 3l. 19s. 11d. In 1588 here were communicants one hundred. In 1640 one hundred and forty-eight, and it was valued, with Barham, at two hundred and fifty pounds per annum.

 

Church of Bishopsborne with the Chapel of Barhan annexed.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol9/pp328-337

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 3 November 1600) was an English priest in the Church of England and an influential theologian.[2] He was one of the most important English theologians of the sixteenth century.[3] His defence of the role of redeemed reason informed the theology of the seventeenth century Caroline Divines and later provided many members of the Church of England with a theological method which combined the claims of revelation, reason and tradition.[3] Scholars disagree regarding Hooker's relationship with what would later be called "Anglicanism" and the Reformed theological tradition. Traditionally, he has been regarded as the originator of the Anglican via media between Protestantism and Catholicism.[4]:1 However, a growing number of scholars have argued that he should be considered as being in the mainstream Reformed theology of his time and that he only sought to oppose the extremists (Puritans), rather than moving the Church of England away from Protestantism.

 

This sermon from 1585 was one of those that triggered Travers attack and appeal to the Privy Council. Travers accused Hooker of preaching doctrine favourable to the Church of Rome when in fact he had just described their differences emphasising that Rome attributed to works "a power of satisfying God for sin;..." For Hooker, works were a necessary expression of thanksgiving for unmerited justification by a merciful God.[11] Hooker defended his belief in the doctrine of Justification by faith, but argued that even those who did not understand or accept this could be saved by God.

 

Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie is Hooker's best-known work, with the first four books being published in 1594. The fifth was published in 1597, while the final three were published posthumously,[2] and indeed may not all be his own work. Structurally, the work is a carefully worked out reply to the general principles of Puritanism as found in The Admonition and Thomas Cartwright's follow-up writings, more specifically:

 

Scripture alone is the rule that should govern all human conduct;

Scripture prescribes an unalterable form of Church government;

The English Church is corrupted by Roman Catholic orders, rites, etc.;

The law is corrupt in not allowing lay elders;

'There ought not to be in the Church Bishops'.[12]

Of the Lawes has been characterised as "probably the first great work of philosophy and theology to be written in English."[13] The book is far more than a negative rebuttal of the puritan claims: it is (here McAdoo quotes John S. Marshall) 'a continuous and coherent whole presenting a philosophy and theology congenial to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the traditional aspects of the Elizabethan Settlement."[14]

 

Quoting C. S. Lewis,[15] Stephen Neill underlines its positive side in the following terms: Hitherto, in England, "controversy had involved only tactics; Hooker added strategy. Long before the close fighting in Book III begins, the puritan position has been rendered desperate by the great flanking movements in Books I and II. . . . Thus the refutation of the enemy comes in the end to seem a very small thing, a by-product."[16]

 

It is a massive work that deals mainly with the proper governance of the churches ("polity"). The Puritans advocated the demotion of clergy and ecclesiasticism. Hooker attempted to work out which methods of organising churches are best.[2] What was at stake behind the theology was the position of the Queen Elizabeth I as the Supreme Governor of the Church. If doctrine were not to be settled by authorities, and if Martin Luther's argument for the priesthood of all believers were to be followed to its extreme with government by the Elect, then having the monarch as the governor of the church was intolerable. On the other side, if the monarch were appointed by God to be the governor of the church, then local parishes going their own ways on doctrine were similarly intolerable.

 

In political philosophy, Hooker is best remembered for his account of law and the origins of government in Book One of the Politie. Drawing heavily on the legal thought of Thomas Aquinas, Hooker distinguishes seven forms of law: eternal law ("that which God hath eternally purposed himself in all his works to observe"), celestial law (God's law for the angels), nature's law (that part of God's eternal law that governs natural objects), the law of reason (dictates of Right Reason that normatively govern human conduct), human positive law (rules made by human lawmakers for the ordering of a civil society), divine law (rules laid down by God that can only be known by special revelation), and ecclesiastical law (rules for the governance of a church). Like Aristotle, whom he frequently quotes, Hooker believes that humans are naturally inclined to live in society. Governments, he claims, are based on both this natural social instinct and on the express or implied consent of the governed.

 

The Laws is remembered not only for its stature as a monumental work of Anglican thought, but also for its influence in the development of theology, political theory, and English prose.

 

Hooker worked largely from Thomas Aquinas, but he adapted scholastic thought in a latitudinarian manner. He argued that church organisation, like political organisation, is one of the "things indifferent" to God. He wrote that minor doctrinal issues were not issues that damned or saved the soul, but rather frameworks surrounding the moral and religious life of the believer. He contended there were good monarchies and bad ones, good democracies and bad ones, and good church hierarchies and bad ones: what mattered was the piety of the people. At the same time, Hooker argued that authority was commanded by the Bible and by the traditions of the early church, but authority was something that had to be based on piety and reason rather than automatic investiture. This was because authority had to be obeyed even if it were wrong and needed to be remedied by right reason and the Holy Spirit. Notably, Hooker affirmed that the power and propriety of bishops need not be in every case absolute.

 

King James I is quoted by Izaak Walton, Hooker's biographer, as saying, "I observe there is in Mr. Hooker no affected language; but a grave, comprehensive, clear manifestation of reason, and that backed with the authority of the Scriptures, the fathers and schoolmen, and with all law both sacred and civil."[17] Hooker's emphasis on Scripture, reason, and tradition considerably influenced the development of Anglicanism, as well as many political philosophers, including John Locke.[2] Locke quotes Hooker numerous times in the Second Treatise of Civil Government and was greatly influenced by Hooker's natural-law ethics and his staunch defence of human reason. As Frederick Copleston notes, Hooker's moderation and civil style of argument were remarkable in the religious atmosphere of his time.[18] In the Church of England he is celebrated with a Lesser Festival on 3 November and the same day is also observed in the Calendars of other parts of the Anglican Communion.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

One of my favorite saints!

 

Among the Capuchin Poor Clares of Santa Maria della Neve in Brescia she was called “il facchino del monistero”, the monastery rouseabout. Devoted to burdensome chores and “always very ready to accept hardship”, she enjoyed no exemptions or privileges and was always ready and punctual in everything. She was sound and robust in face and limbs and until just before her death concealed from the most accurate observers her terrible penances and infirmities, as well as the outpouring of heavenly gifts. In fact, Sister Maria Maddelena, whom Leo XIII declared blessed on 3 June1900, did not actually have a strong physical makeup. When she entered the Monastery at eighteen years old, she appeared to the Capuchin nuns to have a very delicate appearance, “like wax” with a small physique “to be kept under glass.” A

Born in the Martinengo ducal palace in Brescia on 4 October 1687 after a difficult birth that five months later cost the life of her mother, the noble Margherita Secchi d’Aragona was baptised at home straightaway for fear that she might die. She received her mother’s name. The baptism ceremonies were supplied on 21 August 1691, at the baptism of her sister Cecilia, born to the second marriage of their father Francesco Leopoldo Martinengo, Count of Barco, to Elena Palazzi.

She was very intelligent and carefully educated. At the age of six she was entrusted to the Ursuline school. Her teacher, Isabella Marazzi, trained her in prayer and study. The Breviary was always her preferred reading and the rosary was never out of her hand. This is how those close to her remembered her. A very keen reader – she will later say of herself in her autobiography “I found all my contentment in reading” – she acquired an uncommon formation in Italian and Latin literature which her father’s valuable library was able to offer her in abundance.

Disposed by grace she remembered an event from her early childhood when, during a journey in a carriage drawn by six horses, she suddenly fell out. She would have been run over and crushed had not the touch of an invisible hand removed her from danger. Towards the age of eleven on 11 October 1698 she entered the monastery boarding school of the Augustinian nuns at Santa Maria degli Angeli. Two of the nuns were maternal aunts and there she continued her education.

Her first Holy Communion was dramatic for her. The Host had fallen to the floor, perhaps because of the intense emotion of the moment and she had to pick it up with her tongue. In her limbs she was struck by a “tremendous cold”, as if the Lord had judged her unworthy. Also under the influence of the saints’ lives she was reading, she then focused on tasks of mortification and meditation. However the aunts had become so envious and suffocating that in August 1699 Margherita asked her father to allow her to go to the Spirito Santo boarding school of the Benedictines. First, however, she had a vacation with her family for a few months in the beautiful mountains around Lago d’Iseo.

There she began to feel a discernable attraction to the enclosed contemplative life. She later recalled how she had fallen in love with the scene of those “uninhabited alpine regions , and the grottoes that were so beautiful that they seemed to call me to live there. Without a doubt I would

have run off to them, had the number of wolves not frightened me.” She had already attempted such an escape at Santa Maria degli Angeli. With two companions she tried to flee “to a hermitage to suffer there as much as she wanted.” However, the secret door of the monastery was locked and she couldn’t manage to budge it open. Her fiery adolescence recalls similar actions by other holy men and women when they were at her age.

In the monastery of Santo Spirito there were two other maternal aunts. They were not as jealous as the first two but were only concerned about her health and her future as a noble-woman in high society. She later recalled, “I was so bored that I would not have become a religious there for all the gold in the world.” Meanwhile her charismatic vocation gained focus. Her inner prayer filled her with fire. Her fragile adolescent psychology was not yet accustomed to the ways of the divine and in the end she could not resist and fell ill. The sisters, “unaware of what was happening in me, made me even worse with repeated medicines.” Only God who had wounded her could heal her.

She was thirteen years old, she wrote, “when I vowed my virginity to God.” She was then attacked by all kinds of temptations. They were terrible years. She felt over whelmed. A sixteen years of age family projects and expectations already weighed upon her. Many suitors wanted her. Her father had promised her to the son of a Venetian senator. Even her brothers Nestore and Gianfrancesco were prompting her. They brought her books and love stories. Margherita was seduced by these things. She read them night and day. “Books from hell,” she will later recall. She loved to dress up with the most refined and showy clothes. One day, however, while crying over her misfortune before the Tabernacle, she felt certain that ultimately she would be clothed in the coarse natural wool of the Capuchin Poor Clares. This conviction was infused in her by a mysterious inner light and was inspired in her by the Mother of God in a vision, as she later told. And yet, “I knew nothing about the Capuchin Nuns.” She was eighteen.

At the conclusion of her education in Santo Spirito monastery she returned home. The year was 1704. How would she tell her father of her decision? While something inside her rejected the idea she repeated again and again that she wanted to become a Capuchin Nun. Everyone was openly hostile to the idea: her confessor, her teachers, he father and brothers, the servants at home. Just four days later, it was Christmas, she went to the Capuchin Poor Clare monastery of Santa Maria della Neve and presented herself with the words, “I want to become holy.” As was the custom at the time, the sisters had her spend a period of probation before being clothed in the habit. The probation took place in the city, in the Maggi College directed by the Ursulines.

With Lent over, Count Leopoldo arranged for her a fun tour of various Italian cities. He uncle Giambattista organised many meetings with eligible suitors in Venice. One of his sons fell in love with the young countess and asked her hand. Margherita was about to agree and would already have sent a note to her father in this regard, had a very loyal servant not advised her to first commend herself to the Lord in order “to receive some light.” Margherita passed the night in prayer. By morning she was completely

2

determined to follow her vocation: “I would have run the gauntlet to enter, so certain was I of doing the will of God.”

She returned to Brescia. After a course of spiritual exercises in the Maggi College, on 8 September 1705 accompanied by a joyful procession of carriages came to the monastery of Santa Maria della Neve and crossed the threshold of the enclosure. She was clothed in the brown habit and took the new name of Maria Maddalena (Mary Magdalene). For her sensitive nature parting with her family was like a mortal wrench. In her autobiography she describes it this way, “O God! How upset I was. My three companions entered one by one. I then entered in fourth place. Being the last to enter I was tightly hugged by a lady whom I think the devil inspired to oppress me. I took that step with such violence that I truly believe that the separation of the soul from the body will not be any greater.”

The novitiate year was under the direction of a rigid and eccentric novice mistress. Her sisters in the novitiate were envious. And so the year was a cross of trials and dryness, so much so that in the first report of the community Maria Maddalena was deemed unfit for Capuchin life and “would be the downfall of the monastery.” However, when the mistress was changed, the sisters supported her unanimously in a later ballot. So on 8 September 1706 Maria Maddalena was definitively consecrated to God by religious profession.

Immersed in the day to day life of the burdensome work of a poor, eighteenth century monastery, her thirty two years in the enclosure may appear monotonous and with little respite except for the train of events in her inner life. Her life however was a magnificent panorama of spirituality, evident now from her marvellous writings which at the time of writing (2000) are awaiting a definitive and complete edition. Perhaps the words of one scholar about her spirituality summarise well the activity of her life in the monastery. The countess Margherita, now Sister Maria Maddalena, “became dish-washer, kitchen hand, porter, gardener, baker, sweeper, wardrobe keeper, laundress, wool weaver, shoe maker, cellarer, seamstress, chancellor or secretary, embroiderer, sacristy assistant, and without ever having the task of nurse, she nevertheless spontaneously undertook the lowliest and most burdensome of services. Then she was novice mistress, “rotara,” vicar and abbess.”

In 1708 a Jesuit priest gave a course of spiritual exercises that were markedly Jansenistic. These stirred up in her such an excessive fear of divine judgement that she fell into a swoon with a high fever. The sickness quickly appeared to be serious, even mortal. However, following the enlightened counsel of her confessor who heard her long, general confession punctuated with tears, Maria Maddalena experienced the gift of perfect reconciliation and full absolution of her sins, as well the healing of the sickness. Already the powerful action of God was at work within her with a force of love and sorrow that made her a “blood soaked bride.”

All the great mystical gifts found in her a total availability. Her spiritual journey passed from affective prayer to infused contemplation. She herself tried to describe this point. “I followed my method of speaking with God, “ 3

4

she wrote in her autobiography, “but because I was doing this with greater love and with more diligence, the Lord in his infinite goodness corresponded with me within with the sweetest words. While speaking in this way, I put my head to the floor. Immediately in the depth of my heart the Lord answered me: ’Dear daughter, you love me, but without comparison I love you more.’ I said to him, ‘Lord, take my heart. I no longer want it.’ He, was pleased with the offering. And it seemed to me that on removing my heart that he put there his own - all on fire with love. And I, unable to suffer being alight and burning in this way, fainted from the ardour that sweetly consumed me.”

The fire of divine love continued to consume her. To extinguish this burning she inflicted unbelievable penances upon herself, which her humility kept hidden even from her doctors. Within the small living space such as that of a monastery these passed almost unobserved. The jealousy, resentment or curiosity of some sisters, the youthful tricks of the novices and furtive observation tactics devised by the sisters could not scratch the surface of her secret of love and suffering. We would call her disconcerting mortifications ‘baroque’: hundreds of needles piercing every part of her body, disciplines, cuts, the burning sensation of iron mesh, fire and sulphur – not to forget the mystical nights and the mysterious inner actions of the Spirit – all this passed-by almost in secret within an ordinary life.

It is difficult to exaggerate her disconcerting martyrdom, a “martyr afflicted with sorrow by the hand of love,” as she herself wrote. However her physical sufferings were surpassed by her spiritual and moral sufferings. Four sisters opposed her until her death. A confessor had her writings burnt as heretical. A monastery vicar forbad her to speak about spiritual things with her former novices. She bore it all. “It is necessary to act more heroically in the more difficult things.”

Her spiritual experience remains permanently in her numerous manuscripts that she began to write under obedience: her Autobiografia, Commento alle Massime spirituali of Fra Giovanne di San Sansone, reports for her spiritual directors; or continued to write at the insistence of her novices: Avvertimenti spirituali, Spiegazione delle costituzioni cappuccino, Trattato sull’umiltà; or felt inwardly compelled to write: the Dialogi mistici. These are writings dripping with supernatural experience that is Trinitarian and Christological, focused on the Cross, as well as Eucharistic and Marian. When these writings are published they will represent a high point of eighteenth century, feminine mystical literature.

Maria Maddalena was literally consumed by divine love. In 1737 when she resigned the ministry of abbess, her body was already exhausted. During her prolonged fainting spells, her sisters could finally discover in her martyred body the marks of her tremendous penances and wounds of various torments in the passion of the Lord.

The sunset was rapid and calm. She was glad when she knew that the end was near. To the sisters who were weeping, with maternal tenderness she put in their mouths some berries that she had in a little basket in front of her. She prayed some biblical verses. Then she was heard to whisper, “I am coming, I am coming, Lord!” Serenely, she breathed her last. It was 27 July 1737. She had just about completed thirty two years of religious life and nearly turned fifty years of age.

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama,[note 3] Shakyamuni,[note 4] or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[web 2] He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 5]

 

The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "the enlightened one". "Buddha" is also used as a title for the first awakened being in an era. In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautama is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Pali sammāsambuddha, Sanskrit samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age.[note 6] Gautama taught a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and the severe asceticism found in the Sramana (renunciation) movement[5] common in his region. He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.[4][6]

 

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era in India during the reign of Bimbisara, the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatshatru who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a younger contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain teacher.[7] Apart from the Vedic Brahmins, Buddha's lifetime coincided with the flourishing of other influential sramana schools of thoughts like Ājīvika, Cārvāka, Jain, and Ajñana. It was also the age of influential thinkers like Mahāvīra, Pūraṇa Kassapa , Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambalī, Pakudha Kaccāyana, and Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, whose viewpoints Buddha most certainly must have been acquainted with and influenced by.[8][9][note 7] There is also evidence to suggest that the two masters, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, were indeed historical figures and they most probably taught Buddha two different forms of meditative techniques.[10] While the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true,[11] most scholars do not consistently accept all of the details contained in traditional biographies.[12][13]

 

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][14] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][15][note 5] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.[20][21][note 9]

 

The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born into the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the northeastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[23] It was either a small republic, in which case his father was an elected chieftain, or an oligarchy, in which case his father was an oligarch.[23] According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, nowadays in modern-day Nepal, and raised in Kapilavastu, which may either be in present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India.[note 1] He obtained his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, gave his first sermon in Sarnath, and died in Kushinagara.

 

No written records about Gautama have been found from his lifetime or some centuries thereafter. One edict of Emperor Ashoka, who reigned from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE, commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to the Buddha's birthplace in Lumbini. Another one of his edict mentions several Dhamma texts, establishing the existence of a written Buddhist tradition at least by the time of the Mauryan era and which may be the precursors of the Pāli Canon.[34][note 11] The oldest surviving Buddhist manuscripts are the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, reported to have been found in or around Haḍḍa near Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan and now preserved in the British Library. They are written in the Kharoṣṭhī script and the Gāndhārī language on twenty-seven birch bark scrolls, and they date from the first century BCE to the third century CE.[web 10]The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sūtra, Mahāvastu, and the Nidānakathā.[35] Of these, the Buddhacarita[36][37][38] is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[35] The Lalitavistara Sūtra is the next oldest biography, a Mahāyāna/Sarvāstivāda biography dating to the 3rd century CE.[39] The Mahāvastu from the Mahāsāṃghika Lokottaravāda tradition is another major biography, composed incrementally until perhaps the 4th century CE.[39] The Dharmaguptaka biography of the Buddha is the most exhaustive, and is entitled the Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra,[40] and various Chinese translations of this date between the 3rd and 6th century CE. Lastly, the Nidānakathā is from the Theravāda tradition in Sri Lanka and was composed in the 5th century CE by Buddhaghoṣa.[41]

 

From canonical sources, the Jātakas, the Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), and the Achariyabhuta Sutta (MN 123) which include selective accounts that may be older, but are not full biographies. The Jātakas retell previous lives of Gautama as a bodhisattva, and the first collection of these can be dated among the earliest Buddhist texts.[42] The Mahāpadāna Sutta and Achariyabhuta Sutta both recount miraculous events surrounding Gautama's birth, such as the bodhisattva's descent from Tuṣita Heaven into his mother's womb.Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[43][44][45] Nevertheless, some of the more ordinary details of his life have been gathered from these traditional sources. In modern times there has been an attempt to form a secular understanding of Siddhārtha Gautama's life by omitting the traditional supernatural elements of his early biographies.

 

Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human:[46]

 

It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), he was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.

 

The ancient Indians were generally unconcerned with chronologies, being more focused on philosophy. Buddhist texts reflect this tendency, providing a clearer picture of what Gautama may have taught than of the dates of the events in his life. These texts contain descriptions of the culture and daily life of ancient India which can be corroborated from the Jain scriptures, and make the Buddha's time the earliest period in Indian history for which significant accounts exist.[47] British author Karen Armstrong writes that although there is very little information that can be considered historically sound, we can be reasonably confident that Siddhārtha Gautama did exist as a historical figure.[48] Michael Carrithers goes a bit further by stating that the most general outline of "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death" must be true.[11]The Buddhist tradition regards Lumbini, present-day Nepal, to be the birthplace of the Buddha.[49][note 1] He grew up in Kapilavastu.[note 1] The exact site of ancient Kapilavastu is unknown. It may have been either Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, present-day India,[32] or Tilaurakot, present-day Nepal.[50] Both places belonged to the Sakya territory, and are located only 15 miles apart from each other.[50]

 

Siddharta Gautama was born as a Kshatriya,[51][note 13] the son of Śuddhodana, "an elected chief of the Shakya clan",[4] whose capital was Kapilavastu, and who were later annexed by the growing Kingdom of Kosala during the Buddha's lifetime. Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. Legend has it that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side,[53][54] and ten months later[55] Siddhartha was born. As was the Shakya tradition, when his mother Queen Maya became pregnant, she left Kapilvastu for her father's kingdom to give birth. However, her son is said to have been born on the way, at Lumbini, in a garden beneath a sal tree.

 

The day of the Buddha's birth is widely celebrated in Theravada countries as Vesak.[56] Buddha's birth anniversary holiday is called "Buddha Purnima" in Nepal and India as Buddha is believed to have been born on a full moon day. Various sources hold that the Buddha's mother died at his birth, a few days or seven days later. The infant was given the name Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha), meaning "he who achieves his aim". During the birth celebrations, the hermit seer Asita journeyed from his mountain abode and announced that the child would either become a great king (chakravartin) or a great holy man.[57] By traditional account,[which?] this occurred after Siddhartha placed his feet in Asita's hair and Asita examined the birthmarks. Suddhodana held a naming ceremony on the fifth day, and invited eight Brahmin scholars to read the future. All gave a dual prediction that the baby would either become a great king or a great holy man.[57] Kaundinya (Pali: Kondañña), the youngest, and later to be the first arahant other than the Buddha, was reputed to be the only one who unequivocally predicted that Siddhartha would become a Buddha.[58]

 

While later tradition and legend characterized Śuddhodana as a hereditary monarch, the descendant of the Solar Dynasty of Ikṣvāku (Pāli: Okkāka), many scholars think that Śuddhodana was the elected chief of a tribal confederacy.

 

Early texts suggest that Gautama was not familiar with the dominant religious teachings of his time until he left on his religious quest, which is said to have been motivated by existential concern for the human condition.[59] The state of the Shakya clan was not a monarchy, and seems to have been structured either as an oligarchy, or as a form of republic.[60] The more egalitarian gana-sangha form of government, as a political alternative to the strongly hierarchical kingdoms, may have influenced the development of the Shramana-type Jain and Buddhist sanghas, where monarchies tended toward Vedic Brahmanism.[61]Siddhartha was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati.[62] By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.

 

When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal.[62]According to the early Buddhist texts,[web 11] after realizing that meditative dhyana was the right path to awakening, but that extreme asceticism didn't work, Gautama discovered what Buddhists call the Middle Way[web 11]—a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification, or the Noble Eightfold Path, as was identified and described by the Buddha in his first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.[web 11] In a famous incident, after becoming starved and weakened, he is said to have accepted milk and rice pudding from a village girl named Sujata.[web 12] Such was his emaciated appearance that she wrongly believed him to be a spirit that had granted her a wish.[web 12]

 

Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree—now known as the Bodhi tree—in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth.[70] Kaundinya and four other companions, believing that he had abandoned his search and become undisciplined, left. After a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment.[70][web 13] According to some traditions, this occurred in approximately the fifth lunar month, while, according to others, it was in the twelfth month. From that time, Gautama was known to his followers as the Buddha or "Awakened One" ("Buddha" is also sometimes translated as "The Enlightened One").

 

According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the "Four Noble Truths",[web 13] which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that's free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states,[web 13] or "defilements" (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the "end of the world", in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha.

 

According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp. However, in the story, Brahmā Sahampati convinced him, arguing that at least some will understand it. The Buddha relented, and agreed to teach.After his awakening, the Buddha met Taphussa and Bhallika — two merchant brothers from the city of Balkh in what is currently Afghanistan — who became his first lay disciples. It is said that each was given hairs from his head, which are now claimed to be enshrined as relics in the Shwe Dagon Temple in Rangoon, Burma. The Buddha intended to visit Asita, and his former teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, to explain his findings, but they had already died.

 

He then travelled to the Deer Park near Varanasi (Benares) in northern India, where he set in motion what Buddhists call the Wheel of Dharma by delivering his first sermon to the five companions with whom he had sought enlightenment. Together with him, they formed the first saṅgha: the company of Buddhist monks.

 

All five become arahants, and within the first two months, with the conversion of Yasa and fifty four of his friends, the number of such arahants is said to have grown to 60. The conversion of three brothers named Kassapa followed, with their reputed 200, 300 and 500 disciples, respectively. This swelled the sangha to more than 1,000.For the remaining 45 years of his life, the Buddha is said to have traveled in the Gangetic Plain, in what is now Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and southern Nepal, teaching a diverse range of people: from nobles to servants, murderers such as Angulimala, and cannibals such as Alavaka. Although the Buddha's language remains unknown, it's likely that he taught in one or more of a variety of closely related Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, of which Pali may be a standardization.

 

The sangha traveled through the subcontinent, expounding the dharma. This continued throughout the year, except during the four months of the Vāsanā rainy season when ascetics of all religions rarely traveled. One reason was that it was more difficult to do so without causing harm to animal life. At this time of year, the sangha would retreat to monasteries, public parks or forests, where people would come to them.The first vassana was spent at Varanasi when the sangha was formed. After this, the Buddha kept a promise to travel to Rajagaha, capital of Magadha, to visit King Bimbisara. During this visit, Sariputta and Maudgalyayana were converted by Assaji, one of the first five disciples, after which they were to become the Buddha's two foremost followers. The Buddha spent the next three seasons at Veluvana Bamboo Grove monastery in Rajagaha, capital of Magadha.

 

Upon hearing of his son's awakening, Suddhodana sent, over a period, ten delegations to ask him to return to Kapilavastu. On the first nine occasions, the delegates failed to deliver the message, and instead joined the sangha to become arahants. The tenth delegation, led by Kaludayi, a childhood friend of Gautama's (who also became an arahant), however, delivered the message.

 

Now two years after his awakening, the Buddha agreed to return, and made a two-month journey by foot to Kapilavastu, teaching the dharma as he went. At his return, the royal palace prepared a midday meal, but the sangha was making an alms round in Kapilavastu. Hearing this, Suddhodana approached his son, the Buddha, saying:

 

"Ours is the warrior lineage of Mahamassata, and not a single warrior has gone seeking alms."

 

The Buddha is said to have replied:

 

"That is not the custom of your royal lineage. But it is the custom of my Buddha lineage. Several thousands of Buddhas have gone by seeking alms."

 

Buddhist texts say that Suddhodana invited the sangha into the palace for the meal, followed by a dharma talk. After this he is said to have become a sotapanna. During the visit, many members of the royal family joined the sangha. The Buddha's cousins Ananda and Anuruddha became two of his five chief disciples. At the age of seven, his son Rahula also joined, and became one of his ten chief disciples. His half-brother Nanda also joined and became an arahant.

 

Of the Buddha's disciples, Sariputta, Maudgalyayana, Mahakasyapa, Ananda and Anuruddha are believed to have been the five closest to him. His ten foremost disciples were reputedly completed by the quintet of Upali, Subhoti, Rahula, Mahakaccana and Punna.

 

In the fifth vassana, the Buddha was staying at Mahavana near Vesali when he heard news of the impending death of his father. He is said to have gone to Suddhodana and taught the dharma, after which his father became an arahant.

 

The king's death and cremation was to inspire the creation of an order of nuns. Buddhist texts record that the Buddha was reluctant to ordain women. His foster mother Maha Pajapati, for example, approached him, asking to join the sangha, but he refused. Maha Pajapati, however, was so intent on the path of awakening that she led a group of royal Sakyan and Koliyan ladies, which followed the sangha on a long journey to Rajagaha. In time, after Ananda championed their cause, the Buddha is said to have reconsidered and, five years after the formation of the sangha, agreed to the ordination of women as nuns. He reasoned that males and females had an equal capacity for awakening. But he gave women additional rules (Vinaya) to follow.Dhyana and insight[edit]

A core problem in the study of early Buddhism is the relation between dhyana and insight.[82][95][84] Schmithausen, in his often-cited article On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism notes that the mention of the four noble truths as constituting "liberating insight", which is attained after mastering the Rupa Jhanas, is a later addition to texts such as Majjhima Nikaya 36.[85][81][82]

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

19.9.10: Cofton Park, Birmingham

 

Clifford Longley, in The Tablet this week (25.9.10), caught the mood of the Pope's visit to Britain perfectly:

 

There were two fifth columns that nobody had bargained for: ordinary British Catholics who decided spontaneously to stand up and be counted; and ordinary British people with open minds and sense of fair play. The former bought tickets for the set-piece events, some even giving up a night’s sleep to stand for hours in a wet and muddy field on the outskirts of Birmingham. The latter let curiosity and a desire to be touched by history move them to join Catholic crowds on the streets of Edinburgh, Glasgow and London to wait, watch and wave. The Catholic masses and the broader public formed a resonating feedback loop via the media, learning how to behave as bystanders on a papal route from what they saw others doing and feeling on television the night before. It was Diana moment.

 

By then there was nothing the protesters or the media could do to blow the Pope off course. They began to seem deaf to the zeitgeist. What could have been a papal disaster and national disgrace became for Pope Benedict, for the organisers, and above all for the ordinary people of Britain, Catholics included, a significant and memorable victory.

 

First prize goes to those feisty Catholic teenagers who seemed to be everywhere, laughing, having the time of their lives. Catholic, yes. But typical teenagers, very normal. “Pope Benedict, we love you more than beans on toast,” said one of their banners. They were loving it and saying so, with joyous exuberance at being near the Pope and being on the telly simultaneously. Whatever they were on, I wanted some.

 

Completely by chance, the TV cameras cut between these appealingly giddy young people in Hyde Park and the grim and serious business of “protesting the Pope”, as the opposition marchers called what they spent Saturday afternoon doing. It was Cavaliers versus Roundheads, and, televisually, no contest. No doubt the protesters spoke for many more, as the polls had suggested. But if voting was by one’s feet, the Cavalier party seemed to win by a factor of 20 or more. If I were Peter Tatchell, I would be a little bit embarrassed.

 

Their fundamental mistake, in order to correct the earlier error of sounding like bigoted anti-Catholics, was to try to separate Catholics from their Pope. It wasn’t the majority they were against, they said, just this one man and his outrageous opinions – which many Catholics disagreed with. That last bit may be half true, though this Pope’s teachings differ hardly at all from the last one’s. And when it comes to the list of anti-Pope grievances drawn up by Mr Tatchell – though not those of the ludicrous Richard Dawkins – there are bits here and there with which I can sympathise.

 

But the effect on me of their general nastiness was to want to go and join the Swiss Guard. Yet Pope Benedict himself is surely a bit of a Roundhead, a touch Puritan. His addresses were utterly serious, though brilliantly calculated to connect with many of the things the British are worried about. But if his thoughts didn’t appeal directly to the senses, the gorgeous sights and sounds certainly did. It was Charles II’s time again, rumbustious and slightly irreverent. Thank you, God, for teenagers.

 

More here.

 

On 19th September 2010, John Henry Newman was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI at Cofton Park in Birmingham.

 

19.9.10: the Beatification of John Henry Newman by Pope Benedict XVI

 

We were at Cofton Park for Newman as much as we were for the Pope. I'm not the biggest fan of Benedict XVI or of the cult of hero worship, but Newman is for me one of the outstanding figures of the 19th Century; along with Darwin and Marx, he is one of the three great thinkers of that century. The three of them changed the way we understand the world, how we got here and where we are going.

 

What Darwin, Marx and Newman all had in common was that they devoted their lives to arguing theories of development. All three had a profound effect on how we lived our lives in the 20th century. Newman's theory was a theory of theological development. His starting point was to say: if we are imperfect, how can we possibly claim to truly know the mind of God?

 

As a young man, Newman had been an evangelical, believing in the literal truth of the Bible. As he matured, and realised this was not a possibility, he asked himself the big question: if we are literally incapable of posessing a knowledge of the mind of God, if we cannot understand exactly what it is that God is asking us to do, but we are still called on to seek perfection, then how does the revelation of that knowledge come about?

 

Newman decided it was the duty of the Church to be open to unfolding revelation, for each generation to continue the journey towards God in its own way. Some traditionalist Catholics are uncomfortable with the uncertainty of this, and ask the question "does this mean that some things we used to think were sinful are no longer sins?" In the words of the great Cardinal Hume, the answer is yes, I am afraid it does, because understanding of how sin may be realised is ultimately in the mind of imperfect man. Rather confusingly, Newman used the word 'Tradition' to explain the way the Church develops in response to this unfolding revelation.

 

Some of Newman's well-known sayings were projected on to the big screens at Cofton Park on Sunday, and one of my favourites went up just as the Pope was getting out of his helicopter: To grow is to change, and to become perfect is to change often. A little ironic perhaps, as one of the charges often levelled against this Pope by his fellow-Catholics is that he is intransigent and dogmatic - was it the spirit of Newman sending him a message, perhaps?

 

I think English Catholics have a love-hate relationship with Benedict XVI. He is a northern European, he's one of us, he thinks like us - but on the other hand he is such a deep intellectual that he doesn't engage in ordinary people's lives in the way that John Paul II did, even though John Paul II was in many ways a much more conservative Pope. JP2 is increasingly seen by history as providing a steady hand on the tiller at a time when the ship was entering uncertain waters, and I expect history's view of Benedict to be similar, that he kept the Conservatives on board at a time when the great outcry for change might have led to fragmentation.

 

I am also glad that there is at last a wider, public debate about the role of Faith in a civilised and secular society, and the relationship between Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason, although it needs to be conducted without hysteria. While I think the Church and the Pope are certainly patriarchal and authoritarian, I do not believe that either is homophobic. This seems to me a very serious charge, and quite inappropriate when addressing the real issues involved in the Catholic Church's understanding of homosexuality. The Church's teaching in the matter (with which I find much to disagree) is against non-creative sexual acts, and also against sexual acts outside of marriage. Thus, homosexuality is not taught to be sinful, but it is taught to be a disordered state. While I think this teaching is wrong, I also think that to describe it as 'homophobic', that is, the fear of homosexuality or the promotion of a hatred of homosexuality, is just plain wrong. I am not saying that homophobic Catholics do not exist, but I am not aware of ever having met one. Indeed, several of my openly gay friends are Mass-attending Catholics. This obviously isn't enough, but it is a better starting point.

 

Secondly, while I think that condoms have a role to play in fighting AIDS and other diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is a very complex one. Respect needs to be given to the Church's preference for other methods, and the resources it commits to employing them: education, building up respect for women, fighting to raise the social conditions in which the abuse of women thrives. To describe the Catholic Church's work in Africa as 'genocide', as one banner at the 'Protest the Pope' rally in London on Saturday did, is just plain daft.

 

The Catholic Church is crying out for change. Under John XXIII and Paul VI in the Sixties and Seventies there was a real sense of a pilgrim church on the move and open to the Holy Spirit. But I do not think this is currently the case. Perhaps Newman's beatification will open up the eyes of the Church again to the reality of its journey, who knows? Where there are difficulties with official Church teaching, most Catholics I know follow their prayerful consciences, as Newman said we must, in a spirit of loyal dissent. We think the Church's teaching on contraception and homosexuality is wrong - not because we think we are right, but because we think that ongoing revelation will lead to the teaching being developed and changed - to grow is to change, to become perfect is to change often.

 

It is good to see dissent, and it is good to see a public debate. It is right and proper that those protesting against the visit of the Pope in London on Saturday had the chance to make their voices heard. Vatican officials are said to be amazed that 80,000 pilgrims and 10,000 protestors were able to go about their business in the same area of central London and there only be one arrest! I'd like to think it is a good example of English tolerance and fair play. But I am afraid that I do not like their leader, Professor Dawkins, at all. I think he is a fundamentalist, and I abhor fundamentalism in all its forms, whether Christian, Moslem, Socialist, Fascist or Atheist. He's an intelligent man, and really ought to know better. His spiteful and angry speech on Saturday - he was literally shaking with anger - was a world away from the spirit of peace, love and reconciliation that I felt around me at Cofton Park yesterday. Ultimately, it's all about Love.

 

Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not... We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them.

 

- Blessed John Henry, Cardinal Newman

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

A couple of weeks back, we met a couple in a pub in Canterbury, and they had been out exploring the city and said they were disappointed by the cathedral.

 

Not enough labels they said.

 

That not withstanding, I thought it had been some time since I last had been, so decided to revisit, see the pillars of Reculver church in the crypt and take the big lens for some detail shots.

 

We arrived just after ten, so the cathedral was pretty free of other guests, just a few guides waiting for groups and couples to guide.

 

I went round with the 50mm first, before concentrating on the medieval glass which is mostly on the south side.

 

But as you will see, the lens picked up so much more.

 

Thing is, there is always someone interesting to talk to, or wants to talk to you. As I went around, I spoke with about three guides about the project and things I have seen in the churches of the county, and the wonderful people I have met. And that continued in the cathedral.

 

I have time to look at the tombs in the Trinity Chapel, and see that Henry IV and his wife are in a tomb there, rather than ay Westminster Abbey. So I photograph them, and the Black Prince on the southern side of the chapel, along with the Bishops and Archbishops between.

 

Round to the transept and a chance to change lenses, and put on the 140-400mm for some detailed shots.

 

I go round the cathedral again.

 

Initially at some of the memorials on the walls and the canopy of the pulpit, but it is the windows that are calling.

 

At least it was a bright, sunny day outside, which meant light was good in the cathedral with most shots coming out fine with no camera shake.

 

As I edit the shots I am stunned at the details of windows so high up they mostly seem like blocks of colour.

 

And so far, I have only just started to edit these shots.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, arrived on the coast of Kent as a missionary to England in 597AD. He came from Rome, sent by Pope Gregory the Great. It is said that Gregory had been struck by the beauty of Angle slaves he saw for sale in the city market and despatched Augustine and some monks to convert them to Christianity. Augustine was given a church at Canterbury (St Martin’s, after St Martin of Tours, still standing today) by the local King, Ethelbert whose Queen, Bertha, a French Princess, was already a Christian.This building had been a place of worship during the Roman occupation of Britain and is the oldest church in England still in use. Augustine had been consecrated a bishop in France and was later made an archbishop by the Pope. He established his seat within the Roman city walls (the word cathedral is derived from the the Latin word for a chair ‘cathedra’, which is itself taken from the Greek ‘kathedra’ meaning seat.) and built the first cathedral there, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury. Since that time, there has been a community around the Cathedral offering daily prayer to God; this community is arguably the oldest organisation in the English speaking world. The present Archbishop, The Most Revd Justin Welby, is 105th in the line of succession from Augustine. Until the 10th century, the Cathedral community lived as the household of the Archbishop. During the 10th century, it became a formal community of Benedictine monks, which continued until the monastery was dissolved by King Henry VIII in 1540. Augustine’s original building lies beneath the floor of the Nave – it was extensively rebuilt and enlarged by the Saxons, and the Cathedral was rebuilt completely by the Normans in 1070 following a major fire. There have been many additions to the building over the last nine hundred years, but parts of the Quire and some of the windows and their stained glass date from the 12th century. By 1077, Archbishop Lanfranc had rebuilt it as a Norman church, described as “nearly perfect”. A staircase and parts of the North Wall – in the area of the North West transept also called the Martyrdom – remain from that building.

 

Canterbury’s role as one of the world’s most important pilgrimage centres in Europe is inextricably linked to the murder of its most famous Archbishop, Thomas Becket, in 1170. When, after a long lasting dispute, King Henry II is said to have exclaimed “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”, four knights set off for Canterbury and murdered Thomas in his own cathedral. A sword stroke was so violent that it sliced the crown off his skull and shattered the blade’s tip on the pavement. The murder took place in what is now known as The Martyrdom. When shortly afterwards, miracles were said to take place, Canterbury became one of Europe’s most important pilgrimage centres.

 

The work of the Cathedral as a monastery came to an end in 1540, when the monastery was closed on the orders of King Henry VIII. Its role as a place of prayer continued – as it does to this day. Once the monastery had been suppressed, responsibility for the services and upkeep was given to a group of clergy known as the Chapter of Canterbury. Today, the Cathedral is still governed by the Dean and four Canons, together (in recent years) with four lay people and the Archdeacon of Ashford. During the Civil War of the 1640s, the Cathedral suffered damage at the hands of the Puritans; much of the medieval stained glass was smashed and horses were stabled in the Nave. After the Restoration in 1660, several years were spent in repairing the building. In the early 19th Century, the North West tower was found to be dangerous, and, although it dated from Lanfranc’s time, it was demolished in the early 1830s and replaced by a copy of the South West tower, thus giving a symmetrical appearance to the west end of the Cathedral. During the Second World War, the Precincts were heavily damaged by enemy action and the Cathedral’s Library was destroyed. Thankfully, the Cathedral itself was not seriously harmed, due to the bravery of the team of fire watchers, who patrolled the roofs and dealt with the incendiary bombs dropped by enemy bombers. Today, the Cathedral stands as a place where prayer to God has been offered daily for over 1,400 years; nearly 2,000 Services are held each year, as well as countless private prayers from individuals. The Cathedral offers a warm welcome to all visitors – its aim is to show people Jesus, which we do through the splendour of the building as well as the beauty of the worship.

 

www.canterbury-cathedral.org/heritage/history/cathedral-h...

 

-------------------------------------------

 

History of the cathedral

THE ORIGIN of a Christian church on the scite of the present cathedral, is supposed to have taken place as early as the Roman empire in Britain, for the use of the antient faithful and believing soldiers of their garrison here; and that Augustine found such a one standing here, adjoining to king Ethelbert's palace, which was included in the king's gift to him.

 

This supposition is founded on the records of the priory of Christ-church, (fn. 1) concurring with the common opinion of almost all our historians, who tell us of a church in Canterbury, which Augustine found standing in the east part of the city, which he had of king Ethelbert's gift, which after his consecration at Arles, in France, he commended by special dedication to the patronage of our blessed Saviour. (fn. 2)

 

According to others, the foundations only of an old church formerly built by the believing Romans, were left here, on which Augustine erected that, which he afterwards dedicated to out Saviour; (fn. 3) and indeed it is not probable that king Ethelbert should have suffered the unsightly ruins of a Christian church, which, being a Pagan, must have been very obnoxious to him, so close to his palace, and supposing these ruins had been here, would he not have suffered them to be repaired, rather than have obliged his Christian queen to travel daily to such a distance as St. Martin's church, or St. Pancrace's chapel, for the performance of her devotions.

 

Some indeed have conjectured that the church found by St. Augustine, in the east part of the city, was that of St.Martin, truly so situated; and urge in favor of it, that there have not been at any time any remains of British or Roman bricks discovered scattered in or about this church of our Saviour, those infallible, as Mr. Somner stiles them, signs of antiquity, and so generally found in buildings, which have been erected on, or close to the spot where more antient ones have stood. But to proceed, king Ethelbert's donation to Augustine was made in the year 596, who immediately afterwards went over to France, and was consecrated a bishop at Arles, and after his return, as soon as he had sufficiently finished a church here, whether built out of ruins or anew, it matters not, he exercised his episcopal function in the dedication of it, says the register of Christ-church, to the honor of Christ our Saviour; whence it afterwards obtained the name of Christ-church. (fn. 4)

 

From the time of Augustine for the space of upwards of three hundred years, there is not found in any printed or manuscript chronicle, the least mention of the fabric of this church, so that it is probable nothing befell it worthy of being recorded; however it should be mentioned, that during that period the revenues of it were much increased, for in the leiger books of it there are registered more than fifty donations of manors, lands, &c. so large and bountiful, as became the munificence of kings and nobles to confer. (fn. 5)

 

It is supposed, especially as we find no mention made of any thing to the contrary, that the fabric of this church for two hundred years after Augustine's time, met with no considerable molestations; but afterwards, the frequent invasions of the Danes involved both the civil and ecclesiastical state of this country in continual troubles and dangers; in the confusion of which, this church appears to have run into a state of decay; for when Odo was promoted to the archbishopric, in the year 938, the roof of it was in a ruinous condition; age had impaired it, and neglect had made it extremely dangerous; the walls of it were of an uneven height, according as it had been more or less decayed, and the roof of the church seemed ready to fall down on the heads of those underneath. All this the archbishop undertook to repair, and then covered the whole church with lead; to finish which, it took three years, as Osbern tells us, in the life of Odo; (fn. 6) and further, that there was not to be found a church of so large a size, capable of containing so great a multitude of people, and thus, perhaps, it continued without any material change happening to it, till the year 1011; a dismal and fatal year to this church and city; a time of unspeakable confusion and calamities; for in the month of September that year, the Danes, after a siege of twenty days, entered this city by force, burnt the houses, made a lamentable slaughter of the inhabitants, rifled this church, and then set it on fire, insomuch, that the lead with which archbishop Odo had covered it, being melted, ran down on those who were underneath. The sull story of this calamity is given by Osbern, in the life of archbishop Odo, an abridgement of which the reader will find below. (fn. 7)

 

The church now lay in ruins, without a roof, the bare walls only standing, and in this desolate condition it remained as long as the fury of the Danes prevailed, who after they had burnt the church, carried away archbishop Alphage with them, kept him in prison seven months, and then put him to death, in the year 1012, the year after which Living, or Livingus, succeeded him as archbishop, though it was rather in his calamities than in his seat of dignity, for he too was chained up by the Danes in a loathsome dungeon for seven months, before he was set free, but he so sensibly felt the deplorable state of this country, which he foresaw was every day growing worse and worse, that by a voluntary exile, he withdrew himself out of the nation, to find some solitary retirement, where he might bewail those desolations of his country, to which he was not able to bring any relief, but by his continual prayers. (fn. 8) He just outlived this storm, returned into England, and before he died saw peace and quientness restored to this land by king Canute, who gaining to himself the sole sovereignty over the nation, made it his first business to repair the injuries which had been done to the churches and monasteries in this kingdom, by his father's and his own wars. (fn. 9)

 

As for this church, archbishop Ægelnoth, who presided over it from the year 1020 to the year 1038, began and finished the repair, or rather the rebuilding of it, assisted in it by the royal munificence of the king, (fn. 10) who in 1023 presented his crown of gold to this church, and restored to it the port of Sandwich, with its liberties. (fn. 11) Notwithstanding this, in less than forty years afterwards, when Lanfranc soon after the Norman conquest came to the see, he found this church reduced almost to nothing by fire, and dilapidations; for Eadmer says, it had been consumed by a third conflagration, prior to the year of his advancement to it, in which fire almost all the antient records of the privileges of it had perished. (fn. 12)

 

The same writer has given us a description of this old church, as it was before Lanfranc came to the see; by which we learn, that at the east end there was an altar adjoining to the wall of the church, of rough unhewn stone, cemented with mortar, erected by archbishop Odo, for a repository of the body of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, which Odo had translated from Rippon hither, giving it here the highest place; at a convenient distance from this, westward, there was another altar, dedicated to Christ our Saviour, at which divine service was daily celebrated. In this altar was inclosed the head of St. Swithin, with many other relics, which archbishop Alphage brought with him from Winchester. Passing from this altar westward, many steps led down to the choir and nave, which were both even, or upon the same level. At the bottom of the steps, there was a passage into the undercroft, under all the east part of the church. (fn. 13) At the east end of which, was an altar, in which was inclosed, according to old tradition, the head of St. Furseus. From hence by a winding passage, at the west end of it, was the tomb of St. Dunstan, (fn. 14) but separated from the undercroft by a strong stone wall; over the tomb was erected a monument, pyramid wife, and at the head of it an altar, (fn. 15) for the mattin service. Between these steps, or passage into the undercroft and the nave, was the choir, (fn. 16) which was separated from the nave by a fair and decent partition, to keep off the crowds of people that usually were in the body of the church, so that the singing of the chanters in the choir might not be disturbed. About the middle of the length of the nave, were two towers or steeples, built without the walls; one on the south, and the other on the north side. In the former was the altar of St. Gregory, where was an entrance into the church by the south door, and where law controversies and pleas concerning secular matters were exercised. (fn. 17) In the latter, or north tower, was a passage for the monks into the church, from the monastery; here were the cloysters, where the novices were instructed in their religious rules and offices, and where the monks conversed together. In this tower was the altar of St. Martin. At the west end of the church was a chapel, dedicated to the blessed Virgin Mary, to which there was an ascent by steps, and at the east end of it an altar, dedicated to her, in which was inclosed the head of St. Astroburta the Virgin; and at the western part of it was the archbishop's pontifical chair, made of large stones, compacted together with mortar; a fair piece of work, and placed at a convenient distance from the altar, close to the wall of the church. (fn. 18)

 

To return now to archbishop Lanfranc, who was sent for from Normandy in 1073, being the fourth year of the Conqueror's reign, to fill this see, a time, when a man of a noble spirit, equal to the laborious task he was to undertake, was wanting especially for this church; and that he was such, the several great works which were performed by him, were incontestable proofs, as well as of his great and generous mind. At the first sight of the ruinous condition of this church, says the historian, the archbishop was struck with astonishment, and almost despaired of seeing that and the monastery re edified; but his care and perseverance raised both in all its parts anew, and that in a novel and more magnificent kind and form of structure, than had been hardly in any place before made use of in this kingdom, which made it a precedent and pattern to succeeding structures of this kind; (fn. 19) and new monasteries and churches were built after the example of it; for it should be observed, that before the coming of the Normans most of the churches and monasteries in this kingdom were of wood; (all the monasteries in my realm, says king Edgar, in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated anno 974, to the outward sight are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards) but after the Norman conquest, such timber fabrics grew out of use, and gave place to stone buildings raised upon arches; a form of structure introduced into general use by that nation, and in these parts surnished with stone from Caen, in Normandy. (fn. 20) After this fashion archbishop Lanfranc rebuilt the whole church from the foundation, with the palace and monastery, the wall which encompassed the court, and all the offices belonging to the monastery within the wall, finishing the whole nearly within the compass of seven years; (fn. 21) besides which, he furnished the church with ornaments and rich vestments; after which, the whole being perfected, he altered the name of it, by a dedication of it to the Holy Trinity; whereas, before it was called the church of our Saviour, or Christ-church, and from the above time it bore (as by Domesday book appears) the name of the church of the Holy Trinity; this new church being built on the same spot on which the antient one stood, though on a far different model.

 

After Lanfranc's death, archbishop Anselm succeeded in the year 1093, to the see of Canterbury, and must be esteemed a principal benefactor to this church; for though his time was perplexed with a continued series of troubles, of which both banishment and poverty made no small part, which in a great measure prevented him from bestowing that cost on his church, which he would otherwise have done, yet it was through his patronage and protection, and through his care and persuasions, that the fabric of it, begun and perfected by his predecessor, became enlarged and rose to still greater splendor. (fn. 22)

 

In order to carry this forward, upon the vacancy of the priory, he constituted Ernulph and Conrad, the first in 1104, the latter in 1108, priors of this church; to whose care, being men of generous and noble minds, and of singular skill in these matters, he, during his troubles, not only committed the management of this work, but of all his other concerns during his absence.

 

Probably archbishop Anselm, on being recalled from banishment on king Henry's accession to the throne, had pulled down that part of the church built by Lanfranc, from the great tower in the middle of it to the east end, intending to rebuild it upon a still larger and more magnificent plan; when being borne down by the king's displeasure, he intrusted prior Ernulph with the work, who raised up the building with such splendor, says Malmesbury, that the like was not to be seen in all England; (fn. 23) but the short time Ernulph continued in this office did not permit him to see his undertaking finished. (fn. 24) This was left to his successor Conrad, who, as the obituary of Christ church informs us, by his great industry, magnificently perfected the choir, which his predecessor had left unfinished, (fn. 25) adorning it with curious pictures, and enriching it with many precious ornaments. (fn. 26)

 

This great undertaking was not entirely compleated at the death of archbishop Anselm, which happened in 1109, anno 9 Henry I. nor indeed for the space of five years afterwards, during which the see of Canterbury continued vacant; when being finished, in honour of its builder, and on account of its more than ordinary beauty, it gained the name of the glorious choir of Conrad. (fn. 27)

 

After the see of Canterbury had continued thus vacant for five years, Ralph, or as some call him, Rodulph, bishop of Rochester, was translated to it in the year 1114, at whose coming to it, the church was dedicated anew to the Holy Trinity, the name which had been before given to it by Lanfranc. (fn. 28) The only particular description we have of this church when thus finished, is from Gervas, the monk of this monastery, and that proves imperfect, as to the choir of Lanfranc, which had been taken down soon after his death; (fn. 29) the following is his account of the nave, or western part of it below the choir, being that which had been erected by archbishop Lanfranc, as has been before mentioned. From him we learn, that the west end, where the chapel of the Virgin Mary stood before, was now adorned with two stately towers, on the top of which were gilded pinnacles. The nave or body was supported by eight pair of pillars. At the east end of the nave, on the north side, was an oratory, dedicated in honor to the blessed Virgin, in lieu, I suppose, of the chapel, that had in the former church been dedicated to her at the west end. Between the nave and the choir there was built a great tower or steeple, as it were in the centre of the whole fabric; (fn. 30) under this tower was erected the altar of the Holy Cross; over a partition, which separated this tower from the nave, a beam was laid across from one side to the other of the church; upon the middle of this beam was fixed a great cross, between the images of the Virgin Mary and St. John, and between two cherubims. The pinnacle on the top of this tower, was a gilded cherub, and hence it was called the angel steeple; a name it is frequently called by at this day. (fn. 31)

 

This great tower had on each side a cross isle, called the north and south wings, which were uniform, of the same model and dimensions; each of them had a strong pillar in the middle for a support to the roof, and each of them had two doors or passages, by which an entrance was open to the east parts of the church. At one of these doors there was a descent by a few steps into the undercroft; at the other, there was an ascent by many steps into the upper parts of the church, that is, the choir, and the isles on each side of it. Near every one of these doors or passages, an altar was erected; at the upper door in the south wing, there was an altar in honour of All Saints; and at the lower door there was one of St. Michael; and before this altar on the south side was buried archbishop Fleologild; and on the north side, the holy Virgin Siburgis, whom St. Dunstan highly admired for her sanctity. In the north isle, by the upper door, was the altar of St. Blaze; and by the lower door, that of St. Benedict. In this wing had been interred four archbishops, Adelm and Ceolnoth, behind the altar, and Egelnoth and Wlfelm before it. At the entrance into this wing, Rodulph and his successor William Corboil, both archbishops, were buried. (fn. 32)

 

Hence, he continues, we go up by some steps into the great tower, and before us there is a door and steps leading down into the south wing, and on the right hand a pair of folding doors, with stairs going down into the nave of the church; but without turning to any of these, let us ascend eastward, till by several more steps we come to the west end of Conrad's choir; being now at the entrance of the choir, Gervas tells us, that he neither saw the choir built by Lanfranc, nor found it described by any one; that Eadmer had made mention of it, without giving any account of it, as he had done of the old church, the reason of which appears to be, that Lanfranc's choir did not long survive its founder, being pulled down as before-mentioned, by archbishop Anselm; so that it could not stand more than twenty years; therefore the want of a particular description of it will appear no great defect in the history of this church, especially as the deficiency is here supplied by Gervas's full relation of the new choir of Conrad, built instead of it; of which, whoever desires to know the whole architecture and model observed in the fabric, the order, number, height and form of the pillars and windows, may know the whole of it from him. The roof of it, he tells us, (fn. 33) was beautified with curious paintings representing heaven; (fn. 34) in several respects it was agreeable to the present choir, the stalls were large and framed of carved wood. In the middle of it, there hung a gilded crown, on which were placed four and twenty tapers of wax. From the choir an ascent of three steps led to the presbiterium, or place for the presbiters; here, he says, it would be proper to stop a little and take notice of the high altar, which was dedicated to the name of CHRIST. It was placed between two other altars, the one of St. Dunstan, the other of St. Alphage; at the east corners of the high altar were fixed two pillars of wood, beautified with silver and gold; upon these pillars was placed a beam, adorned with gold, which reached across the church, upon it there were placed the glory, (fn. 35) the images of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage, and seven chests or coffers overlaid with gold, full of the relics of many saints. Between those pillars was a cross gilded all over, and upon the upper beam of the cross were set sixty bright crystals.

 

Beyond this, by an ascent of eight steps towards the east, behind the altar, was the archiepiscopal throne, which Gervas calls the patriarchal chair, made of one stone; in this chair, according to the custom of the church, the archbishop used to sit, upon principal festivals, in his pontifical ornaments, whilst the solemn offices of religion were celebrated, until the consecration of the host, when he came down to the high altar, and there performed the solemnity of consecration. Still further, eastward, behind the patriarchal chair, (fn. 36) was a chapel in the front of the whole church, in which was an altar, dedicated to the Holy Trinity; behind which were laid the bones of two archbishops, Odo of Canterbury, and Wilfrid of York; by this chapel on the south side near the wall of the church, was laid the body of archbishop Lanfranc, and on the north side, the body of archbishop Theobald. Here it is to be observed, that under the whole east part of the church, from the angel steeple, there was an undercrost or crypt, (fn. 37) in which were several altars, chapels and sepulchres; under the chapel of the Trinity before-mentioned, were two altars, on the south side, the altar of St. Augustine, the apostle of the English nation, by which archbishop Athelred was interred. On the north side was the altar of St. John Baptist, by which was laid the body of archbishop Eadsin; under the high altar was the chapel and altar of the blessed Virgin Mary, to whom the whole undercroft was dedicated.

 

To return now, he continues, to the place where the bresbyterium and choir meet, where on each side there was a cross isle (as was to be seen in his time) which might be called the upper south and north wings; on the east side of each of these wings were two half circular recesses or nooks in the wall, arched over after the form of porticoes. Each of them had an altar, and there was the like number of altars under them in the crost. In the north wing, the north portico had the altar of St. Martin, by which were interred the bodies of two archbishops, Wlfred on the right, and Living on the left hand; under it in the croft, was the altar of St. Mary Magdalen. The other portico in this wing, had the altar of St. Stephen, and by it were buried two archbishops, Athelard on the left hand, and Cuthbert on the right; in the croft under it, was the altar of St. Nicholas. In the south wing, the north portico had the altar of St. John the Evangelist, and by it the bodies of Æthelgar and Aluric, archbishops, were laid. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Paulinus, by which the body of archbishop Siricius was interred. In the south portico was the altar of St. Gregory, by which were laid the corps of the two archbishops Bregwin and Plegmund. In the croft under it was the altar of St. Owen, archbishop of Roan, and underneath in the croft, not far from it the altar of St. Catherine.

 

Passing from these cross isles eastward there were two towers, one on the north, the other on the south side of the church. In the tower on the north side was the altar of St. Andrew, which gave name to the tower; under it, in the croft, was the altar of the Holy Innocents; the tower on the south side had the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul, behind which the body of St. Anselm was interred, which afterwards gave name both to the altar and tower (fn. 38) (now called St. Anselm's). The wings or isles on each side of the choir had nothing in particular to be taken notice of.— Thus far Gervas, from whose description we in particular learn, where several of the bodies of the old archbishops were deposited, and probably the ashes of some of them remain in the same places to this day.

 

As this building, deservedly called the glorious choir of Conrad, was a magnificent work, so the undertaking of it at that time will appear almost beyond example, especially when the several circumstances of it are considered; but that it was carried forward at the archbishop's cost, exceeds all belief. It was in the discouraging reign of king William Rufus, a prince notorious in the records of history, for all manner of sacrilegious rapine, that archbishop Anselm was promoted to this see; when he found the lands and revenues of this church so miserably wasted and spoiled, that there was hardly enough left for his bare subsistence; who, in the first years that he sat in the archiepiscopal chair, struggled with poverty, wants and continual vexations through the king's displeasure, (fn. 39) and whose three next years were spent in banishment, during all which time he borrowed money for his present maintenance; who being called home by king Henry I. at his coming to the crown, laboured to pay the debts he had contracted during the time of his banishment, and instead of enjoying that tranquility and ease he hoped for, was, within two years afterwards, again sent into banishment upon a fresh displeasure conceived against him by the king, who then seized upon all the revenues of the archbishopric, (fn. 40) which he retained in his own hands for no less than four years.

 

Under these hard circumstances, it would have been surprizing indeed, that the archbishop should have been able to carry on so great a work, and yet we are told it, as a truth, by the testimonies of history; but this must surely be understood with the interpretation of his having been the patron, protector and encourager, rather than the builder of this work, which he entrusted to the care and management of the priors Ernulph and Conrad, and sanctioned their employing, as Lanfranc had done before, the revenues and stock of the church to this use. (fn. 41)

 

In this state as above-mentioned, without any thing material happening to it, this church continued till about the year 1130, anno 30 Henry I. when it seems to have suffered some damage by a fire; (fn. 42) but how much, there is no record left to inform us; however it could not be of any great account, for it was sufficiently repaired, and that mostly at the cost of archbishop Corboil, who then sat in the chair of this see, (fn. 43) before the 4th of May that year, on which day, being Rogation Sunday, the bishops performed the dedication of it with great splendor and magnificence, such, says Gervas, col. 1664, as had not been heard of since the dedication of the temple of Solomon; the king, the queen, David, king of Scots, all the archbishops, and the nobility of both kingdoms being present at it, when this church's former name was restored again, being henceforward commonly called Christ-church. (fn. 44)

 

Among the manuscripts of Trinity college library, in Cambridge, in a very curious triple psalter of St. Jerome, in Latin, written by the monk Eadwyn, whose picture is at the beginning of it, is a plan or drawing made by him, being an attempt towards a representation of this church and monastery, as they stood between the years 1130 and 1174; which makes it probable, that he was one of the monks of it, and the more so, as the drawing has not any kind of relation to the plalter or sacred hymns contained in the manuscript.

 

His plan, if so it may be called, for it is neither such, nor an upright, nor a prospect, and yet something of all together; but notwithstanding this rudeness of the draftsman, it shews very plain that it was intended for this church and priory, and gives us a very clear knowledge, more than we have been able to learn from any description we have besides, of what both were at the above period of time. (fn. 45)

 

Forty-four years after this dedication, on the 5th of September, anno 1174, being the 20th year of king Henry II.'s reign, a fire happened, which consumed great part of this stately edifice, namely, the whole choir, from the angel steeple to the east end of the church, together with the prior's lodgings, the chapel of the Virgin Mary, the infirmary, and some other offices belonging to the monastery; but the angel steeple, the lower cross isles, and the nave appear to have received no material injury from the flames. (fn. 46) The narrative of this accident is told by Gervas, the monk of Canterbury, so often quoted before, who was an eye witness of this calamity, as follows:

 

Three small houses in the city near the old gate of the monastery took fire by accident, a strong south wind carried the flakes of fire to the top of the church, and lodged them between the joints of the lead, driving them to the timbers under it; this kindled a fire there, which was not discerned till the melted lead gave a free passage for the flames to appear above the church, and the wind gaining by this means a further power of increasing them, drove them inwardly, insomuch that the danger became immediately past all possibility of relief. The timber of the roof being all of it on fire, fell down into the choir, where the stalls of the manks, made of large pieces of carved wood, afforded plenty of fuel to the flames, and great part of the stone work, through the vehement heat of the fire, was so weakened, as to be brought to irreparable ruin, and besides the fabric itself, the many rich ornaments in the church were devoured by the flames.

 

The choir being thus laid in ashes, the monks removed from amidst the ruins, the bodies of the two saints, whom they called patrons of the church, the archbishops Dunstan and Alphage, and deposited them by the altar of the great cross, in the nave of the church; (fn. 47) and from this time they celebrated the daily religious offices in the oratory of the blessed Virgin Mary in the nave, and continued to do so for more than five years, when the choir being re edified, they returned to it again. (fn. 48)

 

Upon this destruction of the church, the prior and convent, without any delay, consulted on the most speedy and effectual method of rebuilding it, resolving to finish it in such a manner, as should surpass all the former choirs of it, as well in beauty as size and magnificence. To effect this, they sent for the most skilful architects that could be found either in France or England. These surveyed the walls and pillars, which remained standing, but they found great part of them so weakened by the fire, that they could no ways be built upon with any safety; and it was accordingly resolved, that such of them should be taken down; a whole year was spent in doing this, and in providing materials for the new building, for which they sent abroad for the best stone that could be procured; Gervas has given a large account, (fn. 49) how far this work advanced year by year; what methods and rules of architecture were observed, and other particulars relating to the rebuilding of this church; all which the curious reader may consult at his leisure; it will be sufficient to observe here, that the new building was larger in height and length, and more beautiful in every respect, than the choir of Conrad; for the roof was considerably advanced above what it was before, and was arched over with stone; whereas before it was composed of timber and boards. The capitals of the pillars were now beautified with different sculptures of carvework; whereas, they were before plain, and six pillars more were added than there were before. The former choir had but one triforium, or inner gallery, but now there were two made round it, and one in each side isle and three in the cross isles; before, there were no marble pillars, but such were now added to it in abundance. In forwarding this great work, the monks had spent eight years, when they could proceed no further for want of money; but a fresh supply coming in from the offerings at St. Thomas's tomb, so much more than was necessary for perfecting the repair they were engaged in, as encouraged them to set about a more grand design, which was to pull down the eastern extremity of the church, with the small chapel of the Holy Trinity adjoining to it, and to erect upon a stately undercroft, a most magnificent one instead of it, equally lofty with the roof of the church, and making a part of it, which the former one did not, except by a door into it; but this new chapel, which was dedicated likewise to the Holy Trinity, was not finished till some time after the rest of the church; at the east end of this chapel another handsome one, though small, was afterwards erected at the extremity of the whole building, since called Becket's crown, on purpose for an altar and the reception of some part of his relics; (fn. 50) further mention of which will be made hereafter.

 

The eastern parts of this church, as Mr. Gostling observes, have the appearance of much greater antiquity than what is generally allowed to them; and indeed if we examine the outside walls and the cross wings on each side of the choir, it will appear, that the whole of them was not rebuilt at the time the choir was, and that great part of them was suffered to remain, though altered, added to, and adapted as far as could be, to the new building erected at that time; the traces of several circular windows and other openings, which were then stopped up, removed, or altered, still appearing on the walls both of the isles and the cross wings, through the white-wash with which they are covered; and on the south side of the south isle, the vaulting of the roof as well as the triforium, which could not be contrived so as to be adjusted to the places of the upper windows, plainly shew it. To which may be added, that the base or foot of one of the westernmost large pillars of the choir on the north side, is strengthened with a strong iron band round it, by which it should seem to have been one of those pillars which had been weakened by the fire, but was judged of sufficient firmness, with this precaution, to remain for the use of the new fabric.

 

The outside of this part of the church is a corroborating proof of what has been mentioned above, as well in the method, as in the ornaments of the building.— The outside of it towards the south, from St. Michael's chapel eastward, is adorned with a range of small pillars, about six inches diameter, and about three feet high, some with santastic shasts and capitals, others with plain ones; these support little arches, which intersect each other; and this chain or girdle of pillars is continued round the small tower, the eastern cross isle and the chapel of St. Anselm, to the buildings added in honour of the Holy Trinity, and St. Thomas Becket, where they leave off. The casing of St. Michael's chapel has none of them, but the chapel of the Virgin Mary, answering to it on the north side of the church, not being fitted to the wall, shews some of them behind it; which seems as if they had been continued before, quite round the eastern parts of the church.

 

These pillars, which rise from about the level of the pavement, within the walls above them, are remarkably plain and bare of ornaments; but the tower above mentioned and its opposite, as soon as they rise clear of the building, are enriched with stories of this colonade, one above another, up to the platform from whence their spires rise; and the remains of the two larger towers eastward, called St. Anselm's, and that answering to it on the north side of the church, called St. Andrew's are decorated much after the same manner, as high as they remain at present.

 

At the time of the before-mentioned fire, which so fatally destroyed the upper part of this church, the undercrost, with the vaulting over it, seems to have remained entire, and unhurt by it.

 

The vaulting of the undercrost, on which the floor of the choir and eastern parts of the church is raised, is supported by pillars, whose capitals are as various and fantastical as those of the smaller ones described before, and so are their shafts, some being round, others canted, twisted, or carved, so that hardly any two of them are alike, except such as are quite plain.

 

These, I suppose, may be concluded to be of the same age, and if buildings in the same stile may be conjectured to be so from thence, the antiquity of this part of the church may be judged, though historians have left us in the dark in relation to it.

 

In Leland's Collectanea, there is an account and description of a vault under the chancel of the antient church of St. Peter, in Oxford, called Grymbald's crypt, being allowed by all, to have been built by him; (fn. 51) Grymbald was one of those great and accomplished men, whom king Alfred invited into England about the year 885, to assist him in restoring Christianity, learning and the liberal arts. (fn. 52) Those who compare the vaults or undercrost of the church of Canterbury, with the description and prints given of Grymbald's crypt, (fn. 53) will easily perceive, that two buildings could hardly have been erected more strongly resembling each other, except that this at Canterbury is larger, and more pro fusely decorated with variety of fancied ornaments, the shafts of several of the pillars here being twisted, or otherwise varied, and many of the captials exactly in the same grotesque taste as those in Grymbald's crypt. (fn. 54) Hence it may be supposed, that those whom archbishop Lanfranc employed as architects and designers of his building at Canterbury, took their model of it, at least of this part of it, from that crypt, and this undercrost now remaining is the same, as was originally built by him, as far eastward, as to that part which begins under the chapel of the Holy Trinity, where it appears to be of a later date, erected at the same time as the chapel. The part built by Lanfranc continues at this time as firm and entire, as it was at the very building of it, though upwards of seven hundred years old. (fn. 55)

 

But to return to the new building; though the church was not compleatly finished till the end of the year 1184, yet it was so far advanced towards it, that, in 1180, on April 19, being Easter eve, (fn. 56) the archbishop, prior and monks entered the new choir, with a solemn procession, singing Te Deum, for their happy return to it. Three days before which they had privately, by night, carried the bodies of St. Dunstan and St. Alphage to the places prepared for them near the high altar. The body likewise of queen Edive (which after the fire had been removed from the north cross isle, where it lay before, under a stately gilded shrine) to the altar of the great cross, was taken up, carried into the vestry, and thence to the altar of St. Martin, where it was placed under the coffin of archbishop Livinge. In the month of July following the altar of the Holy Trinity was demolished, and the bodies of those archbishops, which had been laid in that part of the church, were removed to other places. Odo's body was laid under St. Dunstan's and Wilfrid's under St. Alphage's; Lanfranc's was deposited nigh the altar of St. Martin, and Theobald's at that of the blessed Virgin, in the nave of the church, (fn. 57) under a marble tomb; and soon afterwards the two archbishops, on the right and left hand of archbishop Becket in the undercrost, were taken up and placed under the altar of St. Mary there. (fn. 58)

 

After a warning so terrible, as had lately been given, it seemed most necessary to provide against the danger of fire for the time to come; the flames, which had so lately destroyed a considerable part of the church and monastery, were caused by some small houses, which had taken fire at a small distance from the church.— There still remained some other houses near it, which belonged to the abbot and convent of St. Augustine; for these the monks of Christ-church created, by an exchange, which could not be effected till the king interposed, and by his royal authority, in a manner, compelled the abbot and convent to a composition for this purpose, which was dated in the year 1177, that was three years after the late fire of this church. (fn. 59)

 

These houses were immediately pulled down, and it proved a providential and an effectual means of preserving the church from the like calamity; for in the year 1180, on May 22, this new choir, being not then compleated, though it had been used the month be fore, as has been already mentioned, there happened a fire in the city, which burnt down many houses, and the flames bent their course towards the church, which was again in great danger; but the houses near it being taken away, the fire was stopped, and the church escaped being burnt again. (fn. 60)

 

Although there is no mention of a new dedication of the church at this time, yet the change made in the name of it has been thought by some to imply a formal solemnity of this kind, as it appears to have been from henceforth usually called the church of St. Thomas the Martyr, and to have continued so for above 350 years afterwards.

 

New names to churches, it is true. have been usually attended by formal consecrations of them; and had there been any such solemnity here, undoubtedly the same would not have passed by unnoticed by every historian, the circumstance of it must have been notorious, and the magnificence equal at least to the other dedications of this church, which have been constantly mentioned by them; but here was no need of any such ceremony, for although the general voice then burst forth to honour this church with the name of St. Thomas, the universal object of praise and adoration, then stiled the glorious martyr, yet it reached no further, for the name it had received at the former dedication, notwithstanding this common appellation of it, still remained in reality, and it still retained invariably in all records and writings, the name of Christ church only, as appears by many such remaining among the archives of the dean and chapter; and though on the seal of this church, which was changed about this time; the counter side of it had a representation of Becket's martyrdom, yet on the front of it was continued that of the church, and round it an inscription with the former name of Christ church; which seal remained in force till the dissolution of the priory.

 

It may not be improper to mention here some transactions, worthy of observation, relating to this favorite saint, which passed from the time of his being murdered, to that of his translation to the splendid shrine prepared for his relics.

 

Archbishop Thomas Becket was barbarously murdered in this church on Dec. 29, 1170, being the 16th year of king Henry II. and his body was privately buried towards the east end of the undercrost. The monks tell us, that about the Easter following, miracles began to be wrought by him, first at his tomb, then in the undercrost, and in every part of the whole fabric of the church; afterwards throughout England, and lastly, throughout the rest of the world. (fn. 61) The same of these miracles procured him the honour of a formal canonization from pope Alexander III. whose bull for that purpose is dated March 13, in the year 1172. (fn. 62) This declaration of the pope was soon known in all places, and the reports of his miracles were every where sounded abroad. (fn. 63)

 

Hereupon crowds of zealots, led on by a phrenzy of devotion, hastened to kneel at his tomb. In 1177, Philip, earl of Flanders, came hither for that purpose, when king Henry met and had a conference with him at Canterbury. (fn. 64) In June 1178, king Henry returning from Normandy, visited the sepulchre of this new saint; and in July following, William, archbishop of Rhemes, came from France, with a large retinue, to perform his vows to St. Thomas of Canterbury, where the king met him and received him honourably. In the year 1179, Lewis, king of France, came into England; before which neither he nor any of his predecessors had ever set foot in this kingdom. (fn. 65) He landed at Dover, where king Henry waited his arrival, and on August 23, the two kings came to Canterbury, with a great train of nobility of both nations, and were received with due honour and great joy, by the archbishop, with his com-provincial bishops, and the prior and the whole convent. (fn. 66)

 

King Lewis came in the manner and habit of a pilgrim, and was conducted to the tomb of St. Thomas by a solemn procession; he there offered his cup of gold and a royal precious stone, (fn. 67) and gave the convent a yearly rent for ever, of a hundred muids of wine, to be paid by himself and his successors; which grant was confirmed by his royal charter, under his seal, and delivered next day to the convent; (fn. 68) after he had staid here two, (fn. 69) or as others say, three days, (fn. 70) during which the oblations of gold and silver made were so great, that the relation of them almost exceeded credibility. (fn. 71) In 1181, king Henry, in his return from Normandy, again paid his devotions at this tomb. These visits were the early fruits of the adoration of the new sainted martyr, and these royal examples of kings and great persons were followed by multitudes, who crowded to present with full hands their oblations at his tomb.— Hence the convent was enabled to carry forward the building of the new choir, and they applied all this vast income to the fabric of the church, as the present case instantly required, for which they had the leave and consent of the archbishop, confirmed by the bulls of several succeeding popes. (fn. 72)

 

¶From the liberal oblations of these royal and noble personages at the tomb of St. Thomas, the expences of rebuilding the choir appear to have been in a great measure supplied, nor did their devotion and offerings to the new saint, after it was compleated, any ways abate, but, on the contrary, they daily increased; for in the year 1184, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, and Philip, earl of Flanders, came together to pay their vows at this tomb, and were met here by king Henry, who gave them an invitation to London. (fn. 73) In 1194, John, archbishop of Lions; in the year afterwards, John, archbishop of York; and in the year 1199, king John, performed their devotions at the foot of this tomb. (fn. 74) King Richard I. likewise, on his release from captivity in Germany, landing on the 30th of March at Sandwich, proceeded from thence, as an humble stranger on foot, towards Canterbury, to return his grateful thanks to God and St. Thomas for his release. (fn. 75) All these by name, with many nobles and multitudes of others, of all sorts and descriptions, visited the saint with humble adoration and rich oblations, whilst his body lay in the undercrost. In the mean time the chapel and altar at the upper part of the east end of the church, which had been formerly consecrated to the Holy Trinity, were demolished, and again prepared with great splendor, for the reception of this saint, who being now placed there, implanted his name not only on the chapel and altar, but on the whole church, which was from thenceforth known only by that of the church of St. Thomas the martyr.

  

On July 7, anno 1220, the remains of St. Thomas were translated from his tomb to his new shrine, with the greatest solemnity and rejoicings. Pandulph, the pope's legate, the archbishops of Canterbury and Rheims, and many bishops and abbots, carried the coffin on their shoulders, and placed it on the new shrine, and the king graced these solemnities with his royal presence. (fn. 76) The archbishop of Canterbury provided forage along all the road, between London and Canterbury, for the horses of all such as should come to them, and he caused several pipes and conduits to run with wine in different parts of the city. This, with the other expences arising during the time, was so great, that he left a debt on the see, which archbishop Boniface, his fourth successor in it, was hardly enabled to discharge.

 

¶The saint being now placed in his new repository, became the vain object of adoration to the deluded people, and afterwards numbers of licences were granted to strangers by the king, to visit this shrine. (fn. 77) The titles of glorious, of saint and martyr, were among those given to him; (fn. 78) such veneration had all people for his relics, that the religious of several cathedral churches and monasteries, used all their endeavours to obtain some of them, and thought themselves happy and rich in the possession of the smallest portion of them. (fn. 79) Besides this, there were erected and dedicated to his honour, many churches, chapels, altars and hospitals in different places, both in this kingdom and abroad. (fn. 80) Thus this saint, even whilst he lay in his obscure tomb in the undercroft, brought such large and constant supplies of money, as enabled the monks to finish this beautiful choir, and the eastern parts of the church; and when he was translated to the most exalted and honourable place in it, a still larger abundance of gain filled their coffers, which continued as a plentiful supply to them, from year to year, to the time of the reformation, and the final abolition of the priory itself.

 

www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/vol11/pp306-383

 

Context

  

New American Standard Bible

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

 

Parallel Verses

 

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

They heard these non-Jewish people speaking in other languages and praising God. Then Peter said,

 

King James Bible

For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

 

Douay-Rheims Bible

For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God.

 

Darby Bible Translation

for they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered,

 

English Revised Version

For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

 

Webster's Bible Translation

For they heard them speak in languages and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

 

Weymouth New Testament

For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling the majesty of God. Then Peter said,

 

World English Bible

For they heard them speaking in other languages and magnifying God. Then Peter answered,

 

Young's Literal Translation

for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.

 

Cross References

 

Mark 16:17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

 

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

 

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

 

Commentary

 

Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary

 

Verses 44-48

 

We have here the issue and effect of Peter's sermon to Cornelius and his friends. He did not labour in vain among them, but they were all brought home to Christ. Here we have,

 

I. God's owning Peter's word, by conferring the Holy Ghost upon the hearers of it, and immediately upon the hearing of it (v. 44): While Peter was yet speaking these words, and perhaps designed to say more, he was happily superseded by visible indications that the Holy Ghost, even in his miraculous gifts and powers, fell on all those who heard the word, even as he did on the apostles at first; so Peter saith, ch. 11:15. Therefore some think it was with a rushing mighty wind, and in cloven tongues, as that was.

 

Observe, 1. When the Holy Ghost fell upon them-while Peter was preaching. Thus God bore witness to what he said, and accompanied it with a divine power. Thus were the signs of an apostle wrought among them, 2 Co. 12:12. Though Peter could not give the Holy Ghost, yet the Holy Ghost being given along with the word of Peter, by this it appeared he was sent of God.

 

The Holy Ghost fell upon others after they were baptized, for their confirmation; but upon these Gentiles before they were baptized: as Abraham was justified by faith, being yet in uncircumcision, to show that God is not tied to a method, nor confines himself to external signs.

 

The Holy Ghost fell upon those that were neither circumcised nor baptized; for it is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.

 

2. How it appeared that the Holy Ghost had fallen upon them (v. 46): They spoke with tongues which they never learned, perhaps the Hebrew, the holy tongue; as the preachers were enabled to speak the vulgar tongues, that they might communicate the doctrine of Christ to the hearers, so, probably, the hearers were immediately taught the sacred tongue, that they might examine the proofs which the preachers produced out of the Old Testament in the original.

 

Or their being enabled to speak with tongues intimated that they were all designed for ministers, and by this first descent of the Spirit upon them were qualified to preach the gospel to others, which they did but now receive themselves.

 

But, observe, when they spoke with tongues, they magnified God, they spoke of Christ and the benefits of redemption, which Peter had been preaching to the glory of God.

 

Thus did they on whom the Holy Ghost first descended, c. 2:11. Note, Whatever gift we are endued with, we ought to honour God with it, and particularly the gift of speaking, and all the improvements of it.

 

3. What impression it made upon the believing Jews that were present (v. 45): Those of the circumcision who believed were astonished-those six that came along with Peter; it surprised them exceedingly, and perhaps gave them some uneasiness, because upon the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, which they thought had been appropriated to their own nation.

 

Had they understood the scriptures of the Old Testament, which pointed at this, it would not have been such an astonishment to them; but by our mistaken notions of things we create difficulties to ourselves in the methods of divine providence and grace.

 

II. Peter's owning God's work in baptizing those on whom the Holy Ghost fell. Observe, 1. Though they had received the Holy Ghost, yet it was requisite they should be baptized; though God is not tied to instituted ordinances, we are; and no extraordinary gifts set us above them, but rather oblige us so much the more to conform to them. Some in our days would have argued

 

"These are baptized with the Holy Ghost and therefore what need have they to be baptized with water? It is below them." No; it is not below them, while water-baptism is an ordinance of Christ, and the door of admission into the visible church, and a seal of the new covenant.

 

2. Though they were Gentiles, yet, having received the Holy Ghost, they might be admitted to baptism (v. 47): Can any man, though ever so rigid a Jew, forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

The argument is conclusive; can we deny the sign to those who have received the thing signified? Are not those on whom God has bestowed the grace of the covenant plainly entitled to the seals of the covenant? Surely those that have received the Spirit as well as we ought to receive baptism as well as we; for it becomes us to follow God's indications, and to take those into communion with us whom he hath taken into communion with himself.

 

God hath promised to pour his Spirit upon the seed of the faithful, upon their offspring; and who then can forbid water, that they should not be baptized, who have received the promise of the Holy Ghost as well as we? Now it appears why the Spirit was given them before they were baptized-because otherwise Peter could not have persuaded himself to baptize them, any more than to have preached to them, if he had not been ordered to do it by a vision; at least he could not have avoided the censure of those of the circumcision that believed.

 

Thus is there one unusual step of divine grace taken after another to bring the Gentiles into the church. How well is it for us that the grace of a good God is so much more extensive than the charity of some good men! 3.

 

Peter did not baptize them himself, but commanded them to be baptized, v. 48. It is probable that some of the brethren who came with him did it by his order, and that he declined it for the same reason that Paul did-lest those that were baptized by him should think the better of themselves for it, or he should seem to have baptized in his own name, 1 Co. 1:15. the apostles received the commission to go and disciple all nations by baptism.

 

But is was to prayer and the ministry of the word that they were to give themselves. And Paul says that he was sent, not to baptize but to preach, which was the more noble and excellent work. The business of baptizing was therefore ordinarily devolved upon the inferior ministers; these acted by the orders of the apostles, who might therefore be said to do it. Qui per alterum facit, per seipsum facere dicitur-What a man does by another, he may be said to do by himself.

 

III. Their owning both Peter's word and God's work in their desire for further advantage by Peter's ministry: They prayed him to tarry certain days. They could not press him to reside constantly among them-they knew that he had work to do in other places, and that for the present he was expected at Jerusalem; yet they were not willing he should go away immediately, but earnestly begged he would stay for some time among them, that they might be further instructed by him in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Note, 1. Those who have some acquaintance with Christ cannot but covet more. 2. Even those that have received the Holy Ghost must see their need of the ministry of the word.

 

Calvin's Commentary

  

Acts 10:44-48

44. And as Peter yet spake these words, the Spirit came down upon all which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also were poured out the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

 

46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and glorify God. Then Peter answered,

 

47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Spirit as well as we?

 

48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

 

44. And as Peter yet spake. God declareth now by a new miracle, that the doctrine of the gospel is common as well to the Gentiles as to the Jews. And this is an excellent seal of the calling of the Gentiles; because the Lord would never have vouchsafed to bestow upon the Gentiles the graces of his Spirit, unless it had been to declare that even they were adopted together into the society of the covenant.

 

These gifts, mentioned by Luke, differ indeed from the grace of regeneration; and yet, undoubtedly, God did by this means seal both Peter's doctrine, and also their faith and godliness which heard him. He saith that they were all endowed with the Spirit, like as we saw before, that they came all encouraged to learn and obey.

 

This visible sign representeth unto us, as it were in a table, what an effectual instrument of God's power the preaching of the gospel is; for he poured out his Spirit as Peter spake, to the end he might show that he sendeth not teachers to that end, that they may beat the air with the vain sound of their voice, but that he may work mightily by their voice, and may quicken the same by the power of his Spirit, to the salvation of the godly.

 

Thus doth Paul put the Galatians (Galatians 3:2.) in mind, that they received the Holy Ghost by the hearing of faith; and in another place he saith that he is the minister of the Spirit, and not of the letter, (2 Corinthians 3:6.)

 

The gift of the tongues, and other such like things, are ceased long ago in the Church; but the spirit of understanding and of regeneration is of force, and shall always be of force, which the Lord coupleth with the external preaching of the gospel, that he may keep us in reverence of his word, and may prevent the deadly dotings, wherein brain-sick fellows enwrap themselves, whilst that, forsaking the word, they invent an erroneous and wandering spirit.

 

But it doth not, nor shall not, always so fall out, that all those which hear the word with their outward ears, do or shall also receive the Spirit; and the ministers do seldom light upon such hearers as Peter had, who are willing, with one consent, to follow God. Yet he bringeth to pass that all the elect feel in themselves the consent of the external word, and of the secret power of the Spirit.

 

45. The faithful were astonished. He calleth them faithful who were as yet possessed with a wicked error. So the Lord doth not by and by wipe away all clouds of ignorance from his, and yet they do not darken the praise of faith before God, because he pardoneth errors and doth vouchsafe to favor it, as if it were pure and plain.

 

And yet it is a wonder, that seeing they knew that Peter was sent of God, they would now be amazed, as at some strange and new thing, because God giveth the grace of his Spirit to those to whom he would have Christ now preached; but the sudden change is the cause of this, because, whereas God until that day had separated the Gentiles from his people as strangers and aliens, he doth now favor them both alike, and lifteth them up into the like degree of honor. Although we be also taught by this example, how hard a matter it is for us to wind out ourselves out of our errors once conceived, especially when they are of any continuance.

 

46. For they heard them. He expresseth what gifts of the Spirit were poured out upon them, and therewithal he noteth the use; to wit, that they had variety of tongues given them, so that they did glorify God with many tongues.

 

Also, it may be gathered out of this place, that the tongues were given them not only for necessity, seeing the gospel was to be preached to strangers and to men of another language, but also to be an ornament and worship to the gospel.

 

But ambition did afterward corrupt this second use, forasmuch as many did translate that unto pomp and vain glory which they had received to set forth the dignity of the heavenly wisdom, as Paul doth sharply reprove this fault in the Corinthians. Therefore, no marvel if God took away that shortly after which he had given, and did not suffer the same to be corrupted with longer abuse.

 

47. Peter answered. Peter reasoneth from the thing to the sign; for, seeing that baptism is an addition or appurtenance of the spiritual grace, he which hath received the Spirit is also apt [fit] to receive baptism; and this is the (most) lawful order, that the minister admit those unto the receiving of the outward sign whom God hath testified to be his children by the mark and pledge of his Spirit; so that faith and doctrine are first.

 

And whereas unlearned men infer thereupon that infants are not to be baptized, it is without all reason. I grant that those who are strangers from the Church must be taught before the sign of adoption be given them; but I say, that the children of the faithful which are born in the Church are from their mother's womb of the household of the kingdom of God.

 

Yea, the argument which they use preposterously against us do I turn back [retort] upon themselves; for, seeing that God hath adopted the children of the faithful before they be born, I conclude thereupon that they are not to be defrauded of the outward sign; otherwise men shall presume to take that from them which God hath granted them. As touching the manifest grace of the Spirit, there is no absurdity therein, if [720] it follow after baptism in them.

 

And as this testimony maketh nothing for maintenance of their error, so it doth strongly refute the error of the Papists, who tie the grace of the Spirit to the signs, and think that the same is fet [fetched] from heaven with enchantments, [721] as those witches did think that they did pull down the moon with their charms.

 

But forasmuch as Luke saith that these had the Holy Ghost given them who were not as yet baptized, he showeth that the Spirit is not included in baptism.

 

Lastly, we must note that the apostles were content with water alone when as they did baptize, [722] and would to God this plainness had been retained amongst their posterity, and that they had not gathered here and there divers trifles, whereof baptism is filth in Popery. They think that the worthiness of baptism is adorned with oil, salt, spittle, wax-candles, whereas they are rather filthy pollutions which corrupt the pure and natural [genuine] institution of Christ.

 

48. And he commanded them to be baptized. It was not of necessity that baptism should be ministered by Peter's hand, as Paul doth likewise testify that he baptized few at Corinth, for other ministers might take this charge upon them.

 

Whereas he saith, in the name of the Lord, it must not be restrained unto the form, as we have said in the third chapter; but because Christ is the proper scope of baptism, therefore are we said to be baptized in his name. When as Luke saith, last of all, that Peter was requested by Cornelius and his kinsmen that he would tarry a few days, he commendeth in them their desire to profit.

 

They were, indeed, endued with the Holy Ghost; but they were not so come to the top, but that confirmation was as yet profitable for them. And, according to their example, so often as opportunity to profit offereth itself, we must use it diligently; and let us not swell with pride, which stoppeth the way before doctrine. [723]

 

Footnotes:

 

[720] "Tempore," in point of time.

 

[721] "Eamque exorcismis non secus elici putant e coelo," and think it can only be brought down from heaven by exorcisms.

 

[722] "Ad conferendum baptismum," in giving baptism.

 

[723] "Qui ingressum obstruat doctrinae," which obstructeth the entrance of doctrine.

 

Links

 

Acts 10 Commentaries: Barnes • Calvin • Clarke • Chrysostom • Darby • Gill • Geneva • Guzik • JFB • KJV Translators' • Henry's Concise • Matthew Henry • People's NT • Scofield • TSK • Vincent • Wesley

 

NIV / NLT / ESV / GWT / KJV / ASV / DRB

 

Jump to Previous Occurrence

Declared Exalting Extolling Glory Heard Hearing Languages Magnify Magnifying Majesty Peter Praising Speak Speaking Talking Tongues

 

Jump to Next Occurrence

Declared Exalting Extolling Glory Heard Hearing Languages Magnify Magnifying Majesty Peter Praising Speak Speaking Talking Tongues

 

New American Standard Bible Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif. All rights reserved. For Permission to Quote Information visit www.lockman.org.

 

GOD'S WORD® is a copyrighted work of God's Word to the Nations. Quotations are used by permission. Copyright 1995 by God's Word to the Nations. All rights reserved.

  

biblebrowser.com/acts/10-46.htm

     

Members of Extol, the worship band at Christian Growth Centre, Chelmsford, in full swing celebrating the resurection of Jesus Christ in the heart of the town centre, close to the histori Shire Hall. That's Nicki Sims to the right in her pink outfit, part of a duo with her husband Pete, playing guitar beside her.

 

Pete and Nicki are recording their latest album LIVE during two consecutive nights, including a session open to all at CGC during April 2009.

  

www.christiangrowthcentre.com/

Students return to classroom for growth in wisdom, faith

 

By Ambria Hammel | Aug. 16, 2010 | The Catholic Sun

 

After climbing her way through the ranks, Danage Norwood-Pearson came to orientation day Aug. 9, ready for her senior year at St. Mary’s High School.

 

“I like my classes. They’re going to be fun,” Norwood-Pearson said during break after fourth period.

 

She said theology class should be especially fun because of the students and the fact that the teacher is one of St. Mary’s newest faculty members: Fr. Robert Bolding, campus chaplain.

 

Mixing academics, faith and fellowship is what a Catholic education is all about, administrators and teachers throughout the diocese reminded students when school resumed this month.

 

“If we all pray together and work together, we will all be celebrating together” on graduation day, Suzanne Fessler, principal at St. Mary’s, told the senior class.

 

Classes at some diocesan schools are facing declining enrollment, but that didn’t stop students at every grade level from coming prepared for the demands of a new academic year.

 

Norwood-Pearson was one student among many who had summer homework. She also got right back into athletics as a volleyball player.

 

Others, like Bourgade freshman Megan Burke, who also plans to play volleyball, spent the final weeks of summer vacation organizing school supplies and buying new uniforms.

 

“I try them on about twice a week just for fun,” she said during a campus cleanup day

July 31. Burke, a Ss. Simon and Jude alumna, has worn school uniforms all of her life.

 

Getting back into a uniform was one thing St. Mary’s freshman Daniel Wright dreaded. The public school transfer wore school uniforms through seventh grade and enjoyed free dress last year.

 

Despite the uniform, Wright — who spent his final days of summer in drills with the football team — looks forward to being successful on and off the field.

 

Megan Nestor, a sophomore at Xavier College Preparatory, said her time at cheer camp in early July helped the team grow closer. She looked forward to seeing the rest of her friends too and getting back into the school rhythm.

 

That daily routine is all new for young learners at Our Lady of the Lake Preschool and Kindergarten in Lake Havasu City. The 10-year-old facility welcomed its first kindergarten class earlier this month.

 

“We have been very pleased with the support of our community,” Deacon Jeff Arner, director, said of the expansion, noting the more than $7,000 it raised in start up costs. “The parents just wish their children could just stay here with a pre-K through 12th grade Catholic school.”

 

Deacon Jeff spent the early weeks of summer pushing the June 30 tax credit deadline to help families finance Catholic education. Parishioners contributed more than $36,000 in state tax dollars to the school through the Catholic Tuition Organization of the Diocese of Phoenix.

 

Kathryn Makar called Catholic school “mandatory” for children in today’s social climate where morality appears to take low priority. The long-time Our Lady of Mount Carmel parishioner said she always knew about the school, but admitted, “I didn’t know it was this good until we experienced it.”

 

Makar said families receive loving support in raising their children and the students, like her fourth-grade daughter, Angela, learn about charity and faith.

 

“The best thing is that you make friendships and that they’re faith-filled,” Makar said.

 

The senior class president at St. Mary’s agreed that it’s important to be a faith-filled student. He challenged fellow seniors to take ownership of the school as they all work toward one goal: a relationship with Christ.

 

“He’s above all of your problems. He’s above all of your worries, everything that’s going on in your life,” Estevan Wetzel said during senior orientation. “Seek God in this school. You can find Him.”

 

Students at Most Holy Trinity planned to be Christ for one another this school year, especially its 20 new students. The student council planned ways to welcome them and increase overall school spirit during the first two weeks.

 

“I’m excited for the new students,” said seventh-grader Hayley Brizzee, vice president of the school council. “We’re a really small school, so when new students come in, it’s ‘welcome to our family.’”

 

The students will also welcome three young women religious from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity to the school later this month. Sisters Mary Emmanuel Schmidt, Alison Marie Conemac and Maria Victoria Tate will teach the preschool students.

 

The gray-habited sisters, two of whom play the guitar, are meant to complement the parish priests from the same order.

 

“We try to show how the vocations work together and they complement one another” including the laity, said Sr. Anne Marie Walsh, SOLT, superior of the order.

 

Fr. John Lankeit, pastor at Ss. Simon and Jude School, touched on the role of the laity, particularly parents, when it comes to instruction in the faith during the TV Mass Aug. 8. Priests and religious are there to support them, he said, but parents are the first teachers of the faith.

 

Fr. Lankeit reminded them that children learn best by example.

 

“Parents, you have been charged with the awesome duty of getting your kids to heaven… You are not just caretakers of children, but stewards of souls,” Fr. Lankeit said. “Is there anything greater to be entrusted with than the immortal souls of your children?”

 

More: www.catholicsun.org

 

ORDERING INFORMATION

Looking for a glossy/matte copy of this photo? Please call 602-354-2140 or send an e-mail for ordering information. Please note the photo's title when ordering. Download the order form here.

 

Copyright 2006-2010 The Catholic Sun. All rights reserved. This photo and all photos on this Web site credited to The Catholic Sun are provided for personal use only and may not be published, broadcasted, transmitted or sold without the expressed consent of The Catholic Sun.

St Peter and St Paul, East Harling, Norfolk

 

With its aisles, clerestory, porch and chancel, St Peter and St Paul is a textbook example of its century, although there are a number of curiosities that add even more interest. The vestry on the north side of the chancel, for example, which was once a shrine chapel, retains its image niche on its eastern face. And there are more image niches, these with elaborate foliage pedestals, in the buttresses of the tower; everything is topped off by a lead and timber fleche which was apparently the model for the one at St Peter Mancroft in Norwich, a church which has several features in common with this one.

 

The tower is a delight, the buttressing and pinnacles exactly in proportion to make it appear to rise like a fairy castle from the ground. The south porch, by contrast, is, despite its flushwork, rather austere, a result of its rebuilding early in the 19th century before the ecclesiological movement took hold. All in all, this is as good as 15th century rebuilding gets, the money coming thanks to Anne Harling having no less than three husbands who all wanted to spend as little time in purgatory as possible.

 

You step down into a wide space which, on a dull day, can be rather gloomy. Although inevitably heavily restored by the Victorians, St Peter and St Paul does not have that depressingly anonymous urban feel you so often find in churches of this size. This is partly because the beautiful parclose screen in the south aisle partitions off so much space, creating a sense of rooms within rooms, altering the way your eyes are inevitably drawn to the east. The rood screen must have been vast here; its dado survives at the west end, a deeply traceried affair with its features presented in carving rather than painting.

 

When the rood screen was in its proper place, to move from the nave into the chancel must have been like stepping from darkness into light. This is because of the feature that makes East Harling famous, the vast east window with its 15th century glass. After St Peter Mancroft it is the best collection in Norfolk. Unusually, the provenance of the glass is fairly well-documented: we can be fairly certain that it came from this church originally. Still present after the Reformation, it was removed by the Harling family to the Hall in the early 17th century. They may have been Laudians wanting to preserve it from the intentions of the puritans, or merely thought it would look nice in their dining hall; whatever, we know that shortly before Francis Blomefield visited here in the 1730s it was returned to the church and set in its present configuration.

 

In 1939, when war threatened, it was removed again, being reset just before Cautley visited in the early 1950s. There are parts of at least three sequences here, two of which were almost certainly in the east window originally, and one which almost certainly wasn't.

 

Essentially, the window contains two rosary sequences; the Joyful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Annunciation, the Nativity and the Assumption, and the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Blessed Virgin, which include the Crucifixion and the Deposition. However, this is open to interpretation, as we shall see. There is also the figure of St Mary Magdalene, which may once have been associated with a nave altar, and would have been located in a window there.

 

The five lights contain four rows of panels, making twenty altogether.

 

Top row:

I. Annunciation: Mary at her prayer desk. Gabriel, crowned and haloed, with a sceptre of lilies, kneels in supplication.

II. Visitation: Elizabeth, hooded to show her age, places her hand on Mary's pregnant belly.

III. Nativity: Two midwives look on. The infant in the manger is rayed; a horned cow gazes in awe.

IV. Adoration of the Shepherds: One holds a lamb, one plays pipes. A third appears to offer a fleece.

V. Adoration of the Magi: Two of the wise men gauge each others' reactions as the third offers his gift.

 

Second row:

VI: collection of fragments.

VII: Presentation in the Temple: Joseph carries the doves, Mary offers the child to Simeon. Anna is not shown.

VIII: The Finding in the Temple: Head covered, Mary bursts in among the men to find her son teaching.

IX: The Wedding at Canaa: Christ, seated at the top table, blesses a chicken and a ham. Mary directs the servant.

X: collection of fragments.

 

Third row:

XI: Mary of Magdala: Mary holds her long hair ready to anoint Christ's feet. Probably not from this window originally.

XII: The Betrayal at Gethsemane: Judas kisses Christ; Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant.

XIII: Crucifixion: Mary swoons in John's arms.

XIV: Deposition from the cross: The pieta. Tears spring from Mary's eyes.

XV: Assumption of the Blessed Virgin: Mary is assumed bodily into heaven.

 

Bottom row:

XVI: Donor: Probably Robert Wingfield, second husband of Anne Harling.

XVII: Resurrection: Christ steps fully clothed from the tomb. Unusually, the soldiers are awake.

XVIII: Ascension of Christ: Mary, surrounded by disciples, watches as her son ascends to heaven.

XIX: Descent of the Holy Spirit: Mary, surrounded by disciples, receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

XX: Donor: Probably William Chamberlain, first husband of Anne Harling.

 

Nowadays, we tend to think of the rosary as consisting of three sequences of five mysteries each, but in the late middle ages things were much more flexible, and rosary sequences often consisted of seven mysteries. The Glorious Mysteries sequence, of which the Assumption is now a part, is a later development, and the two adorations shown here are subsumed into a single mystery. There are a couple of images here that don't quite fit; the Wedding at Canaa is obviously a Marian text, and yet is not traditionally a rosary subject. Similarly the Betrayal, the only one of the images not to feature Mary. I wonder if what we have here are parts of two separate sequences, a Marian sequence of mysteries (I-V, VII-IX, XV), and a Passion sequence (XII-XIV, XVII-XIX). They are both clearly the work of the same workshop, and Mary is always shown with the same face and dress, but this would not preclude them from being two sequences.

 

Why were they here at all? We need to get away from thinking of such things as a 'poor man's bible', the need for which was superseded at the Reformation. These were devotional objects, designed to be used as meditations while praying and saying the rosary. They were created in the 15th century, a time when the mind of the Church was fiercely concentrated on asserting orthodox Catholic doctrine in the face of local superstitions and abuses. As such, they were anathema to the reformers, and were later elsewhere destroyed for being superstitious, not for being superfluous. An 18th century antiquarian mind, ignorant of the nature of Catholic devotion, might easily mix the two sequences into historical order, and possibly misunderstand the Assumption (obviously, as Mary reappears two images on at the Ascension, it is out of order). I wonder what they thought it was?

 

A couple of other things about the east window that you shouldn't miss. Firstly, everywhere you look there are tiny baskets - Mortlock calls them 'frails', and tells us that they were simple rush baskets used by workmen to carry tools. Also, though not in such profusion, there are bodices. These symbols are repeated elsewhere in the church in stone on tombs, and as such must be symbols of the Harling family.

 

Another symbol is high up on the north side, a red squirrel. Curiously, this also appears in the painting A Lady with a Squirrel and a Starling by Hans Holbein, now thought to be a portrait of Anne Lovell - the squirrel is a symbol of the Lovell family, who took over the local manor here from the Harlings in the 16th century, and the starling represents Ea- well, you guess.

 

In July 2006, Chris Harrison and I came across

some more glass from East Harling in the Norfolk County Archaeologist Service archive at Gressenhall. It was probably removed from the church for safety in 1939, and then not replaced, possibly ending up at the museum of church art in Norwich at St Peter Hungate, disappearing into storage when that closed in 1993. It depicts a Bishop and Christ seated in Majesty, and the lozenges in between carry the telltale frails and bodices familiar from other glass within the church.

 

Within the screen is a large chapel, containing two major tombs. One is in alabaster, an early 17th century memorial to Sir Thomas and Lady Alice Lovell (remember the squirrel?) who died in 1604. The piece is good - too good, its 1950s restoration gives it a Festival of Britain air. Their symbols lie at their feet - his a magnificent peacock, hers a gruesome Saracen scalp held aloft.

 

The other appears to be a composite. It lies to the east, and the two effigies are clearly not from this tomb; they simply don't fit. They are supposed to be Robert Harling, died Paris in 1435, and his wife Dame Joan. Neither are buried here - she is at Rushford near Thetford, he is in some corner of a foreign field that is forever French schoolchildren on picnics excitedly tugging old thighbones from the soil - but in any case it is the trimmings of the tomb rather than the effigies that are most of interest, including a pelican in her piety and one that is almost a lily crucifix.

 

On the north side of the chancel is a fine tomb with brass inlays - the brasses now gone. Not as magnificent as either of the two previously mentioned, it is actually the most significant, as this is where you'll find Anne Harling, wife of the serial rebuilders of this church. Look out for those flails again.

 

What more? 17th century Lovells (remember the squirrel) have in-yer-face memorials either side of the sanctuary - that to the north curiously with no inscription. There are hatchments, remains of a wallpainting that are too indistinct to interpret (but may be seven works of mercy), a good set of royal arms, medieval heads, curious 19th century bench ends of a lion and a wild man, heraldic misericords, a Dec font - well, come and see for yourself. You know you want to.

he.kingdomsalvation.org/videos/the-prayer-of-god-people-m...

 

לב מלא שבח 'תפילת עמו של אלוהים' (סרטון מוסיקלי רשמי)

אנשי אלוהים נאספים בפני כס מלכותו, תפילות רבות בלבבותיהם.

אלוהים מברך את אלה ששבים אליו; כולם חיים באור.

התפללו שרוח הקודש תאיר את דברי אלוהים כדי שנכיר את מלוא רצונו.

מי ייתן וכל האנשים יוקירו את דברי אלוהים ויבקשו להכיר את אלוהים.

מי ייתן ואלוהים יעניק לנו עוד מחסדו, כדי שטבענו ישתנה.

מי ייתן ואלוהים יביא אותנו לידי שלמות, כדי שנהיה עמו בעצה אחת.

מי ייתן ואלוהים יקנה לנו משמעת, כדי שנוכל למלא את חובותינו כלפיו.

מי ייתן ומדי יום רוח הקודש תכוון אותנו להטיף ולהעיד לאלוהים.

מי ייתן וכל האנשים ידעו להבחין בין טוב לרע וליישם את האמת.

מי ייתן ואלוהים יעניש עושי רע ושכנסייתו תתנהל ללא מפרע.

מי ייתן וכל האנשים יציעו לאלוהים אהבה כנה, נעימה ומתוקה ביותר.

מי ייתן ואלוהים יסיר כל מכשול, כדי שנוכל להעניק לו את כול כולנו.

מי ייתן ואלוהים ידאג שלבבותינו ימשיכו לאהוב את אלוהים, מבלי לעזוב אותו.

מי ייתן ואלה שגורלם נגזר מראש בידי אלוהים ישובו אל נוכחותו.

מי ייתן וכל האנשים ישירו בשבחו של אלוהים המהולל.

מי ייתן ואלוהים יהיה עם עמו, ויישמרנו חיים באהבתו.

מתוך 'עקבו אחר השה ושירו שירים חדשים'

 

Image Source:כנסיית האל הכול יכול

Terms of Use: he.kingdomsalvation.org/disclaimer.html

Teresa de Jesús "de los Andes" (1900-1920)

Virgin, Carmelite Nun

 

The young woman who is today glorified by the Church with the title of Saint, is a prophet of God for the men and women of today. By the example of her life, TERESA OF JESUS OF LOS ANDES shows us Christ's Gospel lived down to the last detail.

 

She is irrefutable proof that Christ's call to be Saints is indeed real, it happens in our time, and can be answered. She is presented to us to demonstrate that the total dedication that following Christ involves, is the one and only thing that is worth this effort and that gives us true happiness.

 

Teresa of Los Andes with the language of her ardent life, confirms for us that God exists, that God is love and happiness, and that he is our fulfilment.

 

She was born in Santiago de Chile on 13 July 1900. At the font she was christened Juana Enriqueta Josefina of the Sacred Hearts Fernandez Solar. Those who knew her closely called her Juanita, the name by which she is widely known today.

 

She had a normal upbringing surrounded by her family: her parents Miguel Fernandez and Lucia Solar, three brothers and two sisters, her maternal grandfather, uncles, aunts and cousins.

 

Her family were well-off and were faithful to their Christian faith, living it with faith and constancy.

 

Juana was educated in the college of the French nuns of the Sacred Heart. Her brief but intense life unfolded within her family and at college. When she was fourteen, under God's inspiration, she decided to consecrate herself to him as a religious in the Discalced Carmelite Nuns.

 

This desire of hers was realized on 7 May 1919, when she entered the tiny monastery of the Holy Spirit in the township of Los Andes, some 90 kilometers from Santiago.

 

She was clothed with the Carmelite habit 14 October the same year and began her novitiate with the name of Teresa of Jesus. She knew a long time before that she would die young. Moreover the Lord revealed this to her. A month before she was to depart this life, she related this to her confessor.

 

She accepted all this with happiness, serenity and confidence. She was certain that her mission to make God known and loved would continue in eternity.

 

After many interior trials and indescribable physical suffering caused by a violent attack of typhus that cut short her life, she passed from this world to her heavenly Father on the evening of 12 April 1920. She received the last sacraments with the utmost fervour, and on 7 April, because of danger of death, she made her religious profession. She was three months short of her 20th birthday, and had yet 6 months to complete her canonical novitiate and to be legally able to make her religious profession. She died as a Discalced Carmelite novice.

 

Externally this is all there is to this young girl from Santiago de Chile. It is all rather disconcerting and a great question arises in us, "What was accomplished?" The answer to such a question is equally disconcerting: living, believing, loving.

 

When the disciples asked Jesus what they must do to carry out God's work, he replied, "This is carrying out God's work: you must believe in the one he has sent." (Jn 6, 28-29). For this reason, in order to recognize the value of Juanita's fife, it is necessary to examine the substance within, where the Kingdom of God is to be found.

 

She wakened to the life of grace while still quite young. She affirms that God drew her at the age of six to begin to spare no effort in directing her capacity to love totally towards him. "It was shortly after the 1906 earthquake that Jesus began to claim my heart for himself." (Diary n. 3, p. 26).

 

Juanita possessed an enormous capacity to love and to be loved joined with an extraordinary intelligence. God allowed her to experience his presence. With this knowledge he purified her and made her his own through what it entails to take up the cross. Knowing him, she loved him; and loving him, she bound herself totally to him.

 

Once this child understood that love demonstrates itself in deeds rather than words, the result was that she expressed her love through every action of her life. She examined herself sincerely and wisely and understood that in order to belong to God it was necessary to die to herself in all that did not belong to him.

 

Her natural inclinations were completely contrary to the demands of the Gospel. She was proud, self-centred, stubborn, with all the defects that these things suppose, as is the common lot. But where she differed from the general run, was to carry out continual warfare on every impulse that did not arise from love.

 

At the age of ten she became a new person. What lay immediately behind this was the fact that she was going to make her first Communion. Understanding that nobody less that God was going to dwell within her, she set about acquiring all the virtues that would make her less unworthy of this grace. In the shortest possible time she managed to transform her character completely.

 

In making her first Communion she received from God the mystical grace of interior locutions, which from then on supported her throughout her fife. God took over her natural inclinations, transforming them from that day into friendship and a fife of prayer.

 

Four years later she received an interior revelation that shaped the direction of her life. Jesus told her that she would be a Carmelite and that holiness must be her goal.

 

With God's abundant grace and the generosity of a young girl in love, she gave herself over to prayer, to the acquiring of virtue and the practice of a life in accord with the Gospel. Such were her efforts that in a few short years she reached a high degree of union with God.

 

Christ was the one and only ideal she had. She was in love with him and ready each moment to crucify herself for him. A bridal love pervaded her with the result that she desired to unite herself fully to him who had captivated her. As a result, at the age of fifteen she made a vow of virginity for 9 days, continually renewing it from then on.

 

The holiness of her life shone out in the everyday occurrences, wherever she found herself: at home, in college, with friends, the people she stayed with on holidays. To all, with apostolic zeal, she spoke of God and gave assistance. She was young like her friends, but they knew she was different. They took her as a model, seeking her support and advice. All the pains that are part of living, Juanita felt keenly, and the happiness she enjoyed deeply, all in God.

 

She was cheerful, happy, sympathetic, attractive, communicative and involved in sport. During her adolescence she reached perfect psychic and spiritual equilibrium. These were the fruit of her asceticism and prayer. The serenity of her face was a reflection of the divine guest within. Her life as a nun, from 7 May 1919, was the last rung on the ladder to holiness. Only eleven months were necessary to bring to an end the process of making her life totally Christ-like.

 

Her community was quick to discover the hand of God in her past life. The young novice found in the Carmelite way of life the full and efficient channel for spreading the torrent of life that she wanted to give to the Church of Christ. It was a way of life that, in her own way, she had lived amongst her own and for which she was born. The Order of the Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel fulfilled the desires of Juanita. It was proof to her that God's mother, whom she had loved from infancy, had drawn her to be part of it.

 

She was beatified by Pope John Paul II in Santiago de Chile on 3 April 1987. Her remains are venerated in the Sanctuary of Auco-Rinconada of Los Andes by the thousands of pilgrims who seek in her and find guidance, light and a direct way to God.

 

SAINT TERESA OF JESUS OF LOS ANDES is the first Chilean to be declared a Saint. She is the first Discalced Carmelite Nun to become a Saint outside the boundaries of Europe and the fourth Saint Teresa in Carmel together with Saints Teresa of Avila, of Florence and of Lisieux.

Students return to classroom for growth in wisdom, faith

 

By Ambria Hammel | Aug. 16, 2010 | The Catholic Sun

 

After climbing her way through the ranks, Danage Norwood-Pearson came to orientation day Aug. 9, ready for her senior year at St. Mary’s High School.

 

“I like my classes. They’re going to be fun,” Norwood-Pearson said during break after fourth period.

 

She said theology class should be especially fun because of the students and the fact that the teacher is one of St. Mary’s newest faculty members: Fr. Robert Bolding, campus chaplain.

 

Mixing academics, faith and fellowship is what a Catholic education is all about, administrators and teachers throughout the diocese reminded students when school resumed this month.

 

“If we all pray together and work together, we will all be celebrating together” on graduation day, Suzanne Fessler, principal at St. Mary’s, told the senior class.

 

Classes at some diocesan schools are facing declining enrollment, but that didn’t stop students at every grade level from coming prepared for the demands of a new academic year.

 

Norwood-Pearson was one student among many who had summer homework. She also got right back into athletics as a volleyball player.

 

Others, like Bourgade freshman Megan Burke, who also plans to play volleyball, spent the final weeks of summer vacation organizing school supplies and buying new uniforms.

 

“I try them on about twice a week just for fun,” she said during a campus cleanup day

July 31. Burke, a Ss. Simon and Jude alumna, has worn school uniforms all of her life.

 

Getting back into a uniform was one thing St. Mary’s freshman Daniel Wright dreaded. The public school transfer wore school uniforms through seventh grade and enjoyed free dress last year.

 

Despite the uniform, Wright — who spent his final days of summer in drills with the football team — looks forward to being successful on and off the field.

 

Megan Nestor, a sophomore at Xavier College Preparatory, said her time at cheer camp in early July helped the team grow closer. She looked forward to seeing the rest of her friends too and getting back into the school rhythm.

 

That daily routine is all new for young learners at Our Lady of the Lake Preschool and Kindergarten in Lake Havasu City. The 10-year-old facility welcomed its first kindergarten class earlier this month.

 

“We have been very pleased with the support of our community,” Deacon Jeff Arner, director, said of the expansion, noting the more than $7,000 it raised in start up costs. “The parents just wish their children could just stay here with a pre-K through 12th grade Catholic school.”

 

Deacon Jeff spent the early weeks of summer pushing the June 30 tax credit deadline to help families finance Catholic education. Parishioners contributed more than $36,000 in state tax dollars to the school through the Catholic Tuition Organization of the Diocese of Phoenix.

 

Kathryn Makar called Catholic school “mandatory” for children in today’s social climate where morality appears to take low priority. The long-time Our Lady of Mount Carmel parishioner said she always knew about the school, but admitted, “I didn’t know it was this good until we experienced it.”

 

Makar said families receive loving support in raising their children and the students, like her fourth-grade daughter, Angela, learn about charity and faith.

 

“The best thing is that you make friendships and that they’re faith-filled,” Makar said.

 

The senior class president at St. Mary’s agreed that it’s important to be a faith-filled student. He challenged fellow seniors to take ownership of the school as they all work toward one goal: a relationship with Christ.

 

“He’s above all of your problems. He’s above all of your worries, everything that’s going on in your life,” Estevan Wetzel said during senior orientation. “Seek God in this school. You can find Him.”

 

Students at Most Holy Trinity planned to be Christ for one another this school year, especially its 20 new students. The student council planned ways to welcome them and increase overall school spirit during the first two weeks.

 

“I’m excited for the new students,” said seventh-grader Hayley Brizzee, vice president of the school council. “We’re a really small school, so when new students come in, it’s ‘welcome to our family.’”

 

The students will also welcome three young women religious from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity to the school later this month. Sisters Mary Emmanuel Schmidt, Alison Marie Conemac and Maria Victoria Tate will teach the preschool students.

 

The gray-habited sisters, two of whom play the guitar, are meant to complement the parish priests from the same order.

 

“We try to show how the vocations work together and they complement one another” including the laity, said Sr. Anne Marie Walsh, SOLT, superior of the order.

 

Fr. John Lankeit, pastor at Ss. Simon and Jude School, touched on the role of the laity, particularly parents, when it comes to instruction in the faith during the TV Mass Aug. 8. Priests and religious are there to support them, he said, but parents are the first teachers of the faith.

 

Fr. Lankeit reminded them that children learn best by example.

 

“Parents, you have been charged with the awesome duty of getting your kids to heaven… You are not just caretakers of children, but stewards of souls,” Fr. Lankeit said. “Is there anything greater to be entrusted with than the immortal souls of your children?”

 

More: www.catholicsun.org

 

ORDERING INFORMATION

Looking for a glossy/matte copy of this photo? Please call 602-354-2140 or send an e-mail for ordering information. Please note the photo's title when ordering. Download the order form here.

 

Copyright 2006-2010 The Catholic Sun. All rights reserved. This photo and all photos on this Web site credited to The Catholic Sun are provided for personal use only and may not be published, broadcasted, transmitted or sold without the expressed consent of The Catholic Sun.

I have passed Marylebone many time, either in a taxi or underneath on the Tube, and have always meant to go in. And with a morning spent in the area last month, I walked over Euston Road to find all three doors open, and a good number of people coming and going.

 

From the outside it could be a City Wren church, inside it has lots of space and a fine painted chancel.

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Marylebone Parish Church is a place of active and engaged Christian witness, set at the very heart of central London. With a history stretching back nearly 900 years, those of us who worship here continue seek to offer God worship that has long been renowned for musical and liturgical excellence and to serve the diverse community in which we are set.

 

For more than 30 years, St Marylebone, just a few metres from Harley Street, has pioneered the work of Christian healing and, as well as being home to the internationally respected St Marylebone Healing and Counselling Centre, which offers low-cost analytical psychotherapy and spiritual direction, the Crypt at St Marylebone also houses an innovative NHS doctor’s surgery - the Marylebone Health Centre. Our work is enhanced by maintaining close and active links with some of medicine’s Royal Colleges and through our provision of chaplaincy to The London Clinic and King Edward VII’s Hospital.

 

St Marylebone has a flourishing Young Church, which complements our two schools: The St Marylebone Church of England School, an Outstanding Academy, National Teaching School and Maths Hub, and The St Marylebone Church of England Bridge School, a Free Special School working with secondary school age students who have speech, language and communication difficulties. Alongside our two schools St Marylebone works closely with the Royal Academy of Music and the University of Westminster, providing chaplaincy services to both, and also with Regent’s University.

 

As a parish church in the Diocese of London, we share a vision of a Church for this great world city that is Christ-centred and outward looking. By God’s grace we seek to be more confident in speaking and living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, more compassionate in serving others with the love of God the Father and more creative in reaching new people and places in the power of the Spirit.

 

Construction of the present church was first considered in 1770. A site was given in Paddington Street and plans were prepared by Sir William Chambers, Architect to the King, but the scheme was abandoned and the land purchased for a burial ground. In 1810-11 the present site was secured, and it was intended that this building should be another Chapel of Ease supporting the work of the nearby Parish Church.

 

Plans were prepared by Thomas Hardwick, who was a pupil of Sir William Chambers, and the foundation stone was laid on 5 July 1813. Later, it was decided to enlarge the building and make it the Parish Church; the present tower was erected, the front widened, and the gigantic Corinthian-columned Portico built. A vaulted crypt extended under the whole area of the church, with extensive catacombs under the west side.

 

These catacombs were bricked up in 1853, and in the mid-1980s, with due authority, the coffins were removed from the crypt for reinternment at Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey and the crypt was transformed into the present-day Healing and Counselling Centre, Sacrament Chapel, Jerusalem Chapel and NHS Marylebone Health Centre.

 

The present parish church, opened in February 1817, is the fourth known parish church building to serve this parish.

 

The first, established sometime in the early 12th century, was dedicated to St John the Evangelist and was the parish church of the manors of Tyburn and Lisson (Lillestone); it stood on what is now Oxford Street, on a site near Stratford Place. Indeed, it is thought that the open courtyard of Stratford Place is the graveyard of the first parish church.

 

By 1400, St John's had fallen into disrepair and was demolished; a new parish church was built opposite Tyburn Manor House (now the site of the Duchess of Devonshire Wing of The London Clinic). The site of this parish church and its successor church (is now the Old Church Memorial Garden at the north end of Marylebone High Street); Francis Bacon was married in this Church on the 11th May 1606.

 

In 1740, a new parish church was built on the same site and here you will find buried one of the founders of Methodism, Charles Wesley, along with other members of his family. He is commemorated by an obelisk memorial. Here it was that Lord Byron was christened, and here Lord Nelson attended services and, on the 3rd May 1803, brought his daughter by Lady Hamilton (who had herself been married here) to be baptised. This parish church was associated with many famous figures and the interior was used by William Hogarth for the ‘Marriage of the Rake’ in his ‘Rake’s Progress’ cycle of paintings. Some of the many memorials that crowded its walls, including a memorial to the cupbearer to Ann of Denmark and Queen Henrietta Maria, may be seen in the present parish church’s stairways, to which they were transferred when the old parish church was demolished (following damage in World War II) in 1949. Other people connected with this building include: James Figg, James Gibbs, Edmond Hoyle, John Rysbrack, John Allen, James Ferugson, Alan Ramsay, Stephen Storace, the dukes of Portland and Caroline Watson.

 

The present parish church was originally built (at a cost of some £80,000.00) without its fine Roman Renaissance style frescoed apse; this was added in 1884 by Thomas Harris. The original position of the altar was in what is now the Choir, just below the cross built into the ceiling. This altar (before which Robert Browning married Elizabeth Barrett in 1846) can be seen in the Holy Family Chapel. Above it hangs the painting of the Holy Family donated to the new parish church by Benjamin West, PRA (1738 -1820).

 

The parish church of 1817 is reputed to have sat 3,000 people and, above the present gallery, a second gallery (the remains of which can be seen either side of the organ) wrapped around three sides of the building.

 

The present organ, one of the finest recital instruments in the country, was built by Rieger Orgelbau of Austria and was commissioned in July 1987; it was a joint venture between the parish church and the neighbouring Royal Academy of Music. The organ pipes, which can be seen at the ends of the first floor galleries, belong to earlier instruments.

 

Charles Dickens and his family lived for many years next door to the parish church in Devonshire Terrace. He brought his son here to be baptised and the ceremony is described in his novel Dombey and Son.

 

Bomb damage sustained during World War II destroyed the stained glass windows and also the Georgian roof. Fragments of the destroyed windows were collected and set in the windows you see today.

 

The fine crystal chandeliers were relocated here in 1968 from the old Council Chamber in St Marylebone Town Hall when the Borough of St Marylebone merged with other metropolitan boroughs of Middlesex to form the City of Westminster.

 

A fine collection of memorials adorn the walls of the parish church; many of them belonging to colonial administrators and governors and members of the East India Company

 

St Marylebone Parish Church has always had a fine musical tradition and today the professional choir of ten voices is supported by the Director of Music, the Assistant Director of Music and an Organ Scholar. Sir John Stainer wrote his Oratorio Crucifixion for the choir in 1886 and it has been performed every year since.

 

The Browning Room, which commemorates the marriage of the poets Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett here on 12th September 1846, has a stained glass window gifted by The Browning Society of Winnipeg. Two fine brass bas reliefs of the poets can also be found in this room.

 

The fine apse, the mahogany benches and choir stalls together with the gilded English baroque decorative scheme all date from the mid-1880s and were designed by Thomas Hardwick. Work begun in 1884 and a memorial stone laid by Mrs Gladstone can be seen on the outside wall of the apse. The decoration of the apse was carried out by Edward Armitage, RA; his decorative scheme once included murals between the great windows on the gallery level but these were painted over in the late 1940s.

 

A Christian place of worship has served his part of central London for 900 years. Every London parish church north of Oxford Street, to the east of the Edgware Road and to the west of Cleveland Street, has been ‘planted’ by the Rector and Wardens of this parish. In 2016, the Heritage Lottery Fund awarded the parish church a grant of nearly £4 million to help complete an ambitious programme of works that will repair the ravages of time, extend the crypt and help tell the story of St Marylebone from rural hamlet to urban metropolis. St Marylebone, by God’s Grace, continues its work of Changing Lives and Shaping Community.

 

The Revd Canon Stephen Evans, Rector

 

www.stmarylebone.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie...

 

------------------------------------------

 

St Marylebone Parish Church is an Anglican church on the Marylebone Road in London. It was built to the designs of Thomas Hardwick in 1813–17. The present site is the third used by the parish for its church. The first was further south, near Oxford Street. The church there was demolished in 1400 and a new one erected further north. This was completely rebuilt in 1740–42, and converted into a chapel-of-ease when Hardwick's church was constructed. The Marylebone area takes its name from the church. Located behind the church is St Marylebone School, a Church of England school for girls.

 

The first church for the parish was built in the vicinity of the present Marble Arch c.1200, and dedicated to St John the Evangelist.

 

A new, small church built on the same site opened in April 1742. It was an oblong brick building with a small bell tower at the west end. The interior had galleries on three sides. Some monuments from the previous church were preserved in the new building.In 1818 it became a chapel-of-ease to the new parish church which superseded it .[4] It was demolished in 1949, and its site, at the northern end of Marylebone High Street is now a public garden.[5]

 

Charles Wesley lived and worked in the area and sent for the church's rector John Harley and told him "Sir, whatever the world may say of me, I have lived, and I die, a member of the Church of England. I pray you to bury me in your churchyard."[citation needed] On his death, his body was carried to the church by eight clergymen of the Church of England and a memorial stone to him stands in the gardens in High Street, close to his burial spot. One of his sons, Samuel, was later organist of the present church.

 

It was also in this building that Lord Byron was baptised in 1788, Nelson's daughter Horatia was baptised (Nelson was a worshipper here), and Richard Brinsley Sheridan was married to Elizabeth Ann Linley. This is also the church in which the diplomat Sir William Hamilton married Emma Hart (Amy Lyon), later the lover of Admiral Horatio Nelson.[citation needed] The architect James Gibbs was buried there in 1751.[6] The crypt was the burial place of members of the Bentinck family, including William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland (died 1809)

 

Construction of a new church was first considered in 1770, with plans prepared by Sir William Chambers and leadership given by the 3rd and 4th Dukes of Portland (owners of much of the area, by now a wealthy residential area to the west of London that had outgrown the previous church), but the scheme was abandoned and the land donated for it in Paddington Street purchased for a burial ground.

 

In 1810–11[citation needed] a site was secured to build a chapel-of-ease on the south side of the new road near Nottingham Place.[8] facing Regent's Park.[9] Plans were drawn up by Chambers's pupil Thomas Hardwick [10] and the foundation stone was laid on 5 July 1813. When construction was almost complete, it was decided that this new building should serve as the parish church, and so alterations were made to the design. On the north front, towards the new road, a Corinthian portico with eight columns (six columns wide, and two deep at the sides), based on that of the Pantheon in Rome, replaced the intended four-column Ionic portico surmounted by a group of figures. A steeple was built, instead of a planned cupola.[11] No changes were made to the design of the interior, but plans to build houses on part of the site were abandoned.[12]

 

Entrance to the church from the north is through three doorways beneath the portico, each leading into a vestibule.[13] There are arched windows above the outer doorways. A blank panel above the central one was intended to house a bas-relief depicting Christ's entry into Jerusalem. Hardwick's church was basically rectangular in plan, with two small extensions behind the entrance front, and two wings placed diagonally flanking the far end (the liturgical east),[14] which originally housed private galleries equipped with chairs, tables and fireplaces.[15][16] Two tiers of galleries, supported on iron columns ran around three sides of the church.[17] The organ case was immediately above the altar screen; in the centre of the organ case was an arched opening with a "transparent painting" by Benjamin West, of the angel appearing to the shepherds. Other church furniture included a large pulpit and reading desk and high box pews.

 

The steeple, placed over the central vestibule, rises around 75 feet (23 m) above the roof (and thus about 120 feet (37 m) above the ground).[18] It is in three storeys;the first, square in plan, contains a clock, the second circular in plan, has twelve Corinthian columns supporting an entablature, while the third is in the form of a miniature temple raised on three steps and surrounded by eight caryatids, with arched openings between them. The whole structure is topped by a dome and weathervane.[19]

 

The vaulted crypt, extending under the whole church, with extensive catacombs under the west side was used for burials until being bricked up in 1853. Since 1987, following the reinterment of the 850 coffins it previously contained at Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey, it has housed a healing and counselling centre.

 

The church was completed in 1817, at an overall cost of £80,000.

 

A local resident was Charles Dickens (1812–1870), in Devonshire Terrace, whose son was baptised in this church (a ceremony fictionalised in "Dombey and Son"). Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett were married in this phase of the church in 1846 (their marriage certificate is preserved in the church archives). The church was also used in location filming for the 1957 film recounting their story, The Barretts of Wimpole Street.[20]

 

Composer Sir John Stainer wrote an oratorio specifically for the choir at St Marylebone; The Crucifixion was first performed in the church on 24 February 1887, which was the day after Ash Wednesday. It has been performed annually at the church ever since, usually on Good Friday.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Marylebone_Parish_Church

 

Holy Family and St Michael, Kesgrave, Ipswich, Suffolk

 

A new entry on the Suffolk Churches site.

 

There are ages of faith which leave their traces in splendour and beauty, as acts of piety and memory. East Anglia is full of silent witnesses to tides which have ebbed and flowed. Receding, they leave us in their wake great works from the passing ages, little Norman churches which seem to speak a language we can no longer understand but which haunts us still, the decorated beauty of the 14th Century at odds with the horrors of its pestilence and loss, the perpendicular triumph of the 15th Century church before its near-destruction in the subsequent Reformation and Commonwealth, the protestant flowering of chapels and meeting houses in almost all rural communities, and most obvious of all for us today the triumphalism of the Victorian revival.

 

But even as tides recede, piety and memory survive, most often in quiet acts and intimate details. The catholic church of Holy Family and St Michael at Kesgrave is one of their great 20th Century treasure houses.

 

At the time of the 1851 census of religious worship, Kesgrave was home to just 86 people, 79 of whom attended morning service that day, giving this parish the highest percentage attendance of any in Suffolk. However, they met half a mile up the road at the Anglican parish church of All Saints, and the current site of Holy Family was then far out in the fields. In any case, it is unlikely that any of the non-attenders was a Catholic. Today, Kesgrave is a sprawling eastern suburb of Ipswich, home to about 10,000 people. It extends along the A12 corridor all the way to Martlesham, which in turn will take you pretty much all the way to Woodbridge without seeing much more than a field or two between the houses.

 

Holy Family was erected in the 1930s, and serves as a chapel of ease within the parish of Ipswich St Mary. However, it is still in private ownership, the responsibility of the Rope family, who, along with the Jolly family into which they married, owned much of the land in Kesgrave that was later built on.

 

The growth of Kesgrave has been so rapid and so extensive in these last forty years that radical expansions were required at both this church and at All Saints, as well as to the next parish church along in the suburbs at Rushmere St Andrew. All of these projects are interesting, although externally Holy Family is less dramatic than its neighbours. It sits neatly in its trim little churchyard, red-brick and towerless, a harmonious little building if rather a curious shape, of which more in a moment. Beside it, the underpass and roundabout gives it a decidedly urban air. But this is a church of outstanding interest, as we shall see.

 

It was good to come back to Kesgrave. As a member of St Mary's parish I generally attended mass at the parish's other church, a couple of miles into town, but I had been here a number of times over the years, either to mass or just to wander around and sit for a while. These days, you generally approach the church from around the back, where you'll find a sprawling car park typical of a modern Catholic church. To the west of the church are Lucy House and Philip House, newly built for the work of the Rope family charities. Between the car park and the church there there is a tiny, formal graveyard, with crosses remembering members of the Rope and Jolly families.

 

Access to the church is usually through a west door these days, but if you are fortunate enough to enter through the original porch on the north side you will have a foretaste of what is to come, for to left and right are stunning jewel-like and detailed windows depicting St Margaret and St Theresa on one side and St Catherine and the Immaculate Conception on the other. Beside them, a plaque reveals that the church was built to the memory of Michael Rope, who was killed in the R101 airship disaster of 1930.

 

Blue Peter-watching boys like me, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, were enthralled by airships. They were one of those exciting inventions of a not-so-distant past which were, in a real sense, futuristic, a part of the 1930s modernist project that imagined and predicted the way we live now. And they were just so big. But they were doomed, because the hydrogen which gave them their buoyancy was explosive.

 

As a child, I was fascinated by the R101 airship and its disaster, especially because of that familiar photograph of its wrecked and burnt-out fuselage sprawled in the woods on a northern French hillside. It is still a haunting photograph today. The crash of the R101 put an end to airship development in the UK for more than half a century.

 

Of course, this is all ancient history now, but in the year 2001 I had the excellent fortune to be shown around Holy Family by Michael Rope's widow, Mrs Lucy Doreen Rope, née Jolly, who was still alive, and then in her nineties. She was responsible for the building of this church as a memorial to her husband. We paused in the porch so that I could admire the windows. "Do you like them?" Mrs Rope asked me. "Of course, my sister-in-law made them."

 

Her sister-in-law, of course, was Margaret Agnes Rope, who in the first half of the twentieth century was one of the finest of the Arts and Craft Movement stained glass designers. She studied at Birmingham, and then worked at the Glass House in Fulham with her cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, whose work is also here. But their work can be found in churches and cathedrals all over the world. What Mrs Rope did not tell me, and what I found out later, is that these two windows in the porch were made for her and her husband Michael as a wedding present.

 

Doreen Jolly and Michael Rope were married in 1929. Within a year, he was dead. Mrs Rope was just 23 years old.

 

The original church from the 1930s is the part that you step into. You enter to the bizarre sight of a model of the R101 airship suspended from the roof. The nave altar and tabernacle ahead are in the original sanctuary, and you are facing the liturgical east (actually south) of the original building, and what an intimate space this must have been before the church was extended. Red brick outlines the entrance to the sanctuary, and here are the three windows made by Margaret Rope for the original church. The first is the three-light sanctuary window, depicting the Blessed Virgin and child flanked by St Joseph and St Michael. Two doves sit on a nest beneath Mary's feet, while a quizzical sparrow looks on. St Michael has the face of Michael Rope. The inscription beneath reads Pray for Michael Rope who gave up his soul to God in the wreck of His Majesty's Airship R101, Beauvais, October 5th 1930.

 

Next, a lancet in the right-hand side of the sanctuary contains glass depicting St Dominic, with a dog running beneath his feet and the inscription Laudare, Benedicere, Praedicare, ('to praise, to bless, to preach'). The third window is in the west wall of the church (in its day, the right hand side of the nave), depicting St Thomas More and St John Fisher, although at the time the window was made they had not yet been canonised. The inscription beneath records that the window was the gift of a local couple in thankfulness for their conversion to the faith for which the Blessed Martyrs Thomas More and John Fisher gave their lives. A rose bush springs from in front of the martyrs' feet.

 

By the 1950s, Holy Family was no longer large enough for the community it served, and it was greatly expanded to the east to the designs of the archtect Henry Munro Cautley. Cautley was a bluff Anglican of the old school, the retired former diocesan architect of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, but he would have enjoyed designing a church for such an intimate faith community, and in fact it was his last major project before he died in 1959. The original sanctuary was retained as a blessed sacrament chapel, and the church was turned ninety degrees to face east for the first time. The north and south sides of the new church received three-light Tudor windows in the style most beloved by Cautley, as seen also at his Ipswich County Library in Northgate Street, and the former Fosters (now Lloyds) Bank in central Cambridge.

 

Although the Rope family had farmed at Blaxhall near Wickham Market for generations, Margaret Rope herself was not from Suffolk at all, and nor was she at first a Catholic. She was born in Shrewsbury in 1882, the daughter of Henry Rope, a surgeon at Shrewsbury Infirmary, and a son of the Blaxhall Rope family. The largest collection of Margaret Rope's glass is in Shrewsbury Cathedral. When Margaret was 17, her father died. The family were received into the Catholic church shortly afterwards. A plaque was placed in the entrance to Shrewsbury Infirmary to remember her father. When the hospital was demolished in the 1990s, the plaque was moved to here, and now sits in the north aisle of the 1950s church. In her early days in London Margaret Rope designed and made the large east window at Blaxhall church as a memorial to her grandparents. It features her younger brother Michael, and is believed to be the only window that she ever signed.

 

In her early forties, Margaret Rope took holy orders and entered the Carmelite Convent at nearby Woodbridge, but continued to produce her stained glass work until the community moved to Quidenham in Norfolk, when poor health and the distances involved proved insurmountable. She died there in 1953, and so she never saw the expanded church. Her cartoons, the designs for her windows, are placed on the walls around Holy Family. Some are for windows in churches in Scotland and Wales, one for a window in the English College in Rome. Among them are the roundels for within the enclosure of Tyburn Convent in London. "They had to remove the windows there during the War", said Mrs Rope. "Of course, with me, you have to ask which war!"

 

Turning to the east, we see the new sanctuary with its high altar, completed in 1993 as part of a further reordering and expansion, which gave a large galilee porch, kitchen and toilets to the north side of the church. The window above the new sanctuary has three lights, and the two outer windows were made by Margaret Rope for the chapel of East Bergholt convent to the south of Ipswich. They remember the Vaughan family, into which Margaret Rope's sister had married, and in particular one member, a sister in the convent, to celebrate her 25 year jubilee.

 

The convent later became Old Hall, a famous commune. They depict the prophet Isaiah and King David.

 

The central light between them is controversial. Produced in the 1990s and depicting the risen Christ, it really isn't very good, and provides the one jarring note in the church. It is rather unfortunate that it is in such a prominent position. It is not just the quality of the design that is the problem. It lets in too much light in comparison with the two flanking lights. "The glass in my sister-in-law's windows is half an inch thick", Mrs Rope told me. "In the workshop at Fulham they had a man who came in specially to cut it for them". The glass in the modern light is simply too thin.

 

Despite the 1990s extension, and as so often in modern urban Catholic churches, Holy Family is already not really big enough, although it is hard to see that there could ever be another expansion. We walked along Munro Cautley's south aisle, and at that time the stations of the cross were simple wooden crosses. However, about three months after my conversation with Mrs Rope, the World Trade Centre in New York was attacked and destroyed, and among the three thousand people killed were two local Kesgrave brothers who were commemorated with a new set of stations in cast metal.

 

Here also is a 1956 memorial window by Margaret Rope's cousin, Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, to Mrs Rope's mother Alice Jolly, depicting the remains of the shrine at Walsingham and the Jolly family at prayer before it. Another MEA Rope window is across the church in the galilee, a Second World War memorial window, originally on the east side of the first church before Cautley's extension. It depicts three of the English Martyrs, Blessed Anne Lynne, Blessed Robert Southwell and Blessed John Robinson, as well as the shipwreck of Blessed John Nutter off of Dunwich, with All Saints church on the cliffs above.

 

The galilee is designed for families with young children to play a full part in mass, and is separated from the church by a glass screen. At the top of the screen is a small panel by Margaret Rope which is of particular interest because it depicts her and her family participating in the Easter vigil, presumably in Shrewsbury Cathedral. This is hard to photograph because it is on an internal window between two rooms.

 

A recent addition to the Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope windows here is directly opposite, newly installed on the south side of the nave. It was donated by her great-nephew. It depicts a nativity scene, the Holy Family in the stable at Bethlehem, an angel appearing to shepherds on the snowy hills beyond. It is perhaps her loveliest window in the church.

 

Finally, back across the church. Here, beside the brass memorial to Margaret Rope, is a window depicting the Blessed Virgin and child, members of the Rope family in the Candlemas procession beneath. The inscription reminds us to pray for the soul of Sister Margaret of the Mother of God, mistress of novices and stained glass artist, Monastery of the Magnificat of the Mother of God, Quidenham, Norfolk, entered Carmel 14th September 1923, died 6th December 1953. Sister Margaret of the Mother of God was, of course, Margaret Rope herself. She was buried in the convent at Quidenham, a Shrewsbury exile at rest in the East Anglian soil of her forebears. The design is hers, and the window was made by her cousin Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope.

 

Back in 2001, we were talking about the changing Church, and I asked Mrs Rope what she thought about the recently introduced practice of transferring Holy Days on to the nearest Sunday, so that the teaching of them was not lost. Mrs Rope approved, a lady clearly not stuck in the past. She had a passion for ensuring that the Faith could be shared with children. As we have seen, her church is designed so that young families can take a full part in the Mass. But she was sympathetic to the distractions of the modern age. "The world is so exciting for children these days", she said. "I think it must be difficult to bring them up with a sense of the presence of God." She smiled. "Mind you, my son is 70 now! And I do admire young girls today. They have such spirit!"

 

She left me to potter about in her wonderful treasure house. As I did so, I thought of medieval churches I have visited, which were similarly donated by the Mrs Ropes of their day, perhaps even for husbands who had died young. They not only sought to memorialise their loved ones, but to consecrate a space for prayer, that masses might be said for the souls of the dead. This was the Catholic way, a Christian duty. Before the Reformation, this was true in every parish in England. It remained true here at Kesgrave.

 

And finally, back outside to the small graveyard. Side by side are two crosses. One remembers Margaret Edith Aldrich Rope, artist, 1891-1988. The other remembers Lucy Doreen Rope, founder of this church, 1907-2003.