View allAll Photos Tagged given
Givens Road. After crossing Hwy 45, AP203 looks to be on much better trackage. The old Hortonville Mfg facility is on the right. It has housed a toy business, nail production, coating/painting, amongst other things. A honey business is just up those stairs.
Aankomst in Rotterdam van het containerschip EVER GIVEN , VB TIGER , ROTTERDAM , SD STINGRAY en RT ROB van Boluda Towage assisteerden naar de ECT in de Amazonehaven.29-7-2021 gezien vanaf de KRVE 71
©All photographs on this site are copyright: DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams) 2011 – 2020 & GETTY IMAGES ®
No license is given nor granted in respect of the use of any copyrighted material on this site other than with the express written agreement of DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams) ©
.
.
I would like to say a huge and heartfelt 'THANK YOU' to GETTY IMAGES, and the 35.634+ Million visitors to my FLICKR site.
***** Selected for sale in the GETTY IMAGES COLLECTION on March 31st 2020
CREATIVE RF gty.im/1215461049 MOMENT ROYALTY FREE COLLECTION**
This photograph became my 4,143rd frame to be selected for sale in the Getty Images collection and I am very grateful to them for this wonderful opportunity.
.
.
Photograph taken at an altitude of Twenty four metres, at 13:00pm on Monday 4th November 2019, off Hyde Park Corner and Park Lane A4202 in the grounds of Hyde park, a Grade 1 listed Royal Park (the largest of) of London.
Spanning an area of 350 acres, the park is divided by the Serpentine and the Long water lakes, and was created by King Henry VIII in 1536 as hunting ground. It opened to the puiblic in 1637 and was extensively improved under Queen Caroline in the early righteenth century. The Great exhibition for which the Crystal Palace was erected, designed by Joseph Paxton, was also held here.
Here we see, Sciurus Carolinensis (Eastern Gray Squirrel or Grey Squirrel), a tree squirrel native to North America and first introduced to the UK in the 1870's. Though it was largely resonsible for the decimation of our own native red squirrel population, those are now on the increase and found in certain parts of the UK including Scotland. The Greys are still an ecologically essential natural forester regenerator.
.
.
Nikon D850 Focal length 270mm Shutter speed 1/200s Aperture f/8.0 iso400 RAW (14 bit uncompressed) Image size L 8256 x 5504 FX). Hand held with Sigma Image stabilization enabled . Colour space Adobe RGB. Nikon Back button focusing enabled. Focus mode AF-C focus 51 point with 3-D tracking. AF Area mode single. Exposure mode - Manual exposure. Matrix metering. ISO Sensitivity: Manually set. Nikon Distortion control on. Vignette control Normal. Active D-lighting on Automatic. High ISO Noise Reduction: On. Picture control: Auto with Sharpening A+1.00.
Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3DG OS HSM SPORTS. Nikon EN-EL15a battery. Matin quick release neckstrap. My Memory 128GB Class 10 SDXC 80MB/s card. Lowepro Flipside 400 AW camera bag. Nikon GP-1 GPS module.
.
.
LATITUDE: N 51d 30m 3.29s
LONGITUDE: W 0d 8m 20.55s
ALTITUDE: 6.0m
RAW (TIFF) FILE: 130.0MB NEF: 93.3MB
PROCESSED (JPeg) FILE: 44.80MB
.
.
PROCESSING POWER:
Nikon D850 Firmware versions C 1.10 (9/05/2019) LD Distortion Data 2.017 (20/3/18) LF 1.00
HP 110-352na Desktop PC with AMD Quad-Core A6-5200 APU 64Bit processor. Radeon HD8400 graphics. 8 GB DDR3 Memory with 1TB Data storage. 64-bit Windows 10. Verbatim USB 2.0 1TB desktop hard drive. WD My Passport Ultra 1tb USB3 Portable hard drive. Nikon ViewNX-1 64bit (Version 1.2.11 15/03/2018). Nikon Capture NX-D 64bit (Version 1.4.7 15/03/2018). Nikon Picture Control Utility 2 (Version 1.3.2 15/03/2018). Adobe photoshop Elements 8 Version 8.0 64bit.
Got given a box full of autochromes..on closer inspection (in totally darkness) it appears that thevie been shot yet never deved (according to the user guide that was stuffed in the box as well) So wondering if I can find a genus to dev one of these....
i'm given up...i'm sick of feeling ..tell me WTF is wrong with me :))
GIVEN UP - Linkin Park
-------
Nắng tắt trên con đường dài
Kí ức hôm qua mệt nhoài…
Nước mắt em rơi rơi trong cơn mưa lúc a ra đi trong 1 chiều thu
Dẫu biết xa nhau thật rồi, vẫn muốn ôm anh 1 lần, hãy nói câu anh yêu em dù là gian dối…
Khẽ nấc nhưng không thành lời
Khẽ thấy con tim bồi hồi
Muốn trách anh sao vô tâm nhưng không thể hé môi dẫu chỉ là 1 câu
Bởi chính em đây hiểu rằng, chỉ có riêng em ngộ nhận, những phút giây em bên anh giờ này hoàn toàn xa tay với…
Ngày ngày tháng tháng như là trong mơ từng dòng kí ức tìm về bên em…
Ánh mắt dịu dàng, cử chỉ nhẹ nhàng, những phút bên em thật lòng làm sao quên
Vì ngườibên em, như làn mây trôi, một ngày gió đến sẽ cùng mây đi…
Phút cuối ngậm ngùi, bóng tối…riêng em mà thôi…
Giờ đây khi thời gian giúp e nhận ra rằng trai tim anh chưa bao giờ iu e..
Là khi em chôn kí ức bên anh…
Phút cuối hiểu rằng, chỉ có e iu a mà thôi
---------------------
sắp đi học :(
cm và fav nhé , d.này mưa nhiều :) chùa chết chìm nhé =]
Actually, no points given for guessing :-)
Bad wifi, tonight is the first time I actually got the wifi at hotel to work on laptop and 3G is almost worse :-I
So I've not uploaded anything of use so far. Will upload more when I do get back home. We'll leave Florida, (Orlando area) on the 4th of July
YORK, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 04: during an i2i Soccer Academy Training Session at Haxby Road on October 4th 2022 in North Yorkshire, United Kingdom. (Photo by Matthew Appleby)
..."This is my body, which is given for you" Luke 22:19
HAPPY EASTER.
...a bit difficult to find anything I haven't used before ;o) (Struggling with health issues at the moment, so not able to get out much, to photograph anew.)
I'm not happy with the "look" of the above, but there was such a mix of lighting, plus a dark yew tree just outside the window and grid over it, that I've had to do quite a bit of "tinkering" with it...but it now looks too "digital-ised" for my liking.
The little altar and stained glass window, in St. Olaf, Wasdale Head. The left half depicts Jesus' Baptism, by John the Baptist, and the right half, The Last Supper, only hours before Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.
(Wider view of this delightful little church, in 1st comment box below.)
This given days NS 145 has new Iowa Interstate GEVO's still in primer, from the information I got, they where numbered 505 and 511. Also in the consist is six GE frames on flatcars bound for MRS in Brazil and will be AC44i's when assembly is complete.
Rudolf Stingel conceived this exhibition especially for Palazzo Grassi. Given the utmost freedom of execution, Stingel has completely transformed the museum, filling the entire space with an oriental carpet. Moving beyond the idea of two-dimensionality that is conventionally associated with painting, the exhibition aims to subvert the usual spatial relationship between a painting and viewer.
The carpet evokes the thousand-year history of Venice, the ‘Most Serene Republic’, but also recalls the Middle-European culture so loved by the artist; for example, we are reminded of Sigmund Freud’s early twentieth-century Viennese study. This reference undoubtedly provides a key to interpreting this installation: on entering the ‘labyrinth’, an all-encompassing feeling and sensorial experience transport us towards the transcendence of the Ego, by means of its removal and its ghosts. The nearly thirty paintings exhibited suggest presences that are ‘buried’ in memory, and removed experiences that thrive again. The architectural space becomes an introspective and projective space, silent and welcoming, suitable for meditation: but Stingel’s work alters our visual and spatial perception of it, suggesting a new, rarified and suspenseful atmosphere in which the silver, white and black of the paintings stands out like so many other ‘openings’ on Venice, in an another dimension.
From the Palazzo Grassi website
Carlisle Castle is situated in Carlisle, in the English county of Cumbria, near the ruins of Hadrian's Wall. The castle is over 900 years old and has been the scene of many historical episodes in British history. Given the proximity of Carlisle to the border between England and Scotland, it has been the centre of many wars and invasions. Today the castle is managed by English Heritage and is open to the public. The castle until recently was the administrative headquarters of the former King's Own Royal Border Regiment now county headquarters to the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and a museum to the regiment is within the castle walls.
History
Carlisle Castle was first built during the reign of William II of England, the son of William the Conqueror who invaded England in 1066. At that time, Cumberland (the original name for north and west Cumbria) was still considered a part of Scotland. William II ordered the construction of a Norman style motte and bailey castle in Carlisle on the site of an old Roman fort, with construction beginning in 1093. The need for a castle in Carlisle was to keep the northern border of England secured against the threat of invasion from Scotland. In 1122, Henry I of England ordered a stone castle to be constructed on the site. Thus a keep and city walls were constructed. The existing Keep dates from somewhere between 1122 and 1135.
Entrance to Carlisle Castle. (De Ireby's tower)
The act of driving out the Scots from Cumberland led to many attempts to retake the lands. The result of this was that Carlisle and its castle would change hands many times for the next 700 years. The first attempt began during the troubled reign of Stephen of England.
On 26 March 1296, John 'The Red' Comyn, since the fourth quarter of 1295 Lord of Annandale, led a Scottish host across the Solway to attack Carlisle. The then governor of the castle, one Robert de Brus, deposed Lord of Annandale, successfully withstood the attack, before forcing the raiders to retreat back through Annandale to Sweetheart Abbey.
From the mid-13th century until the unification of England and Scotland in 1603, Carlisle castle was the vital headquarters of the Western March, a buffer zone to protect the western portion of the Anglo-Scottish border.
Henry VIII converted the castle for artillery, employing the engineer Stefan von Haschenperg. For a few months in 1567, Mary, Queen of Scots was imprisoned within the castle, in the Warden’s Tower, which was demolished in 1835.[2] Later, the castle was besieged by the Parliamentary forces for eight months in 1644, during the English Civil War.
The most important battles for the city of Carlisle and its castle were during the second Jacobite rising against George II of Great Britain in 1745. The forces of Prince Charles Edward Stuart travelled south from Scotland into England reaching as far south as Derby. Carlisle and the castle were seized and fortified by the Jacobites. However they were driven north by the forces of William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, the son of George II. Carlisle was recaptured, and the Jacobites were jailed and executed. That battle marked the end of the castle's fighting life, as defending the border between England and Scotland was not necessary with both countries again one in Great Britain.
After 1746, the castle became somewhat neglected, although some minor repairs were undertaken such as that of the drawbridge in 1783.
Some parts of the castle were then demolished for use as raw materials in the 19th century to create more or less what is visible to the visitor today. The Army moved in to take hold of the castle and in 1873 a system of recruiting areas based on counties was instituted under the Cardwell Reforms and the castle became the depot for the 34th (Cumberland) Regiment of Foot and the 55th (Westmorland) Regiment of Foot. Under the Childers Reforms, the 34th and 55th regiments amalgamated to form the Border Regiment with its depot in the castle in 1881. The castle remained the depot of the Border Regiment until 1959, when the regiment amalgamated with the King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster) to form the King's Own Royal Border Regiment. The Army Reserve still use parts of the castle: 8 Platoon C Company 4th Battalion the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment are based within the Burma Block alongside a Multi Cap-Badge detachment of the Army Reserve, including Medics, Engineers, Logisticicians, Intelligence and Infanteers from other Cap Badges. The Castle also houses The King’s Own Border Regiment Museum.
List of Governors
Governors appointed by:
Henry II:
Robert de Vaux, Baron of Gillesland
John:
William de Stuteville, Baron of Lyddal
Henry III:
Robert de Vaux
Robert de Veteripont
William de Dacre
Thomas de Multon
John Baliol (later King of Scotland)
Robert de Brus, 5th Lord of Annandale (-1255 & 1267-)
William III de Forz, 4th Earl of Albemarle
Eustace de Baliol
Roger de Leiburne
Edward I:
Robert de Hampton
Richard de Holebrok
John de Swinburn
Gilbert de Curwen of Workington
William de Boyville
Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale (1295-)
Michael de Harela
John de Halton, Bishop of Carlisle
Alexander de Bassenthwaite
Edward II:
John de Castre
Andrew de Harcla, 1st Earl of Carlisle
Piers Gaveston, 1st Earl of Cornwall
Ralph Fitz William, baron of Greystoke
John de Halton, Bishop of Carlisle (2nd time)
Edward III:
Ralph Dacre, 1st Baron Dacre
Anthony Lord Lucy of Cockermouth
John de Glanton
John Kirby, Bishop of Carlisle
Sir Hugh de Moresby
Thomas, Lord Lucy
Roland de Vaux
Sir Richard de Denton
Sir Hugh de Lowther
Richard II:
Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland
Ralph Lord Neville de Raby
John Lord Moss of Hamlake
John Halland, Earl of Huntington
Sir Lewis Clifford
Henry IV;
Henry Lord Percy, surnamed Hotspur, Governor and General of the Marches
Edward IV;
Richard Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III of England)
Richard III:
Sir Richard Salkeld of Corby
Henry VII;
Sir Richard Salkeld of Corby
Henry VIII;
Thomas Lord Warton
William Lord Dacre of Gillesland
Edward VI:
William Lord Dacre of Gillesland
Mary I:
William Lord Dacre of Gillesland
Elizabeth I:
Henry Lord Scrope of Bolton
William Lord Dacre of Gillesland
Charles I:
Sir Nicholas Byron
Sir Henry Stradling
Sir John Brown
Sir William Douglas
Sir William Levingston
Sir Philip Musgrave Bart.
Jeremiah Tolhurst Esq.
Colonel Thomas Fitch
Post-Restoration
Charles II:
December 1660: Sir Philip Musgrave, 2nd Baronet
1678: Charles Howard, 1st Earl of Carlisle
1684/5: Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Baronet
James II:
1687: Sir Francis Howard of Corby
December 1688: Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Baronet
William III:
1689: Sir John Lowther, 2nd Baronet
1690: Jeremiah Bubb
March 1693: Charles Howard, 3rd Earl of Carlisle
George II:
1739: Lt Gen. John Folliot
12 August 1749: Gen. Sir Charles Howard
1752: Gen. John Stanwix
George III:
July 1763: Henry Vane, 2nd Earl of Darlington
22 September 1792: Lt Gen. Montgomery Agnew
8 September 1818: Lt Gen. Robert Burne
George IV:
18 June 1825: Maj. Gen. Sir George Adam Wood Kt.
William IV:
28 April 1831: Lt Gen. Hon. James Ramsay, son of the Earl of Dalhousie
Victoria:
The post of Governor of Carlisle was abolished in 1838.
I think in Simon's list of 50 best Suffolk churches, Woolpit comes in at number 31. It is now that I remember that I cannot remember why I should go to Woolpit on what would be the last of the EA church visits this year, as Mum was home and in the care of the district nurse, and there was nothing else we could do, not in actions, money or time given. She really has to stand on her own two feet now.
Anyway; Woolpit.
I decided to go, and after looking on the map I saw that with some create route planning, I could go down the 143, then double back and join the A14 eastwards before turning south down our old friend, the A12.
On the way I did also visit Stowlangtoft, which was a wonderful church, a church filled with wonderful things that seemed to hang together as a whole. Woolpit would have to be something special to trup St George.
And it nearly did. Nearly. Woolpit is a picture perfect village, all timber framed buildings, narrow lanes and impossible to park in. I drove through it finding a kind of space just past the church. I could see from the tower and building it was a church on which the Victorians had been very busy.
Most glorious is Mary's roof; double hammerbeam adorned with 208 angels one of the wardens told me. It had been counted several times during a dull sermon. Or two.
The wardens were building the crib for Christmas, so were using a pallet as a base, or something like that. I didn't see it finished, but Ken Bruce was booming out from a radio, preaching the Gospel According to Popmaster to all who would listen.
The angels in the roof and on the walls of the church are indeed impressive, as is the rood screen, but not sure if they are original. There are carved pew ends aplenty, but to my eye, not as well carved or as old as at Stowlangtoft. I could be wrong. But I snap a few anyway.
But I received a warm welcome here, and it is a fantastic church for me.
-----------------------------------------
2008: Woolpit is a village which I often visit, and it is always a pleasure to go into the church. But the entry for St Mary was one of the last on the original Suffolk Churches site, making its appearance in late 2001. In fact, I think it was the last of the old-style entries. I was getting a bit wordy by then.
Woolpit was one of the longest entries, and this wasn't just because there is so much to see. I went off at a great tangent about the meaning of medieval iconography, and how it survived the Reformation. It certainly got some thoughts clear in my own head, even if it confused other people. I actually wrote the entry in the back of an old exercise book sitting outside a café on the Cote d'Azur in southern France. Reading that back, it seems a little pretentious, but I really was there. Here in Ipswich on a frosty February evening, I can't help remembering the heat as I scrawled in the pad.
I've left the original entry almost entirely as it was, apart from the removal of one absolute howler, which I won't mention. I am not sure if Woolpit still has a Sunday market, and I am sure that someone will tell me if it has not. Paul Hocking is no longer Rector of Woolpit, but to my eyes the church continues to go from strength to strength, feeling at once busy and at the heart of its community, the still centre of a busy village. I like it very much.
2001: The clear blue waters of the Mediterranean swirl around my legs, then past me, buffeting the rocks along the silver beach. Millions of tiny flecks of mica swarm through the current, washed out of the hills of Southern Provence. They shine for a fraction of a second with all the light the high summer sun can give, a universe caught in a moment; then turn, disappearing, making of the water a shimmering skein, an ancient memory.
The sea is at the start of all European civilisation. Here, history wells about me. I think of Europe, and the fragmentation of nations. I think of the Balkans, and the Reformation, and the same water surrounding, tending, isolating. I think of time passing.
A week before, I'd been standing in the cool nave of the church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, Woolpit - or at least, that is what it probably was once, back then. Today, it is dedicated simply as 'St Mary', in common with the majority of Suffolk's medieval churches, among which it is one of the finest, some say. This is mostly by virtue of its beautiful porch, and extraordinary angel roof.
But is that true? For there are those who love this church that, perhaps, never look up at the porch or roof. Is it the plethora of 15th century bench ends that captures the imagination? Or could it be Richard Phipson's outrageous 1850s tower and lacy spire, straight out of the Nene Valley, its evangelistic slogans around the side in a Victorian equivalent of Piccadilly Circus neon? It ought not to work, and yet it does. Or is it that supremely articulate view to the east, perfect of proportion despite the stripping away of its medieval liturgical apparatus? Above all else, and above most others, this is a church with presence.
It was the bench ends that I was thinking of as I immersed myself out of the intensity of the Provencal sun. A number of questions occured to me, as they have done on other occasions, in other churches. Who made them? What did they mean by them? And how did they survive the iconoclasms of the Protestant Reformation? Here in Southern Europe, I thought I might have found some answers.
Woolpit, then. It is perhaps the most perfect of all Suffolk villages. Not sleepy, and chocolate boxy, but to actually live in. Its shops and pubs are arranged around the pleasant village square, and Phipson's crazy spire towers above them. Woolpit still has its school, and you wouldn't need to get in the car every time you needed a loaf of bread, as you'd have to do in some of Suffolk's more famously picturesque villages, like Kersey and Tuddenham. And Woolpit has its Sunday market, beloved of hundreds of non-sabbatarian junk-hunters each week.
Further, Woolpit has its mythology; the two green children, who climbed out of the ground, speaking a strange language and afraid of the sunlight. The boy died soon after, but the girl grew up and married; she learned to speak English, and told of St Martin's Land, from where she and her brother had emerged. There are holes in the ground around Woolpit, quarries where bricks were made in the 19th century. But perhaps there was once something much older, for every Suffolk schoolchild knows that the name 'Woolpit' is nothing to do with wool, but with the wolves that once lived in the pits here...
So, it is a well-known village. It is because of this as much as anything about St Mary itself that makes this church so well-known to people who haven't heard of the even more interesting and beautiful church of St Ethelbert, Hessett, barely three miles away.
Your first sight of St Mary will be Phipson's crazy spire, visible from miles away, and quite unlike anything else in East Anglia. Suffolk is a county where spires are rare enough, anyway. From the far side of the Gipping valley you can see this one and two others, piercing the soft harvest mist in autumn. They are Phipson's equally absurd Great Finborough, and the 1990s blade of St Peter and St Mary, Stowmarket. There are only about a dozen more in the whole of the county. The excuse for this one was that the tower was struck by lightning in 1852, bringing down the previous lead and timber affair (presumably like the one at Hadleigh). The font is contemporary with the tower, suggesting that the old one was destroyed by the fall.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the artist John Piper produced a series of screen prints of aspects of Suffolk churches; for most, he used the fine perpendicular tower, ramifying it in bold Festival of Britain primary colours. But for Woolpit, he chose the porch, because it is Suffolk's finest. Cautley thought it the best in all England. It is two-storey, 15th century, contemporary with the nave. Mortlock tells us that they were both built by wealthy Bury Abbey, who owned the living here. As at Beccles, it rises way above the south aisle, tower-like in itself.
A rood group of niches surmounts the shields of East Anglia above the door. More flank them. Mortlock says that the work began in the early 1430s, and the niches were filled by a bequest of 1473, suggesting that the porch was forty years in the making. The south aisle and chancel are slightly earlier, the north aisle slightly later, so it is the nave that promises us great things, and doesn't disappoint.
You step into cool darkness, and look up. It is breathtaking. This is Suffolk's most perfectly restored angel hammerbeam roof. It may not have the drama of Mildenhall, the exquisiteness of Blythburgh, the sheer mathematics of Needham Market, but it shows us in detail more than any other what the medieval imagination was aiming at. From the still, small silence of the church floor below, you look up into a great shout of praise. Here are hundreds of figures, both angelic and human. The profusion is ordered, as if some mighty hymn were in progress.
Paul Hocking thinks that it is a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus: We praise thee, O God, we acknowledge thee to be the Lord... To thee all Angels cry aloud, the Heavens, and all the Powers therein. To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabaoth... The glorious company of the Apostles praise thee, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets praise thee, the noble army of Martyrs praise thee...
I know this, because he told me so. I was busy photographing bench ends when this very enthusiastic American bounced in with another visitor, and gave him a whistlestop tour of the church, describing the details with great knowledge and understanding. Solicitously, he talked to me afterwards about what I was doing, and asked me if I'd met the Rector of Woolpit yet. I said that I went out of my way to avoid Rectors wherever possible. He laughed, and replied that, on this occasion, I'd failed, because he was, in fact, the Rector.
After I'd coughed miserably, and he'd laughed again, we had a long chat, uncovering a few mutual aquaintances. He described the roof, which he has obviously spent a lot of time exploring. He pointed out the way the wall posts contained Saints, some with apostolic symbols, some with books, and some with martyr's palms. There are angels on the hammerbeams above, and bearing symbols below. John Blatchly counted 128 angels alone. Some of the shields have letters on them. Are they an acrostic, as on the east chancel wall at Blythburgh? Do they indicate individual Saints? The great Henry Ringham completely restored this roof in 1862, but Mortlock thinks that one of the angels is not his, and I agree - you'll find it in the south west corner. Paul Hocking argues that the restoration was nowhere near as complete as has been made out, and that many features are original.
Henry Ringham also restored the range of bench ends, by duplicating some of the medieval ones, as he did at Great Bealings and Tuddenham St Martin. All are rendered with his customary skill. If Ringham did restore this roof, then the imagery must have been destroyed at some point. One instinctively thinks of William Dowsing, the Puritan inspector of the churches of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, who progressed across the counties during the course of 1644. His delight in the destruction of angel roofs was matched only by that at the destruction of stained glass.
And Dowsing did visit this church. He arrived here in the afternoon of February 29th 1644. It was a Thursday, and he had come here across country from Helmingham, where he had found much to do. He also planned to visit Beyton that day, but in the end stayed overnight at the Bull hotel, and inspected All Saints there in the morning. He then rested for the weekend - the following week, he had a busy tour of southern Cambridgeshire ahead of him.
Dowsing records in great detail what he found to do at each church. In the case of Woolpit, the angel roof is the Dog That Didn't Bark: My Deputy. 80 superstitious pictures; some he brake down, and the rest he gave order to take down; and three crosses to be taken down in 20 days. 8s 6d. There are only two possible reasons why Dowsing doesn't mention the roof. Either he didn't notice it (extremely unlikely) or it had already been destroyed. This second option seems certain; mid-Suffolk was a strongly protestant area, and nearby Rougham, which clearly had a similar roof, was not visited by Dowsing, but was vandalised even more comprehensively than Woolpit. Most likely, the destruction at both churches dated from a hundred years earlier, although it is possible that the Rougham and Woolpit congregations had been puritan enough in the 1630s to do it to their own churches themselves.
Beneath the roof, the church is broad, its two aisles giving room for the panoply of medieval liturgical processions. At the east end of the south aisle was once the shrine of Our Lady of Woolpit, a site of medieval pilgrimage in connection with a nearby holy well. Apart from the front rows, many of the benches appear to be in their original positions. Some of the bench ends are 15th century, others are Ringham's 19th century copies. I wandered around the medieval bench ends, running my hands over them, crouching down and engaging them, face to face. For anyone educated in a Marxist or Weberian historical tradition, as most of my generation were, interpreting the less-obviously liturgical or theological features of a medieval church is fraught with difficulties. One possibility is to do a Cautley, and try not to interpret them at all. But it is more fun to try to do so, don't you think?
The bench ends of Woolpit are remarkable for their abundance. They are not representations of sacraments, virtues and vices as at Tannington and elsewhere, or Saints as at Ufford and Athelington. They are almost all non-allegorical animals, although not the art objects we find at Stowlangtoft, or the mysterious beasts of Lakenheath. Perhaps a good comparison is the similar body of work at nearby Combs. Indeed, although they do not appear to be from the same workshop, it is likely that their creators knew of each others' work. There are dogs, with geese hanging from their mouths, and another which may be a cat with a rat or lizard. There are lions and bears, and a chained monkey, and birds in profusion. So who did them, and why are they here?
There is one school of thought that says that they are simply there to beautify the church, and that they were made by local craftsmen doing what they were best at. If they could do lions, they did lions. If they could render a decent rabbit, then that is what they did. And so on.
But I think that there is rather more to it than that. On my journey down through France, I had spent an afternoon in one of my favourite towns, Autun, in Burgundy. One of the reasons I like Autun is its 11th century Cathedral of St-Lazaire; this is Lazurus, raised by Christ from the dead, and until the 18th century his relics were venerated at a shrine here. St-Lazaire is most famous for its great tympanum above the west door, generally recognised as one of the greatest Romanesque art treasures in the world, and with International Heritage status. It was created during the middle years of the 12th century, and shows the Last Judgement. To emphasise Christ's majesty over all the world, it features all manner of beasts, domestic, wild and mythical.
Throughout the Cathedral, animals infest the famous capitals, which tell the Gospel story. Abbe Denis Grivot, in his Un Bestiaire de la Cathedrale D'Autun (Lyon, 1973) argues that the 12th century creators of all this filled it with animals to echo the final verse of the 150th Psalm, the crowning point of that great sequence of hymns of praise: Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord!
Standing in the nave at Autun, I instantly recalled Paul Hocking's words about the roof at Woolpit, when he said he thought it was a representation of the Te Deum Laudamus. The Te Deum is one of the canticles; another is the Benedicite, traditionally sung through Lent: Oh all ye Works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord; praise him and magnify him for ever... O ye whales, and all that move in the Waters, bless ye the Lord... O all ye Fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord... O all ye beasts and Cattle, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever!
Could it be that the bench ends at Woolpit, and elsewhere in Suffolk, were intended to reflect and represent the praise defined in the canticles and psalms? Both would have been central to the liturgy of the medieval Catholic church. Perhaps the bench ends of Woolpit are liturgical and theological after all.
How would a carpenter, or group of carpenters, go about creating a set of benches like the ones at Woolpit? Who were they? Almost certainly, they were locals. They might have been itinerant jobbing carpenters, but I don't think so. The bench ends at adjacent Tostock are clearly by the same hand. But those at nearby Stowlangtoft and Norton are not, and a third hand seems to be responsible for those at Combs, as I previously mentioned. I do not think that the mutilated ones at Rougham and Elmswell are either; they were probably from the same workshop as each other.
So, we have a conscious attempt by skilled members of a community to create a hymn of praise in carved oak, by representing as many beasts as they felt capable of making. Where did they get their ideas from? They would have had no problems with oxen, cocks, conies - these were all around them, in their daily lives. The person who carved the hunting dog here was very familiar with it. Perhaps it was his own. What about monkeys and lions? These are more problematic. In medieval bestiaries, exotic creatures had fabulous legends attached to them, which gave them a theological symbolism.
But this symbolism doesn't usually seem intended when we see them on bench ends. Sometimes they are rendered accurately, but more often wild animals are fairly imaginary; I think particularly of Barningham's camel, and Hadleigh's wolf. It isn't enough to say that the carvers could have seen pictures of exotic beasts. This is fairly unlikely. Probably, the ordinary people of Woolpit never saw a book other than the missals, lectionaries and hagiographies used in church.
They might have seen pictures of lions and monkeys in wall paintings, either in other churches or here at Woolpit. They might have seen them carved in bench ends, for the same reason. In fact, the representation of wild animals varies so much as to suggest that this is not the case - compare, for example, the lions of Combs with those of Stowlangtoft. Probably, they were created in the imagination from descriptions and attributes in stories. But I think that there is a strong possibility that the woodcarvers of Woolpit did see lions and monkeys in real life.
Here in Catholic Southern Europe, there are many remote small towns which, by virtue of being so very far from each other, take on a rich and complex life of their own. Even small villages have their shops, their craftsmen, their tradespeople; they replicate a situation that existed in Suffolk until well into the 19th century, and in some cases beyond, before the great industrialisation and easy transport swept it away. Further, there are traditions here still that we have lost. Whenever I come here, I am fascinated by the itinerant entertainers, who move from village to village, giving a single performance befre moving on. This must also once have been true of England. The thing that fascinates me most is the multitude of small family circuses.
Many of them seem to be of Italian or Romany origin; all family members have multiple roles, from the oldest grandparent to the youngest child, selling tickets, doing acrobatics, being the straight men to the clown (who is typically Grandpa). They all put up the tent before the performance, and take it down afterwards. They move on, through the remote hills of Provence and the Languedoc, performing on village greens, wastegrounds, the corners of fields, even traffic islands.
As I say, I am fascinated, and can rarely resist them, even though I am shocked, even appalled, by the easy cruelty to animals. Performing animals are still often chosen for their curiosity value, if you can call running around in a circle to the crack of a whip 'performing', poor things.
The choices are strange indeed; camels and zebras often feature; I have seen an old bear on a chain, and at one circus in remote Languedoc a hippopotamus of all things - it caught bread thrown by the crowd. There was no safety fence between the seats and the ring, no Health and Safety Executive to penetrate these lost valleys. I do not know if such circuses existed in medieval Suffolk. But I think that they probably did. Suffolk is a maritime county, and exotic animals were widely known and exhibited in medieval Europe. Before the Protestant Reformation cut us of from the mainland, clerics and merchants thought of themselves as European, and travelled widely - English sovereignty was a hazy concept at best, and 'Britishness' was still centuries away from being formulated as an idea. People owed allegiance to their village, their parish, and their lord, not to the Crown and Parliament in London.
Were the woodcarvers of Woolpit and Tostock remembering this? A circus visit, perhaps back in their childhood? Exotic animals rendered inaccurately, to be sure, but with an enthusiastic nostalgia for that exciting moment in their lives? Was there a lion? A monkey, or a bear? How much more powerful if they also knew the fabulous legends about the beasts - and had seen them in real life!
Some of the carvings at Woolpit are allegorical. One shows a monkey dressed in monk's robes. This, I think, is a joke at the expense of the itinerant friars who went from parish to parish, preaching repentance in the streets. They were sanctioned by the Pope, but were beyond the jurisdiction of the local Bishop. They didn't always go down well with the local Priest and congregation, who considered the Friars nosey and hypocritical. A monkey is often a symbol of foolish vanity - hence, a Friar thinking he was better than anyone else. What better way to make the point than to slip him in as one of the creatures praising the Lord?
How did they survive? But why should they have been destroyed? We make the mistake of thinking of the Puritans as vandals. But the more you read about William Dowsing, the more he emerges as being a principled, conservative kind of chap, despite his clearly flawed and fundamentalist theological opinions. He had no reason to destroy animal bench ends. They weren't superstitious - even Dowsing didn't think Catholics worshipped animals. If he didn't think they were meant to represent the canticles, he wouldn't even have considered them religious. Amen to that.
So much for the 17th century. What about the 19th? St Mary is one of the most enthusiastically restored of Suffolk's churches, despite its survivng medieval detail. But it was done well. Mortlock thought that the 19th century pulpit was the work of Ringham - but the brass lectern is pre-Reformation, a fine example. The rood screen dado panels have sentimental 19th century Saints on them, that may or may not duplicate what was there before. They are actually very good, particularly the gorgeous Mary of Magdala. They have their names painted on the cross beams for the less hagiologically articulate Victorians - from left to right across the aisle they are Saints Barbara, Felix, Mary of Magdala, Peter, Paul, Mary, Edmund and Etheldreda. It is unlikely that Saint Felix would have been on a medieval roodscreen, and Mary almost certainly wasn't - it would have relegated her to a position of no more importance than the others. If it reflects anything of what was there before, it was probably St Anne with the infant Virgin.
The top part of the screen was renewed in 1750, and dated so. The gates are probably a Laudian imposition of 120 years earlier, as at Kedington. This may suggest that, by the time of Dowsing's visit, the chancel was being used for some other practical purpose. Above, high above, set in the east nave wall over the chancel arch, is one of the wierdest objects I've seen in a medieval church. It was installed in the 1870s, and is clearly meant to echo the coving of a rood loft. Goodness knows what it actually is, but it is painted in garish colours, and inscribed with texts. In one of those moments where Cautley and credibility part company, he describes anyone who doesn't think it is a genuine medieval canopy of honour as 'stupid'. I suppose that it has a certain curiosity value.
The three-light window above it would have given light to the rood. The east window contains one of Suffolk's best modern Madonna and child images which was made by the artist Ian Keen for the King workshop in the early 1960s. Ian Keen was also responsible for the beautiful St Margaret in St Margaret's church in Norwich, and for the memorable window of St Francis with a labrador at Somerleyton near Lowestoft.
I turned back westwards, past a superb medieval bench end of the three Marys. This is a delight, and you'd travel to London to see it if it was in the V&A. Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the mother of James and Mary of Magdala huddle together, perhaps on the morning of the Resurrection. One of them has a lily of the Annunciation. One head is destroyed - but was it vandalised? Or is it the result of carelessness, the wear and tear of the centuries? Would 17th century puritans have destroyed it if they'd seen it?
Dowsing rarely mentions bench ends, so perhaps few were left by then anyway. So how could it possibly have survived the violent zeal of the 16th century Protestants, battering the Church of England into existence with their axes, pikes and bonfires? How, even after the 1540 edict of Edward VI which ordered the destruction of all statues and images of Saints, especially those of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is it still there at all?
Still more questions than answers, I suppose. I dived beneath the water, and there was beneath me a restless current, shifting and reshifting the silver sand into unique patterns, the work of millennia, still changing, never the same.
- le Rayol Canadel, Cote d'Azur, August 2001.
A return visit to St Mary.
I was last here about 6 years ago, parking in the little square one warm September afternoon.
Much colder in March, but plenty of parking spaces, and St Mary was surprisingly open.
--------------------------------------------
The church stands in the village square removed from the main road. The flint rubble construction and severe restoration of the exterior does not look welcoming, but the interior is most appealing with plenty of light flooding through the clerestory windows. The rectangular piers of both north and south arcades with their pointed arches and boldly carved stops are of late twelfth-century date. Between them hang some eighteenth-century text boards. The character of the church is given in the main by late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century work. The high altar has four charmingly painted panels by John Ripley Wilmer in Pre-Raphaelite style, executed in 1907. At the opposite end of the church are the organ loft, font cover and baptistry, all designed by F.C. Eden, who restored the church in the early 1900s. He also designed the west window of the south aisle as part of a larger scheme which was not completed. In the south chancel wall are two windows of great curiosity. One contains a fifteenth-century figure of St Thomas Becket while the other shows figures of David and Saul. This dates from the nineteenth century and was painted by Frank Wodehouse who was the then vicar's brother. The face of David was based on that of Mme Carlotta Patti, the opera singer, while Gladstone and Disraeli can be identified hovering in the background! It is a shame that it has deteriorated badly.
www.kentchurches.info/church.asp?p=Elham
------------------------------------------
ELEHAM,
OR, as it is as frequently written, Elham, lies the next parish south-eastward from Stelling. It was written in the time of the Saxons both Uleham and Æiham, in Domesday, Albam. Philipott says, it was antiently written Helham, denoting the situation of it to be a valley among the hills, whilst others suppose, but with little probability, that it took its name from the quantity of eels which the Nailbourn throws out when it begins to run. There are Seven boroughsin it, of Bladbean, Boyke, Canterwood, Lyminge, Eleham, Town, Sibton, and Hurst.
Eleham is said to be the largest parish in the eastern parts of this county, extending itself in length from north to south, through the Nailbourn valley, about three miles and an half; and in breadth five miles and a half, that is, from part of Stelling-minnis, within the bounds of it, across the valley to Eleham down and Winteridge, and the southern part of Swinfield-minnis, almost up to Hairn-forstal, in Uphill Folkestone. The village, or town of Eleham, as it is usually called, is situated in the above-mentioned valley, rather on a rise, on the side of the stream. It is both healthy and pleasant, the houses in it being mostly modern and wellbuilt, of brick and fashed. As an instance of the healthiness of this parish, there have been within these few years several inhabitants of it buried here, of the ages of 95, 97, and 99, and one of 105; the age of 40 years being esteemed that of a young person, in this parish. The church, with the vicarage on the side of the church-yard, is situated on the eastern side of it, and the court lodge at a small distance from it. This is now no more than a small mean cottage, thatched, of, I believe, only two rooms on a floor, and unsit for habitation. It appears to be the remains of a much larger edifice, and is built of quarry-stone, with small arched gothic windows and doors, the frames of which are of ashlar stone, and seemingly very antient indeed. It is still accounted a market-town, the market having been obtained to it by prince Edward, afterwards king Edward I. in his father's life-time, anno 35 Henry III. to be held on a Monday weekly, which, though disused for a regular constancy, is held in the market-house here once in five or six years, to keep up the claim to the right of it; besides which there are three markets regularly held, for the buying and selling of cattle, in every year, on Palm, Easter, and Whit Mondays, and one fair on Oct. 20th, by the alteration of the stile, being formerly held on the day of St. Dionis, Oct. 9, for toys and pedlary. The Nailbourn, as has been already mentioned before, in the description of Liminage, runs along this valley northward, entering this parish southward, by the hamlet of Ottinge, and running thence by the town of Eleham, and at half a mile's distance, by the hamlet of North Eleham, where there are several deep ponds, in which are from time to time quantities of eels, and so on to Brompton's Pot and Wingmere, at the northern extremity of this parish. The soil in the valley is mostly an unfertile red earth, mixed with many flints; but the hills on each side of it, which are very frequent and steep, extend to a wild romantic country, with frequent woods and uninclosed downs, where the soil consists mostly of chalk, excepting towards Stelling and Swinfield minnis's, where it partakes of a like quality to that of the valley, tance,by the hamlet of North Eleham, where there only still more poor and barren. At the north-west corner of the parish, on the hill, is Eleham park, being a large wood, belonging to the lord of Eleham manor.
Dr. Plot says, he was informed, that there was the custom of borough English prevailing over some copyhold lands in this parish, the general usage of which is, that the youngest son should inherit all the lands and tenements which his father had within the borough, &c. but I cannot find any here subject to it. On the contrary, the custom here is, to give the whole estate to the eldest son, who pays to the younger ones their proportions of it, as valued by the homage of the manor, in money.
At the time of taking the survey of Domesday, anno 1080, this place was part of the possessions of the bishop of Baieux, under the general title of whose lands it is thus entered in it:
In Honinberg hundred, the bishop of Baieux holds in demesne Alham. It was taxed at six sulins. The arable land is twenty-four carucates. In demesne there are five carucates and forty-one villeins, with eight borderers having eighteen carucates. There is a church, and eight servants, and two mills of six shillings, and twenty eight acres of meadow. Wood for the pannage of one hundred hogs. In the time of king Edward the Confessor, and afterwards, it was worth thirty pounds, now forty, and yet it yields fifty pounds. Ederic held this manor of king Edward.
Four years after the bishop was disgraced, and all his possessions were consiscated to the crown, whence this manor seems to have been granted to William de Albineto, or Albini, surnamed Pincerna, who had followed the Conqueror from Normandy in his expedition hither. He was succeeded by his son, of the same name, who was made Earl of Arundel anno 15 king Stephen, and Alida his daughter carried it in marriage to John, earl of Ewe, in Normandy, whose eldest son Henry, earl of Ewe, was slain at the siege of Ptolemais in 1217, leaving Alice his sole daughter and heir, who entitled her husband Ralph D'Issondon to the possession of this manor, as well as to the title of earl of Ewe. She died in the reign of king Henry III. possessed of this manor, with the advowson of the church, and sealed with Barry, a label of six points, as appears by a deed in the Surrenden library; after which it appears to have come into the possession of prince Edward, the king's eldest son, who in the 35th year of it obtained the grant of a market on a Monday, and a fair, at this manor, (fn. 1) and afterwards, in the 41st year of that reign, alienated it to archbishop Boniface, who, left he should still further inflame that enmity which this nation had conceived against him, among other foreigners and aliens, by thus increasing his possessions in it, passed this manor away to Roger de Leyborne, who died possessed of it in the 56th year of that reign, at which time it appears that there was a park here; (fn. 2) and in his name it continued till Juliana de Leyborne, daughter of Thomas, became the sole heir of their possessions, from the greatness of which she was usually called the Infanta of Kent. She was thrice married, yet she had no issue by either of her husbands, all of whom she survived, and died in the 41st year of king Edward III. upon which this manor, among the rest of her estates, escheated to the crown, there being no one who could make claim to them, by direct or even by collateral alliance. (fn. 3) Afterwards it continued in the crown till king Richard II. vested it in feoffees in trust, towards the endowment of St. Stephen's chapel, in his palace of Westminster, which he had in his 22d year, completed and made collegiate, and had the year before granted to the dean and canons this manor, among others, in mortmain. (fn. 4) All which was confirmed by king Henry IV. and VI. and by king Edward IV. in their first years; the latter of whom, in his 9th year, granted to them a fair in this parish yearly, on the Monday after Palm-Sunday, and on the Wednesday following, with all liberties, &c. In which situation it continued till the 1st year of king Edward VI. when this college was, with all its possessions, surrendered into the king's hands, where this manor did not continue long; for the king in his 5th year, granted it to Edward, lord Clinton and Saye, and he reconveyed it to the crown the same year. After which the king demised it, for the term of eighty years, to Sir Edward Wotton, one of his privy council, whose son Thomas Wotton, esq. sold his interest in it to Alexander Hamon, esq. of Acrise, who died in 1613, leaving two daughters his coheirs, the youngest of whom Catherine, married to Sir Robert Lewknor, entitled him to it; he was at his death succeeded by his son Hamon Lewknor, esq. but the reversion in see having been purchased of the crown some few years before the expiration of the above-mentioned term, which ended the last year of king James I.'s reign, to Sir Charles Herbert, master of the revels. He at the latter end of king Charles I.'s reign, alienated it to Mr. John Aelst, merchant, of London; after which, I find by the court rolls, that it was vested in Thomas Alderne, John Fisher, and Roger Jackson, esqrs. who in the year 1681 conveyed it to Sir John Williams, whose daughter and sole heir Penelope carried it in marriage to Thomas Symonds, esq. of Herefordshire, by the heirs of whose only surviving son Thomas Symonds Powell, esq. of Pengethley, in that county, it has been lately sold to Sir Henry Oxenden, bart. who is now entitled to it.
A court leet and court baron is held for this manor, which is very extensive. There is much copyhold land held of it. The demesnes of it are tithe-free. There is a yearly rent charge, payable for ever out of it, of 87l. 13s. 1d. to the ironmongers company, in London.
Shottlesfield is a manor, situated at the southeast boundary of this parish, the house standing partly in Liminge, at a small distance southward from the street or hamlet of the same name. It was, as early as the reign of king Edward II. the inheritance of a family called le Grubbe, some of whom had afterwards possessions about Yalding and Eythorne. Thomas le Grubbe was possessed of it in the 3d year of that reign, and wrote himself of Shottlesfeld, and from him it continued down by paternal descent to John Grubbe, who in the 2d year of king Richard III. conveyed it by sale to Thomas Brockman, of Liminge, (fn. 5) whose grandson Henry Brockman, in the 1st year of queen Mary, alienated it to George Fogge, esq. of Braborne, and he, in the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign, sold it to Bing, who, before the end of that reign, passed it away to Mr. John Masters, of Sandwich, from whom it descended to Sir Edward Masters, of Canterbury, who at his decease, soon after the death of Charles I. gave it to his second son, then LL. D. from whose heirs it was alienated to Hetherington, whose last surviving son the Rev. William Hetherington, of North Cray place, died possessed of it unmarried in 1778, and by will devised it, among his other estates, to Thomas Coventry, esq. of London, who lately died possessed of it s. p. and the trustees of his will are now entitled to it.
The manor of Bowick, now called Boyke, is situated likewise in the eastern part of this parish, in the borough of its own name, which was in very antient times the residence of the Lads, who in several of their old evidences were written De Lad, by which name there is an antient farm, once reputed a manor, still known, as it has been for many ages before, in the adjoining parish of Acrise, which till the reign of queen Elizabeth, was in the tenure of this family. It is certain that they were resident here at Bowick in the beginning of king Henry VI.'s reign, and in the next of Edward IV. as appears by the registers of their wills in the office at Canterbury, they constantly stiled themselves of Eleham. Thomas Lade, of Bowick, died possessed of it in 1515, as did his descendant Vincent Lade in 1563, anno 6 Elizabeth. Soon after which it passed by purchase into the name of Nethersole, from whence it quickly afterwards was alienated to Aucher, and thence again to Wroth, who at the latter end of king Charles I.'s reign sold it to Elgar; whence, after some intermission, it was sold to Thomas Scott, esq. of Liminge, whose daughter and coheir Elizabeth, married to William Turner, esq. of the Friars, in Canterbury, at length, in her right, became possessed of it; his only surviving daughter and heir Bridget married David Papillon, esq. of Acrise, and entitled him to this manor, and his grandson Thomas Papillon, esq. of Acrise, is the present owner of it.
Mount and Bladbean are two manors, situated on the hills, on the opposite sides of this parish, the former near the eastern, and the latter near the western boundaries of it; the latter being antiently called Bladbean, alias Jacobs-court, a name now quite forgotten. Both these manors appear to have been in the reign of the Conqueror, part of the possessions of Anschitillus de Ros, who is mentioned in Domesday as holding much land in the western part of this county, their principal manor there being that of Horton, near Farningham. One of this family made a grant of it to the Cosentons, of Cosenton, in Aylesford, to hold of their barony of Ros, as of their manor of Horton before-mentioned, by knight's service. In the 7th year of Edward III. Sir Stephen de Cosenton obtained a charter of freewarren for his lands here. He was the son of Sir William de Cosenton, sheriff anno 35 Edward I. and was sometimes written of Cosenton, and sometimes of Mount, in Eleham. At length his descendant dying in the beginning of king Henry VIII.'s reign, without male issue, his three daughters, married to Duke, Wood, and Alexander Hamon, esq. became his coheirs, and shared a large inheritance between them, and upon their division of it, the manor of Bladbean, alias Jacobs-court, was allotted to Wood, and Mount to Alexander Hamon.
The manor of Bladbean, alias Jacobs-court, was afterwards alienated by the heirs of Wood to Thomas Stoughton, esq. of St. Martin's, near Canterbury, who by will in 1591 (fn. 6) gave this manor, with its rents and services, to Elizabeth his daughter and coheir, married to Thomas Wilde, esq. of St. Martin's, whose grandson Colonel Dudley Wilde, at his death in 1653, s. p. devised it to his widow, from whom it went by sale to Hills, and Mr. James Hills, in 1683, passed it away to Mr. Daniel Woollet, whose children divided this estate among them; a few years after which John Brice became, by purchase of it at different times, possessed of the whole of it, which he in 1729 conveyed by sale to Mr. Valentine Sayer, of Sandwich, who died possessed of it in 1766, and the heirs of his eldest son Mr. George Sayer, of Sandwich, are now entitled to it.
The manor of Mount, now called Mount court, which was allotted as above-mentioned, to Alexander Hamon, continued down to his grandson, of the same name, who died possessed of it in 1613, leaving two daughters his coheirs, the youngest of whom, Catherine, entitled her husband Sir Robert Lewknor, to it, in whose descendants it continued till Robert Lewknor, esq. his grandson, in 1666, alienated it, with other lands in this parish, to Thomas Papillon, esq. of Lubenham, in Leicestershire, whose descendant Thomas Papillon, esq. of Acrise, is the present proprietor of it.
Ladwood is another manor in this parish, lying at the eastern boundary of it, likewise on the hills next to Acrise. It was written in old evidences Ladswood, whence it may with probability be conjectured, that before its being converted into a farm of arable land, and the erecting of a habitation here, it was a wood belonging to the family of Lad, resident at Bowick; but since the latter end of king Edward III.'s reign, it continued uninterrupted in the family of Rolse till the reign of king Charles II. soon after which it was alienated to Williams, in which name it remained till Penelope, daughter of Sir John Williams, carried it in marriage to Thomas Symonds, esq. the heirs of whose only surviving son Thomas Symonds Powell, esq. sold it to David Papillon, esq. whose son Thomas Papillon, esq. now possesses it.
The manor of Canterwood, as appears by an old manuscript, seemingly of the time of Henry VIII. was formerly the estate of Thomas de Garwinton, of Welle, lying in the eastern part of the parish, and who lived in the reigns of Edward II. and III. whose greatgrandson William Garwinton, dying s. p. Joane his kinswoman, married to Richard Haut, was, in the 9th year of king Henry IV. found to be his heir, not only in this manor, but much other land in these parts, and their son Richard Haut having an only daughter and heir Margery, she carried this manor in marriage to William Isaak. After which, as appears from the court-rolls, which do not reach very high, that the family of Hales became possessed of it, in which it staid till the end of queen Elizabeth's reign, when it went by sale to Manwood, from which name it was alienated to Sir Robert Lewknor, whose grandson Robert Lewknor, esq. in 1666 sold it, with other lands in this parish already mentioned, to Thomas Papillon, esq. of Lu benham, in Leicestershire, whose descendant Thomas Papillon, esq. of Acrise, is the present owner of it.
Oxroad, now usually called Ostrude, is a manor, situated a little distance eastward from North Eleham. It had antiently owners of the same name; Andrew de Oxroad held it of the countess of Ewe, in the reign of king Edward I. by knight's service, as appears by the book of them in the king's remembrancer's office. In the 20th year of king Edward III. John, son of Simon atte Welle, held it of the earl of Ewe by the like service. After which the Hencles became possessed of it, from the reign of king Henry IV. to that of king Henry VIII. when Isabel, daughter of Tho. Hencle, marrying John Beane, entitled him to it, and in his descendants it continued till king Charles I.'s reign, when it was alienated to Mr. Daniel Shatterden, gent. of this parish, descended from those of Shatterden, in Great Chart, which place they had possessed for many generations. At length, after this manor had continued for some time in his descendants, it was sold to Adams, in which name it remained till the heirs of Randall Adams passed it away by sale to Papillon, in whose family it still continues, being now the property of Thomas Papillon, esq. of Acrise.
Hall, alias Wingmere, is a manor, situated in the valley at the northern boundary of this parish, next to Barham, in which some part of the demesne lands of it lie. It is held of the manor of Eleham, and had most probably once owners of the name of Wigmere, as it was originally spelt, of which name there was a family in East Kent, and in several antient evidences there is mention made of William de Wigmere and others of this name. However this be, the family of Brent appear to have been for several generations possessed of this manor, and continued so till Thomas Brent, of Wilsborough, dying in 1612,s. p. it passed into the family of Dering, of Surrenden; for in king James I.'s reign Edward Dering, gent. of Egerton, eldest son of John, the fourth son of John Dering, esq, of Surren den, who had married Thomas Brent's sister, was become possessed of it; and his only son and heir Thomas Dering, gent. in 1649, alienated it to William Codd, gent. (fn. 7) of Watringbury, who was succeeded in it by his son James Codd, esq. of Watringbury, who died s. p. in 1708, being then sheriff of this county, and being possessed at his death of this manor in fee, in gavelkind; upon which it came to the representatives of his two aunts, Jane, the wife of Boys Ore, and Anne, of Robert Wood, and they, in 1715, by fine levied, entitled Thomas Manley, and Elizabeth, his wife, to the possession of this manor for their lives, and afterwards to them in fee, in separate moieties. He died s. p. in 1716, and by will gave his moiety to John Pollard; on whose death s. p. it came, by the limitation in the above will, to Joshua Monger, whose only daughter and heir Rachael carried it in marriage to her husband Arthur Pryor, and they in 1750 joined in the sale of it to Mr. Richard Halford, gent. of Canterbury. The other moiety of this manor seems to have been devised by Elizabeth Manley above-mentioned, at her death, to her nephew Thomas Kirkby, whose sons Thomas, John, and Manley Kirkby, joined, in the above year, in the conveyance of it to Mr. Richard Halford above-mentioned, who then became possessed of the whole of it. He was third son of Richard Halford, clerk, rector of the adjoining parish of Liminge, descended from the Halfords, of Warwickshire, as appears by his will in the Prerogative-office, Canterbury, by which he devised to his several sons successively in tail, the estate in Warwickshire, which he was entitled to by the will of his kinsman William Halford, gent, of that county. They bear for their arms, Argent, a greybound passant, sable, on a chief of the second, three fleurs de lis, or. He died possessed of it in 1766, leaving by Mary his wife, daughter of Mr. Christopher Creed, of Canterbury, one son Richard Halford, gent. now of Canterbury; and two daughters, Mary married to Mr. John Peirce, surgeon, of Canterbury; and Sarah. In 1794, Mr. Peirce purchased the shares of Mr. Richard and Mrs. Sarah Halford, and he is now the present owner of this manor. He bears for his arms, Azure field, wavy bend, or, two unicorns heads, proper.
The manor OF Clavertigh is situated on the hills at the north-west boundary of this parish, next to Liminge, which antiently belonged to the abbey of Bradsole, or St. Radigund, near Dover, and it continued among the possessions of it till the 27th year of king Henry VIII. when by the act then passed, it was suppressed, as not having the clear yearly revenue of two hundred pounds, and was surrendered into the king's hands, who in his 29th year, granted the scite of this priory, with all its lands and possessions, among which this manor was included, with certain exceptions, however, mentioned in it, to archbishop Cranmer, who in the 38th year of that reign, conveyed this manor of Clavertigh, with lands called Monkenlands, late belonging to the same priory in this parish, back again to the king, who that same year granted all those premises to Sir James Hales, one of the justices of the common pleas, to hold in capite, (fn. 8) and he, in the beginning of king Edward VI.'s reign, passed them away to Peter Heyman, esq. one of the gentlemen of that prince's bedchamber who seems to have had a new grant of them from the crown, in the 2d year of that reign. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Ralph Heyman, esq. of Sellindge, whose descendant Sir Peter Heyman, bart. alienated the manor of Clavetigh to Sir Edward Honywood, of Evington, created a baronet in 1660, in whose descendants this manor has continued down to Sir John Honywood, bart. of Evington, who is the present possessor of it.
Charities.
Jonas Warley, D. D. gave by will in 1722, 50l. to be put out on good security, the produce to be given yearly in bread on every Sunday in the year, after divine service, to six poor widows, to each of them a two-penny loaf. The money is now vested in the vicar and churchwardens, and the produce of it being no more than 2l. 5s. per annum, only a three-halfpenny loaf is given to each widow.
Land in this parish, of the annual produce of 1l. was given by a person unknown, to be disposed of to the indigent. It is vested in the minister, churchwardens, and overseers.
Four small cottages were given to the parish, by a person unknown, and are now inhabited by poor persons. They are vested in the churchwardens and overseers.
Sir John Williams, by will in 1725, founded A CHARITY SCHOOL in this parish for six poor boys, legal inhabitants, and born in this parish, to be taught reading, writing, and accounts, to be cloathed once in two years; and one such boy to be bound out apprentice, as often as money sufficient could be raised for that use. The minister, churchwardens, and overseers to be trustees, who have power to nominate others to assist them in the management of it. The master has a house to live in, and the lands given to it are let by the trustees.
The poor constantly relieved are about seventy-five, casually fifty-five.
Eleham is within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the diocese of Canterbury, and deanry of its own name.
The church, which is dedicated to St. Mary, is large and handsome, consisting of three isles, the middle one having an upper range of windows, and one chancel, having a tower steeple, with a spire shast on it, at the west end, in which are eight bells, a clock, and chimes. Within the altar-rails is a memorial for John Somner, gent. son of the learned William Somner, of Canterbury, obt. 1695; arms, Ermine, a chevron voided. In the chancel a brass plate for Michael Pyx, of Folkestone, mayor and once high bailisf to Yarmouth, obt. 1601. Another for Nicholas Moore, gent. of Bettenham, in Cranbrooke; he died at Wingmer in 1577. In the middle isle a memorial for Captain William Symons, obt. 1674; arms, Parted per pale, and fess, three trefoils slipt. A brass plate for John Hill, dean and vicar of Eleham, obt. 1730. In this church was a lamp burning, called the light of Wyngmer, given before the year 1468, probably by one of the owners of that manor.
The church of Eleham was given by archbishop Boniface, lord of the manor of Eleham, and patron of this church appendant to it, at the instance of Walter de Merton, then canon of St. Paul's, and afterwards bishop of Rochester, to the college founded by the latter in 1263, at Maldon, in Surry. (fn. 9) After which the archbishop, in 1268, appropriated this church to the college, whenever it should become vacant by the death or cession of the rector of it, saving a reasonable vicarage of thirty marcs, to be endowed by him in it, to which the warden of the college should present to him and his successors, a fit vicar, as often as it should be vacant, to be nominated to the warden by the archbishop; otherwise the archbishop and his successors should freely from thence dispose of the vicarage for that turn. (fn. 10)
¶The year before this, Walter de Merton had begun a house in Oxford, whither some of the scholars were from time to time to resort for the advancement of their studies, to which the whole society of Maldon was, within a few years afterwards, removed, and both societies united at Oxford, under the name of the warden and fellows of Merton college. This portion of thirty marcs, which was a stated salary, and not tithes, &c. to that amount, was continued by a subsequent composition or decree of archbishop Warham, in 1532; but in 1559, the college, of their own accord, agreed to let the vicarial tithes, &c. to Thomas Carden, then vicar, at an easy rent, upon his discharging the college from the before-mentioned portion of thirty marcs: and this lease, with the like condition, has been renewed to every subsequent vicar ever since; and as an addition to their income, the vicars have for some time had another lease, of some wood grounds here, from the college. (fn. 11)
The appropriation or parsonage of this church is now held by lease from the warden and fellows, by the Rev. John Kenward Shaw Brooke, of Town-Malling. The archbishop nominates a clerk to the vicarage of it, whom the warden and fellows above-mentioned present to him for institution.
This vicarage is valued in the king's books at twenty pounds, (being the original endowment of thirty marcs), and the yearly tenths at two pounds, the clear yearly certified value of it being 59l. 15s. 2d. In 1640 it was valued at one hundred pounds per annum. Communicants six hundred. It is now of about the yearly value of one hundred and fifty pounds.
All the lands in this parish pay tithes to the rector or vicar, excepting Parkgate farm, Farthingsole farm, and Eleham-park wood, all belonging to the lord of Eleham manor, which claim a modus in lieu of tithes, of twenty shillings yearly paid to the vicar. The manor farm of Clavertigh, belonging to Sir John Honywood, bart and a parcel of lands called Mount Bottom, belonging to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Tournay, of Dover, claim a like modus in lieu of tithes.
Given that it’s freezing cold up here in Minneapolis right now so this pic of a gun frozen inside of a block of ice feels very appropriate to me. The first in a limited series of frozen items. If it weren’t for lack of space in my freezer I’d freeze a lot more objects and photograph them.
Someone has given the former Nickel Plate Road passenger station in Charleston, Illinois, a facelift. The tracks here were once part of the Clover Leaf railroad but are not used by a short line railroad known as the Eastern Illinois.
Given the grim weather prevailing, a commendably clean VDL SB4000/ Marcopolo Viaggio 350 awaiting its next job at the Congleton base.
17 - 206
06/2010 - new as PN10 AGO.
??/2017 - re-registered R6 HWD.
Given that jet fighters might be tricky to fly for pilots used to flying propeller aircraft, let alone new trainee pilots, Lockheed proposed in 1945 that a two-seat conversion trainer be built for the P-80 Shooting Star. The US Army Air Force rejected the idea on cost grounds, citing that the T-6 Texan already in service would be sufficient enough. After a series of fatal crashes of the P-80, the USAAF revisited Lockheed’s proposal, which included extending the P-80’s fuselage by three feet, extending the canopy backwards, and adding a second cockpit with full flight controls. This aircraft, designated first TP-80C on its maiden flight in March 1948, then TF-80C, then finally T-33A, would go on to be far more successful than the fighter it was based on.
The T-33 was designed to be simple, robust, and easy to fly for trainee pilots, though it was intended at first to be only used for propeller-qualified pilots to transition into jets. As propeller aircraft were mostly phased out of the independent US Air Force’s inventory, the service made the decision to go to an “all-jet” training syllabus, and as a result pilots began flying T-33s in flight school.
The “T-Bird,” as it became known, could still be unforgiving in certain circumstances, and was less forgiving as the T-37 Tweet or the T-38 Talon that would eventually replace it. It also was an aircraft for practical jokers: the in-and-outs of the T-33 was something only experienced pilots knew well, and trainees could be subjected to all kinds of tricks by the instructor pilot. The T-33 was, however, eminently reliable. Even after it was withdrawn from training units in the mid-1950s, it soldiered on as a “hack” aircraft for units, a familiarization aircraft, advanced trainer, and aggressor aircraft, especially in Air Defense Command and Air National Guard units.
Well into the 1980s, T-33s could be found in frontline USAF units, and it was said that, when the last F-16 was retired, the pilot would hitch a ride home in a T-Bird. While this did not prove true, it was not off by much—the last USAF T-33s did not leave the inventory until around 1988. The US Navy also used T-33s, including both standard Shooting Stars and the heavily modified TV-1 Seastar, which had a larger engine, reworked tail, and strengthened fuselage for carrier operations. While the Seastar was replaced in the 1960s by the T-2 Buckeye, standard T-33s remained as test and chase aircraft for the Navy’s test squadrons into the 1990s.
Because of its robustness and cheap flyaway price, the T-33 was also popular with foreign air forces: no less than 41 nations operated T-33s at one time or another, and it was license-built in Japan by Kawasaki and in Canada as the CT-133 Silver Star, which differed from US-built aircraft only in using a Rolls-Royce Nene engine. While it was usually used in the trainer role, many were modified for a variety of roles, including armed AT-33s and reconnaissance RT-33s (some of which were also used by the USAF). AT-33s, which were basically two-seat F-80s, were used in several conflicts worldwide, mainly in South America; Bolivia still uses its AT-33s as frontline counterinsurgency aircraft. While Bolivia remains the only air force to still operate T-33s on a regular basis, many of these nations did not retire their Shooting Stars until the late 1990s—Canada did not retire its last CT-133s until 2008, and Boeing Aircraft has two T-33As on charge as chase aircraft. 6557 T-33s were built overall, and today over 80 and possibly as many as a hundred survive, with many still flyable.
T-33 histories are very hit or miss, but it is known that this one, 55-7768 did actually fly with the 119th Fighter-Interceptor Group (North Dakota ANG) at Fargo, probably in the late 1960s as the unit equipped with F-101 Voodoos. 55-7768 enjoyed a long career with the famous "Happy Hooligans," staying with the unit in both the F-101 and F-4D years, and was still there as late as 1996--by which time the 119th was in the F-16! 55-7768 was retired sometime after that, and donated to the little town of Wimbledon, North Dakota as a war memorial.
While so many (too many) city and town memorial aircraft are not well-maintained, Wimbledon does not have that problem: 55-7768 looks like it flew in yesterday! The town takes great care of this aircraft, and it was worth the drive off the highway to find this T-33.
AIR TEMP: 36°F / 2°C
WIND SPD: NNW 17 mph / 24 km/h (gusting to ~40 MPH / 64 km/h)
The 2013 Cupid's Undie Run in Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you in this photo? Say hi- leave a comment or send me a message!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Given the potential sensitivity: this image is fully copyrighted. Permission is granted only to Cupid's Undie Run, the disrobed participants contained within, or any other primary subjects to use the photo provided that they provide attribution in the form of "© Andrew Bossi, flic.kr/s/aHsjDWiZiv"
If you are media, anyone not an organiser of Cupid's Undie Run, anyone not contained within the photo, or anyone preferring not to provide attribution & the link: contact me to discuss exemptions. Please note which image(s) you would like to use.
If you are one of the disrobed participants within the photo but would prefer it not publicised: just send me a message with a link to any photos and I will remove them from view. I will comply with your request, though I reserve right to laugh at you for doing such a thing in public & not wanting photo evidence :)
But I did attempt to review my photos and cut out things less than flattering as, let's admit it: no matter the body, the motions of running in revealing clothing does not usually lend toward aesthetic photos. So any photos I've kept are, in my opinion, quite decent... and if you're in them: I hope you agree!
*Also while I very rarely moderate comments: I will moderate comments here. So anything too complimentary or anything quite the opposite will be deleted. In short: don't be rude and don't be creepy. Don't be "that guy".
Kentucky horse park hall of champions - Point Given
Feel free to use this photo however you like, just attribute atthepaddock.com. Thanks!
Given the stripes in the amazing lawn of Worcester College I thought it might be a good candidate for a pseudo infra-red conversion. Am I right though ?
I was given a sheet of magazine scraps which had been applied to a background in a haphazard manner and was asked to use this as a source of inspiration!
I find this sort of challenge VERY difficult as I usually work to an idea, not an image.
After a mild panic I decided to gesso the whole page in an attempt to tone down the images and then I used it to create a folder which I then die cut and embossed.
I then grabbed the scrap bag and started to machine embroider images which started to leap from the page.
This is one sample.
Canon EOS 1V + Kodak Ektachrome + Ps
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to look at and fave my photographs.
Please do not edit | crop | manipulate | remove my watermark | transmit | copy | or reproduce this photo in any form. Sharing this image without proper credit and using it without permission, is punishable by law. Please respect the artists involved. Thank you.
Given myself an alphabet soup game. Two new photos and another two from my photostream or archives, when possible.
I'd gone out for a Sunday drive to Congerville-Thionville in May 2011, which is where I found this toy tractor and trailer. It was badly parked in a large drive of what I presumed was the Farm House.
Thank you for your favourites. :O)
May not seem like it but at this point I’d completely given up with the film script I was in the middle off and I was in the tunnel looking for the light at the end of the hallway.
Given the concerns over Covid-19 and the associated international response, social pressure referred to as ‘Social Distancing’, the good Mr T decided it was time to chill and hang out in the pool on the Southern Shores of Lake Ontario in tropical Grimsby, Ontario, for the duration of March Break. Some of the online paranoia suggested he may never get another chance. So grasp life by the horns and enjoy it while you can. Suitably protected from the sun by a cool set of sun glasses, a glass of wine to help take the edge off, and a good book to pass the time, Mr T reclined in the pool and settled in for the duration. - JW
Date Taken: 2020-03-17
Tech Details:
Taken using a tripod-mounted Nikon D800 fitted with an AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm 1:4.0 lense set to 28mm, ISO100, Auto WB, Aperture Priority Mode, f/9.0, 1/3 sec. PP in free Open Source RAWTherapee from Nikon RAW/NEF source file: convert image to B&W/monochrome using green channel gamma adjustment to somewhat darken the image, crop image to 1:1 aspect ratio, set final image size to 7000 px wide, apply Tone Mapping at default levels, boost contrast in L-A-B mode, enable Shadows/Highlights and recover highlight detail, sharpen, save. PP in free Open Source GIMP: use the levels tool in Auto mode to establish a good base overall tonality, sharpen, save, scale image to 6000px wide, sharpen, save, add fine black-and-white frame, add bar and text on left, save, scale image to 2048 px wide for posting online, sharpen very slightly, save.
Ian's on the road again, wearing different shoes again.
Or something.
Yes, have audit will travel is taking me back to the north west and head office (UK) in Warrington.
I wasn't keen to go, as I would be one of those being audited, rather than being the auditor.
So it goes.
Up even earlier than usual, Jools went swimming first thing, while I woke up and packed.
It was to be a bright if cold day, and the promise of actual snow once I reached Manchester, so that was something to look forward to. No?
Jools dropped me off on the prom so I could have a walk, take some snaps before picking up the car.
It was cold.
Not Canada cold, clearly.
Minus three. And too cold to linger to watch the actual sunrise, so made do with snapping the reflected light of the hotels and a ferry coming into the harbour. I walked over Townwall Street, now cold to the bone, hoping the car hire place would be open on time.
It wasn't, but a couple of minutes later, a guy came to open up and let me inside where it was slightly warmer.
My old ruse of getting an automatic thus getting a larger car was ruined this time was I was given a Toyota Yaris. It struggled to get up Jubilee Way without the engine screaming. You'd better behave yourself for the next three days I told it.
Back home for breakfast, load the car and say goodbye to the cats. One last look, and I was off. The car had no sat nav, so had to use the phone.
Before going to the hotel, I was going to visit a former colleague who lives in Warrington, or nearly St Helens as I found out later, so programmed her address in, and off I went, along our street and towards the A2 and the long slog up to Dartford.
I connected my phone to charge, and straight away tunes from my Apple music store started playing. So, apart from the free U2 album it forced on all users, the rest was good if a little Skids and Velvet Underground heavy.
The miles were eaten up, even if I had to turn the music way up to drown the sound of the screaming engine.
Like all trips, I had something extra to sweeten the time away, and in this case it was a church. But not just any church, as you will see.
I watched a short documentary on Monday about Mary Queen of Scots, and remembered that she had been imprisoned and executed at Fotheringhay Castle in what is now Northamptonshire, and if I went over the Dartford Crossing, up the M11 to Cambridge, then were the A14 crossed the Great North Road, ten miles north was Fotheringhay.
So, I pressed on, under the river and into Essex, then along to the bottom of the M11, and north past Stanstead to Cambridge. Traffic wasn't bad, so I made good time, my phone telling me I would reach Fotheringhay at midday.
Turning off the A1, down narrow lanes, then the view to the church opens up, in what is possibly one of the finest vistas in all of England. St Mary and All Saints, 15th century and in its Perpendicular finest, it looks too good to be that old, but is.
Not only is the church mostly as it was, if plain inside, this was the parish church of the House of York, of several Kings including the final, Richard III.
This is real history.
I crossed over the narrow hump-back bridge that spanned the fast flowing, and nearly flooding, River Neane, into the village and parked outside the church. A set of grand gates lead off the main road to the northern porch, lined with fine trees, naked it being winter.
The tower seems over-large for the Nave and Chancel, it stands 116 feet tall, and is a chonker, the rest of the church seems small beside it, but the interior of the church is a large space, high to its vaulted roof.
I take shots, not as many as perhaps I should, but the church doesn't have centuries of memorials, but does have two House of York tombs, or mausoleums.
Back outside, my phone tells me I should be in Warrington by four, my friend, Teresa, wouldn't be home until half past, so I could have another break on the way.
The sat nav took me back to the A14, and from there it is just a 60 mile drive to the bottom of the M6 and then the hike two hours north.
At least it was a sunny day, though clouds were building, and was it my imagination, or did it look like snow falling already?
No, it was snow. big, fat, wet flakes at first, not much to worry about, but I pressed on past Coventry to the toll road, I sopped for half an hour there, enough time to have a drink and some crisps, then back outside where darkness was falling, as well as more snow.
The M6 might have had its upgrade complete, but a trip on it is rarely without delays. And for me, an hour delayed just before Warrington due to a crash, so we inched along in near darkness.
Teresa lived the other side of Warrington, so I had to press on further north, then along other main roads, round a bonkers roundabout before entering the town. Roads were lined with two up/two downs, doors leading straight onto the pavement. Cozy and northern.
They have two dog-mountains, I'm not sure of the breed, but think of something like a St Bernard and go bigger. They had just been for a walk, were damp and happy to be inside, laying on the kitchen floor. Taking up all the kitchen floor.
We talked for an hour, then I received a call from a guy I was supposed to be meeting up with: heavy snow was falling, I should get there sooner than later. So, I said my goodbyes and programmed the route to the hotel. Sorry, resort. Golf resort.
16 miles.
Snow was falling heavy, not too bad on main roads back to the motorway, though traffic on that was only going 40, it was fast enough. But the final six miles was long a main road, but it was covered in snow, with more falling.
The the fuel warning light went on.
Ignore that, I just wanted to get to the hotel safe and have dinner. Not end up in a hedge.
The final mile was very scary, snow only an inch deep, but slippery. There was a gatehouse marking the entrance to the golf club, I turned in and parked in the first space I came to.
Phew.
I checked in, and the place is huge, swish, but full of golfers.
But it does a sideline in conferences, training centre and a hotel. It was full.
I checked in, walked to the room, which is huge, and very comfortable, dropped my bags and went to the bar for dinner of beer and burgers. The place was almost empty, I watched cricket live from South Africa while I ate and drank.
Would I be tempted by the cheeseboard?
I would, dear reader, I would.
To my room to watch the football and relax while snow fell outside.
-------------------------------------------
The Church of St Mary and All Saints, Fotheringhay is a parish church in the Church of England in Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. It is noted for containing a mausoleum to leading members of the Yorkist dynasty of the Wars of the Roses.
The work on the present church was begun by Edward III who also built a college as a cloister on the church's southern side. After completion in around 1430, a parish church of similar style was added to the western end of the collegiate church with work beginning in 1434. A local mason, William Horwood was contracted to build the nave, porch, and tower of this church for £300 for the Duke of York.[2] It is the parish church which still remains.
The large present church is named in honour of St Mary and All Saints, and has a distinctive tall tower dominating the local skyline. The church is Perpendicular in style and although only the nave, aisles and octagonal tower remain of the original building it is still in the best style of its period.[3] The tower is 78 feet (24 metres) high to the battlements, and is 116 feet (35 metres) high to the pinnacles of the octagon.[4]
The church has been described by Simon Jenkins as
float[ing] on its hill above the River Nene, a galleon of Perpendicular on a sea of corn.
The college continued to 1547, when it was seized by the Crown, along with all remaining chantries and colleges. The chancel was pulled down immediately after the college was granted to John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, by King Edward VI.[6] A grammar school was founded in its place which lasted until 1859.
Nearby Fotheringhay Castle was the principal home of two Dukes of York. Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, who was killed at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 was buried in the church. He had earlier established a college for a master and twelve chaplains at the location. Edward's burial provided the basis for the later adoption of the church as a mausoleum to the Yorkist dynasty. In 1476 the church witnessed one of the most elaborate ceremonies of Edward IV's reign – the re-interment of the bodies of the king's father Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and his younger brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland, who had been buried in a humble tomb at Pontefract. Father and son fell at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 December 1460.
Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald, has left a detailed account of the events:
on 24 July [1476] the bodies were exhumed, that of the Duke, "garbed in an ermine furred mantle and cap of maintenance, covered with a cloth of gold" lay in state under a hearse blazing with candles, guarded by an angel of silver, bearing a crown of gold as a reminder that by right the Duke had been a king. On its journey, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, with other lords and officers of arms, all dressed in mourning, followed the funeral chariot, drawn by six horses, with trappings of black, charged with the arms of France and England and preceded by a knight bearing the banner of the ducal arms. Fotheringhay was reached on 29 July, where members of the college and other ecclesiastics went forth to meet the cortege. At the entrance to the churchyard, King Edward waited, together with the Duke of Clarence, the Marquis of Dorset, Earl Rivers, Lord Hastings and other noblemen. Upon its arrival the King 'made obeisance to the body right humbly and put his hand on the body and kissed it, crying all the time.' The procession moved into the church where two hearses were waiting, one in the choir for the body of the Duke and one in the Lady Chapel for that of the Earl of Rutland, and after the King had retired to his 'closet' and the princes and officers of arms had stationed themselves around the hearses, masses were sung and the King's chamberlain offered for him seven pieces of cloth of gold 'which were laid in a cross on the body.' The next day three masses were sung, the Bishop of Lincoln preached a 'very noble sermon' and offerings were made by the Duke of Gloucester and other lords, of 'The Duke of York's coat of arms, of his shield, his sword, his helmet and his coursers on which rode Lord Ferrers in full armour, holding in his hand an axe reversed.' When the funeral was over, the people were admitted into the church and it is said that before the coffins were placed in the vault which had been built under the chancel, five thousand persons came to receive the alms, while four times that number partook of the dinner, served partly in the castle and partly in the King's tents and pavilions. The menu included capons, cygnets, herons, rabbits and so many good things that the bills for it amounted to more than three hundred pounds.
In 1495 the body of Cecily Neville, Duchess of York was laid to rest beside that of her husband the Duke of York, as her will directed. She bequeathed to the College
a square canopy, crymson cloth of gold, a chasuble, and two tunicles, and three copes of blue velvet, bordered, with three albs, three mass books, three grails and seven processioners.
After the choir of the church was destroyed in the Reformation during the sixteenth century, Elizabeth I ordered the removal of the smashed York tombs and created the present monuments to the third Duke and his wife around the altar.
The birthday of Richard III is commemorated annually by the Richard III Society by the placing of white roses in the church.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St_Mary_and_All_Saints,_F...
--------------------------------------------------
As any experienced pub quizzer will be able to tell you, Cambridgeshire shares borders with more other counties than any other English county, and one of the pleasures of exploring its churches by bike is to occasionally pop over a border and cherry-pick some of the best churches nearby. I had long wanted to visit Fotheringhay in Northamptonshire, and it is only ten miles west of Peterborough, and so I thought why not? I could also take in its near neighbours Nassington and Warmington, both noted as interesting churches.
Fotheringhay is a haunted place. It is haunted by noble birth and violent death, by its pivotal importance as a place in 15th Century English politics, and by its desolation in later centuries - not to mention by one significant event in the last couple of years.
The view of the church from the south across the River Nene is one of the most famous views of a church in England - there can be few books about churches which do not include it. The tower is a spectacular wedding cake, the square stage surmounted by an octagonal bell stage. This is not an unusual arrangement in the area of the Nene and Ouse Valleys, but nowhere is it on such a scale and with such intricacy as this.
The nave is also vast, a great length of flying buttresses running above each aisle, and walls of glass, great perpendicular windows designed to let in light and drive out superstition. What you cannot see from across the river is that, behind the big oak tree, the church has no chancel.
Inside, it is a square box full of light divided by great arcades that march resolutely eastwards towards a large blank wall. Heraldic shields stand aloof up in the arcades, and the one fabulous spot of colour is the great pulpit nestled in the south arcade, another sign that this building was designed to assert the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church. This place swallows sound and magnifies light. It is thrilling, awe-inspiring. What happened here?
In the medieval period, Fotheringhay Castle was the powerbase of the House of York. The church was built as a result of a bequest by Edward III, who died in 1370. It was complete by the 1430s, with a college of priests and a large nave for the Catholic devotions of the people.
Over the next century it would house the tombs of, among others, Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York and grandson of Edward III who was killed in 1415 at Agincourt, and Richard Plantaganet, 3rd Duke of York, who was killed in the Battle of Wakefield in 1460. It was Richard's claim to the throne of England which had led to the Wars of the Roses. His decapitated head was gleefully displayed on a pike above Micklegate Bar in York by the victorious Lancastrian forces. Also killed in the battle was Richard's 17 year old son Edmund.
But the Lancastrian delight was shortlived, for by the following year Richard's eldest son had become King as Edward IV. He immediately arranged for the translation of the bodies of his father and brother from their common grave at Pontefract back to Fotheringhay.
It was recorded that on 24 July the bodies were exhumed, that of the Duke garbed in an ermine furred mantle and cap of maintenance, covered with a cloth of gold lay in state under a hearse blazing with candles, guarded by an angel of silver, bearing a crown of gold as a reminder that by right the Duke had been a king.
On its journey, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, with other lords and officers of arms, all dressed in mourning, followed the funeral chariot, drawn by six horses, with trappings of black, charged with the arms of France and England and preceded by a knight bearing the banner of the ducal arms.
Fotheringhay was reached on 29 July, where members of the college and other ecclesiastics went forth to meet the cortege. At the entrance to the churchyard, King Edward waited, together with the Duke of Clarence, the Marquis of Dorset, Earl Rivers, Lord Hastings and other noblemen. Upon its arrival the King made obeisance to the body right humbly and put his hand on the body and kissed it, crying all the time.
The procession moved into the church where two hearses were waiting, one in the choir for the body of the Duke and one in the Lady Chapel for that of the Earl of Rutland, and after the King had retired to his closet and the princes and officers of arms had stationed themselves around the hearses, masses were sung and the King's chamberlain offered for him seven pieces of cloth of gold 'which were laid in a cross on the body.
The sorrowing Edward IV donated the great pulpit for the proclamation of the Catholic faith. And then in 1483 he died. He was succeeded as tradition required by his son, the 12 year old Edward V. But three months after his father's death the younger Edward was also dead, in mysterious circumstances. He was succeeded by his uncle, who had been born here in Fotheringhay in 1452, and who would reign, albeit briefly, as Richard III.
Was Richard III really the villain that history has made him out to be? Did he really murder his nephew to achieve the throne? Within two years he had also been killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, and the Lancastrians were finally triumphant. Henry VII established the Tudor dynasty, and, as we all know, history is written by the victors, not by the losers.
But Fotheringhay had one more dramatic scene to set in English history before settling back into obscurity, and this time it involved the Tudors. In September 1586 a noble woman of middle years arrived at Fotheringhay Castle under special guard, and was imprisoned here. Her name was Mary, and she was on trial for treason.
It is clear today that most of the evidence was entirely fictional, but the powers of the day had good reason to fear Mary, for she had what appeared to many to be a legitimate claim to the English throne. She was the daughter of James V of Scotland, and had herself become Queen of Scotland at the age of just six weeks. She spent her childhood and youth in France while regents governed the nation in her stead, and she married Francis, the Dauphin of France, who became King of France in 1559. Briefly, Mary was both Queen of Scotland and Queen Consort of France, but in 1561 Francis died, and Mary returned to Scotland to govern her own country.
But there was a problem. Mary was a Catholic. Scotland had led the way in the English-speaking Reformation with a particularly firebrand form of Calvinism, and the protestant merchants of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee were aghast at the prospect of a Catholic monarch.
And there was a further problem. Scotland was currently at peace with its neighbour England, where Queen Elizabeth I had brought some stability to the troubled country. But the Catholic Church did not recognise Elizabeth as the rightful monarch of England, because it was considered that her father Henry VIII's divorce from his first wife Katherine of Aragon was invalid. As he had divorced Katherine to marry Elizabeth's mother Ann Boleyn, Catholics considered that the rightful line of succession had passed horizontally from Henry VIII to his deceased elder sister and then on to her descendants, the most senior of whom was Mary, Queen of Scotland.
Mary remarried in Scotland, but her husband was murdered, and she was forced to abdicate her throne in favour of their one year old baby. He would be brought up by protestant regents and advisors, and would reign Scotland as James VI. His protestant faith allowed the English crown to recognise the line's legitimate claims, and in 1603 James VI of Scotland became James I of England, the first monarch to govern both nations.
But that was all in the future. After her abdication, Mary fled south to seek the protection of her cousin Elizabeth. She spent most of the next 18 years in protective custody. A succession of plots and conspiracies implicated her, and finally on 8th February 1587, at the age of 44, Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded at Fotheringhay Castle.
One of her son James's first acts on ascending the English throne was to order that the castle where his mother had been shamefully imprisoned and executed be razed to the ground.
The chancel of Fotheringhay church and its College of Priests were already gone by then, demolished after the Reformation, leaving the York tombs exposed to the elements. it is said that Elizabeth herself, on a visit to Fotheringhay in 1566, insisted that they be brought back into the church.
Fotheringhay church settled back into obscurity. During the long 18th Century sleep of the Church of England it suffered neglect and disuse, but was restored well in the 19th Century. A chapel was designated for the memory of the York dynasty during the 20th Century, a sensitive issue for the Church of England which does not recognise prayers for the dead, but they can happen here in the Catholic tradition.
Today, the population of Fotheringhay cannot be much more than a hundred, an obscure backwater in remote north-east Northamptonshire, consisting of little more than its grand church set above the water meadows of the River Nene. But there was one more day in the public light to come.
In 2012, an archaeological dig in the centre of the city of Leicester, some 30 miles from here, uncovered a skeleton which had been buried in such a manner that it seemed it might be the dead King Richard III. Carbon dating and DNA matching proved that it was so. A controversy erupted about where the dead king might be reburied. Leicester Cathedral seemed the obvious place, although pompous claims were made by, among others, the MP for York, for him to be buried in York Minster. But there was also a case for the remains being returned here, to the quiet peace of Fotheringhay.
In the event reason held sway and Richard was reburied in Leicester, but Fotheringhay church, along with Leicester Cathedral, York Minster and Westminster Abbey, was one of four sites to host books of remembrance for Richard III.
In June 2015 I was surprised to find that the book here was still in use at the west end of the nave, and is still regularly signed by people. Perhaps they think it is the visitors book.
Simon Knott. June 2015.
www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/19327047848/in/photo...
Description given as father and son by the ebay seller. From what I could find using Ancestry and the WW1 and WW2 military records, their war service is as follows:
WW1 - Robert Conroy Parrott:
Religion - Church of England
Occupation - Soldier
Address - Parkside, South Australia
Marital status - Married
Age at embarkation - 42
Next of kin - Wife, Mrs R A Parrott, 31 Jaffrey Street, Parkside, South Australia
Previous military service - Inst'l Staff
Enlistment date - 18 February 1918
Rank on enlistment - 2nd Lieutenant
Unit name - 48th Battalion, 11th Reinforcement
AWM Embarkation Roll number - 23/65/4
Embarkation details - Unit embarked from Sydney, New South Wales, on board HMAT A54 Runic on 22 March 1918
Rank from Nominal Roll - 2nd Lieutenant
Unit from Nominal Roll - 43rd Battalion
Fate - Returned to Australia 25 June 1919
Miscellaneous details (Nominal Roll)*second given name two spellings Conroy and Conway
WW2 William Robert Conway Parrott:
Service - Australian Army
Service Number - SX4310
Date of Birth - 13 Oct 1907
Place of Birth - SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND
Date of Enlistment - 03 Jun 1940
Locality on Enlistment - BRIGHTON ST, SA
Place of Enlistment - ADELAIDE, SA
Next of Kin - PARROTT, ROBT
Date of Discharge - 04 Oct 1945
Rank - Staff Sergeant
Posting at Discharge - 9 Australian Division
Prisoner of War - No
Honours - None for display
(found on ebay)
In fact, given how wildly out the colours I originally blocked in the blue bits were with it's not looking too bad now. The left wall was dreadful at first, as I'd got the colour and the approach for the underpainting wrong, and it's taken a fair bit of reworking to rescue it - just need to adjust it's shape now and do the final texture and shading. The acrylics paint over earlier coats nicely as I thought they would - and I think the wash for the shadow on the pavement may well be possible - thinned some of the paint for shading the green part.
Overall, fairly pleased with progress so far.
Given that non-LED street lights are almost extinct in Chilwell, I was pleased to see a couple of local GEC Z9538s were still extant, and as far as I know are still operational. I even found a Simplex Aries that was still in situ, potentially still working if the puddle inside hasn't affected the electricals.
There are still a few GEC Z5718s and Z5698Us if you know where to look, plus a couple of dead Simples Aries, Gemini and GEC Z9538s. Funnily enough it seems the Thorn Beta 2 might be rarer than all of the above, since I know of just two remaining and one has been marked for removal (unsurprisingly it's the Kirkbride Ct one missing its bowl). I keep checking back to see if I can catch the lighting crew in the act of replacing it and invariably not convince them to let me have the old lantern.
Claremont Ave used to have an impressive installation of GEC Z5718s that ran SON, with some SOX ones nearby, but unfortunately within the past year or-so they've been V-MAXed... on their original, incredibly short concrete columns. The whole reason they had post-tops in the first place was because it was an upmarket street, yet now the LED replacements look worse there than on your average 'hockey stick' column.
Given that lanterns tend to disappear a few months after I find and photograph them, I won't mention where the one in the photo above is located, just to see if that makes it last longer...
"Anne Hutchinson on Trial" by Edwin Austin Abbey, 1901. My great (x10) grandmother [my No. 6221].
Trials held November 7-8, 1637 and March 22, 1638.
This illustration by Abbey is from a history of the United States and is in the public domain.
From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
"HUTCHINSON, ANNE (c. 1600-1643), American religious enthusiast, leader of the “Antinomians” in New England, was born in Lincolnshire, England, about 1600. She was the daughter of a clergyman named Francis Marbury, and, according to tradition, was a cousin of John Dryden. She married William Hutchinson, and in 1634 emigrated to Boston, Massachusetts, as a follower and admirer of the Rev. John Cotton. Her orthodoxy was suspected and for a time she was not admitted to the church, but soon she organized meetings among the Boston women, among whom her exceptional ability and her services as a nurse had given her great influence; and at these meetings she discussed and commented upon recent sermons and gave expression to her own theological views. The meetings became increasingly popular, and were soon attended not only by the women but even by some of the ministers and magistrates, including Governor Henry Vane. At these meetings she asserted that she, Cotton and her brother-in-law, the Rev. John Wheelwright—whom she was trying to make second “teacher” in the Boston church—were under a “covenant of grace,” that they had a special inspiration, a “peculiar indwelling of the Holy Ghost,” whereas the Rev. John Wilson, the pastor of the Boston church, and the other ministers of the colony were under a “covenant of works.” Anne Hutchinson was, in fact, voicing a protest against the legalism of the Massachusetts Puritans, and was also striking at the authority of the clergy in an intensely theocratic community. In such a community a theological controversy inevitably was carried into secular politics, and the entire colony was divided into factions. Mrs Hutchinson was supported by Governor Vane, Cotton, Wheelwright and the great majority of the Boston church; opposed to her were Deputy-Governor John Winthrop, Wilson and all of the country magistrates and churches. At a general fast, held late in January 1637, Wheelwright preached a sermon which was taken as a criticism of Wilson and his friends. The strength of the parties was tested at the General Court of Election of May 1637, when Winthrop defeated Vane for the governorship. Cotton recanted, Vane returned to England in disgust, Wheelwright was tried and banished and the rank and file either followed Cotton in making submission or suffered various minor punishments. Mrs Hutchinson was tried (November 1637) by the General Court chiefly for “traducing the ministers,” and was sentenced to banishment; later, in March 1638, she was tried before the Boston church and was formally excommunicated. With William Coddington (d. 1678), John Clarke and others, she established a settlement on the island of Aquidneck (now Rhode Island) in 1638. Four years later, after the death of her husband, she settled on Long Island Sound near what is now New Rochelle, Westchester county, New York, and was killed in an Indian rising in August 1643, an event regarded in Massachusetts as a manifestation of Divine Providence. Anne Hutchinson and her followers were called “Antinomians,” … and the controversy in which she was involved is known as the “Antinomian Controversy.”
See C. F. Adams, Antinomianism in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, vol. xiv. of the Prince Society Publications (Boston, 1894); and Three Episodes of Massachusetts History (Boston and New York, 1896)."
Galatians CHAPTER 2
From Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535)
By Martin Luther
Translated by Theodore Graebner
"VERSE 1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem.
Paul taught justification by faith in Christ Jesus, without the deeds of the Law. He reported this to the disciples at Antioch. Among the disciples were some that had been brought up in the ancient customs of the Jews. These rose against Paul in quick indignation, accusing him of propagating a gospel of lawlessness.
Great dissension followed. Paul and Barnabas stood up for the truth. They testified: "Wherever we preached to the Gentiles, the Holy Ghost came upon those who received the Word. This happened everywhere. We preached not circumcision, we did not require observance of the Law. We preached faith in Jesus Christ. At our preaching of faith, God gave to the hearers the Holy Ghost." From this fact Paul and Barnabas inferred that the Holy Ghost approved the faith of the Gentiles without the Law and circumcision. If the faith of the Gentiles had not pleased the Holy Ghost, He would not have manifested His presence in the uncircumcised hearers of the Word.
Unconvinced, the Jews fiercely opposed Paul, asserting that the Law ought to be kept and that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised, or else they could not be saved.
When we consider the obstinacy with which Romanists cling to their traditions, we can very well understand the zealous devotion of the Jews for the Law. After all, they had received the Law from God. We can understand how impossible it was for recent converts from Judaism suddenly to break with the Law. For that matter, God did bear with them, as He bore with the infirmity of Israel when the people halted between two religions. Was not God patient with us also while we were blindfolded by the papacy? God is longsuffering and full of mercy. But we dare not abuse the patience of the Lord. We dare no longer continue in error now that the truth has been revealed in the Gospel. The opponents of Paul had his own example to prefer against him. Paul had circumcised Timothy. Paul defended his action on the ground that he had circumcised Timothy, not from compulsion, but from Christian love, lest the weak in faith should be offended. His opponents would not accept Paul's explanation.
When Paul saw that the quarrel was getting out of hand he obeyed the direction of God and left for Jerusalem, there to confer with the other apostles. He did this not for his own sake, but for the sake of the people.
VERSE 1. With Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Paul chose two witnesses, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas had been Paul's preaching companion to the Gentiles. Barnabas was an eye-witness of the fact that the Holy Ghost had come upon the Gentiles in response to the simple preaching of faith in Jesus Christ. Barnabas stuck to Paul on this point, that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be bothered with the Law as long as they believed in Christ.
Titus was superintendent of the churches in Crete, having been placed in charge of the churches by Paul. Titus was a former Gentile.
VERSE 2. And I went up by revelation.
If God had not ordered Paul to Jerusalem, Paul would never have gone there.
VERSE 2. And communicated unto them that gospel.
After an absence of fourteen years, respectively eighteen years, Paul returned to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles.
VERSE 2. Which I preach among the Gentiles.
Among the Jews Paul allowed Law and circumcision to stand for the time being. So did all the apostles. Nevertheless Paul held fast to the liberty of the Gospel. On one occasion he said to the Jews: "Through this man (Christ) is preached unto you forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39.) Always remembering the weak, Paul did not insist that they break at once with the Law.
Paul admits that he conferred with the apostles concerning his Gospel. But he denies that the conference benefited or taught him anything. The fact is he resisted those who wanted to force the practice of the Law upon the Gentiles. They did not overcome him, he overcame them. "Your false apostles lie, when they say that I circumcised Timothy, shaved my head in Cenchrea, and went up to Jerusalem, at the request of the apostles. I went to Jerusalem at the request of God. What is more, I won the indorsement of the apostles. My opponents lost out."
The matter upon which the apostles deliberated in conference was this: Is the observance of the Law requisite unto justification? Paul answered: "I have preached faith in Christ to the Gentiles, and not the Law. If the Jews want to keep the Law and be circumcised, very well, as long as they do so from a right motive."
VERSE 2. But privately to them which were of reputation.
This is to say, "I conferred not only with the brethren, but with the leaders among them."
VERSE 2. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Not that Paul himself ever thought he had run in vain. However, many did think that Paul had preached the Gospel in vain, because he kept the Gentiles free from the yoke of the Law. The opinion that obedience to the Law was mandatory unto salvation was gaining ground. Paul meant to remedy this evil. By this conference he hoped to establish the identity of his Gospel with that of the other apostles, to stop the talk of his opponents that he had been running around in vain.
VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
The word "compelled" acquaints us with the outcome of the conference. It was resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised.
Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed did he ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against circumcision being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of the Fathers. "The fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to them a sign and seal of righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as a confession of their faith."
The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.
Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be permitted to keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did not regard those customs as conveying God's justification of the sinner.
The false apostles were dissatisfied with the verdict of the conference. They did not want to rest circumcision and the practice of the Law in Christian liberty. They insisted that circumcision was obligatory unto salvation.
As the opponents of Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther's, the enemies of the Reformation] contend that the traditions of the Fathers dare not be neglected without loss of salvation. Our opponents will not agree with us on anything. They defend their blasphemies. They go as far to enforce them with the sword.
Paul's victory was complete. Titus, who was with Paul, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he stood in the midst of the apostles when this question of circumcision was debated. This was a blow to the false apostles. With the living fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised Paul was able to squelch his adversaries.
VERSES 4,5. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you.
Paul here explains his motive for going up to Jerusalem. He did not go to Jerusalem to be instructed or confirmed in his Gospel by the other apostles. He went to Jerusalem in order to preserve the true Gospel for the Galatian churches and for all the churches of the Gentiles.
When Paul speaks of the truth of the Gospel he implies by contrast a false gospel. The false apostles also had a gospel, but it was an untrue gospel. "In holding out against them," says Paul, "I conserved the truth of the pure Gospel."
Now the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.
So do the papists. They admit that faith is the foundation of salvation. But they add the conditional clause that faith can save only when it is furnished with good works. This is wrong. The true Gospel declares that good works are the embellishment of faith, but that faith itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.
Human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: "This I have done, this I have not done." But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn one's eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.
True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works. They have no idea what faith is. How can they teach faith to others?
Not satisfied with teaching an untrue gospel, the false apostles tried to entangle Paul. "They went about," says Paul, "to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage."
When Paul saw through their scheme, he attacked the false apostles. He says, "We did not let go of the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. We routed them by the judgment of the apostles, and we would not give in to them, no, not an inch."
We too were willing to make all kinds of concessions to the papists. Yes, we are willing to offer them more than we should. But we will not give up the liberty of conscience which we have in Christ Jesus. We refuse to have our conscience bound by any work or law, so that by doing this or that we should be righteous, or leaving this or that undone we should be damned.
Since our opponents will not let it stand that only faith in Christ justifies, we will not yield to them. On the question of justification we must remain adamant, or else we shall lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world. If we surrender faith in Christ, as the only thing that can justify us, the death and resurrection of Jesus are without meaning; that Christ is the Savior of the world would be a myth. God would be a liar, because He would not have fulfilled His promises. Our stubbornness is right, because we want to preserve the liberty which we have in Christ. Only by preserving our liberty shall we be able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.
Some will object that the Law is divine and holy. Let it be divine and holy. The Law has no right to tell me that I must be justified by it. The Law has the right to tell me that I should love God and my neighbor, that I should live in chastity, temperance, patience, etc. The Law has no right to tell me how I may be delivered from sin, death, and hell. It is the Gospel's business to tell me that. I must listen to the Gospel. It tells me, not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has done for me.
To conclude, Paul refused to circumcise Titus for the reason that the false apostles wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus. Paul refused to accede to their demands. If they had asked it on the plea of brotherly love, Paul would not have denied them. But because they demanded it on the ground that it was necessary for salvation, Paul defied them, and prevailed. Titus was not circumcised.
VERSE 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they
were, it maketh no matter to me.
This is a good point in Paul's refutation. Paul disparages the authority and dignity of the true apostles. He says of them, "Which seemed to be somewhat." The authority of the apostles was indeed great in all the churches. Paul did not want to detract from their authority, but he had to speak disparagingly of their authority in order to conserve the truth of the Gospel, and the liberty of conscience.
The false apostles used this argument against Paul: "The apostles lived with Christ for three years. They heard His sermons. They witnessed His miracles. They themselves preached and performed miracles while Christ was on earth. Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. Now, whom ought you to believe: Paul, who stands alone, a mere disciple of the apostles, one of the last and least; or will you believe those grand apostles who were sent and confirmed by Christ Himself long before Paul?"
What could Paul say to that? He answered: "What they say has no bearing on the argument. If the apostles were angels from heaven, that would not impress me. We are not now discussing the excellency of the apostles. We are talking about the Word of God now, and the truth of the Gospel. That Gospel is more excellent than all apostles."
VERSE 6. God accepteth no man's person.
Paul is quoting Moses: "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty." (Lev. 19:15) This quotation from Moses ought to shut the mouths of the false apostles. "Don't you know that God is no respecter of persons?" cries Paul. The dignity or authority of men means nothing to God. The fact is that God often rejects just such who stand in the odor of sanctity and in the aura of importance. In doing so God seems unjust and harsh. But men need deterring examples. For it is a vice with us to esteem personality more highly than the Word of God. God wants us to exalt His Word and not men.
There must be people in high office, of course. But we are not to deify them. The governor, the mayor, the preacher, the teacher, the scholar, father, mother, are persons whom we are to love and revere, but not to the extent that we forget God. Least we attach too much importance to the person, God leaves with important persons offenses and sins, sometimes astounding shortcomings, to show us that there is a lot of difference between any person and God. David was a good king. But when the people began to think too well of him, down he fell into horrible sins, adultery and murder. Peter, excellent apostle that he was, denied Christ. Such examples of which the Scriptures are full, ought to warn us not to repose our trust in men. In the papacy appearance counts for everything. Indeed, the whole papacy amounts to nothing more than a mere kowtowing of persons and outward mummery. But God alone is to be feared and honored.
I would honor the Pope, I would love his person, if he would leave my conscience alone, and not compel me to sin against God. But the Pope wants to be adored himself, and that cannot be done without offending God. Since we must choose between one or the other, let us choose God. The truth is we are commissioned by God to resist the Pope, for it is written, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
We have seen how Paul refutes the argument of the false apostles concerning the authority of the apostles. In order that the truth of the Gospel may continue; in order that the Word of God and the righteousness of faith may be kept pure and undefiled, let the apostles, let an angel from heaven, let Peter, let Paul, let them all perish.
VERSE 6. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added
nothing to me.
The Apostle repeats: "I did not so confer with the apostles that they taught me anything. What could they possibly teach me since Christ by His revelation had taught me all things? It was but a conference, and no disputation. I learned nothing, neither did I defend my cause. I only stated what I had done, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith in Christ, without the Law, and that in response to my preaching the Holy Ghost came down upon the Gentiles. When the apostles heard this, they were glad that I had taught the truth."
If Paul would not give in to the false apostles, much less ought we to give in to our opponents. I know that a Christian should be humble, but against the Pope I am going to be proud and say to him: "You, Pope, I will not have you for my boss, for I am sure that my doctrine is divine." Such pride against the Pope is imperative, for if we are not stout and proud we shall never succeed in defending the article of the righteousness of faith.
If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet. But since we cannot obtain this concession, we will give in to nobody, not to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. If in this matter we were to humble ourselves, they would take from us the God who created us, and Jesus Christ who has redeemed us by His blood. Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus Christ—we will not stand for it that anybody take them from us.
VERSES 7, 8. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the
uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision
was unto Peter; [For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles.]
Here the Apostle claims for himself the same authority which the false apostles attributed to the true apostles. Paul simply inverts their argument. "To bolster their evil cause," says he, "the false apostles quote the authority of the great apostles against me. I can quote the same authority against them, for the apostles are on my side. They gave me the right hand of fellowship. They approved my ministry. O my Galatians, do not believe the counterfeit apostles!"
What does Paul mean by saying that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him, and that of the circumcision to Peter? Did not Paul preach to the Jews, while Peter preached to the Gentiles also? Peter converted the Centurion. Paul's custom was to enter into the synagogues of the Jews, there to preach the Gospel. Why then should he call himself the apostle of the Gentiles, while he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision?
Paul refers to the fact that the other apostles remained in Jerusalem until the destruction of the city became imminent. But Paul was especially called the apostle of the Gentiles. Even before the destruction of Jerusalem Jews dwelt here and there in the cities of the Gentiles. Coming to a city, Paul customarily entered the synagogues of the Jews and first brought to them as the children of the kingdom, the glad tidings that the promises made unto the fathers were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. When the Jews refused to hear these glad tidings, Paul turned to the Gentiles. He was the apostle of the Gentiles in a special sense, as Peter was the apostle of the Jews.
Paul reiterates that Peter, James, and John, the accepted pillars of the Church, taught him nothing, nor did they commit unto him the office of preaching the Gospel unto the Gentiles. Both the knowledge of the Gospel and the commandment to preach it to the Gentiles, Paul received directly from God. His case was parallel to that of Peter's, who was particularly commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Jews.
The apostles had the same charge, the identical Gospel. Peter did not proclaim a different Gospel, nor had he appointed his fellow apostles. They were equals. They were all taught of God. None was greater than the other, none could point to prerogatives above the other. To justify his usurped primacy in the Church the Pope claims that Peter was the chief of the apostles. This is an impudent falsehood.
VERSE 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter.
With these words Paul refutes another argument of the false apostles. "What reason have the false apostles to boast that the Gospel of Peter was mighty, that he converted many, that he wrought great miracles, and that his very shadow healed the sick? These reports are true enough. But where did Peter acquire this power? God gave him the power. I have the same power. I received my power, not from Peter, but from the same God, the same Spirit who was mighty in Peter was mighty in me also." Luke corroborates Paul's statement in the words: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." (Acts 19:11, 12.)
To conclude, Paul is not going to be inferior to the rest of the apostles. Some secular writers put Paul's boasting down as carnal pride. But Paul had no personal interest in his boasting. It was with him a matter of faith and doctrine. The controversy was not about the glory of Paul, but the glory of God, the Word of God, the true worship of God, true religion, and the righteousness of faith.
VERSE 9. And when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
"The fact is, when the apostles heard that I had received the charge to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles from Christ; when they heard that God had wrought many miracles through me; that great numbers of the Gentiles had come to the knowledge of Christ through my ministry; when they heard that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost without Law and circumcision, by the simple preaching of faith; when they heard all this they glorified God for His grace in me." Hence, Paul was justified in concluding that the apostles were for him, and not against him.
VERSE 9. The right hands of fellowship.
As if the apostles had said to him: "We, Paul, do agree with you in all things. We are companions in doctrine. We have the same Gospel with this difference, that to you is committed the Gospel for the uncircumcised, while the Gospel for the circumcision is committed unto us. But this difference ought not to hinder our friendship, since we preach one and the same Gospel."
VERSE 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same
which I also was forward to do.
Next to the preaching of the Gospel, a true and faithful pastor will take care of the poor. Where the Church is, there must be the poor, for the world and the devil persecute the Church and impoverish many faithful Christians.
Speaking of money, nobody wants to contribute nowadays to the maintenance of the ministry, and the erection of schools. When it comes to establishing false worship and idolatry, no cost is spared. True religion is ever in need of money, while false religions are backed by wealth.
VERSE 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the
face, because he was to be blamed.
Paul goes on in his refutation of the false apostles by saying that in Antioch he withstood Peter in the presence of the whole congregation. As he stated before, Paul had no small matter in hand, but the chief article of the Christian religion. When this article is endangered, we must not hesitate to resist Peter, or an angel from heaven. Paul paid no regard to the dignity and position of Peter, when he saw this article in danger. It is written: "He that loveth father or mother or his own life, more than me, is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37.)
For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend, is not Peter's cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause we must be firm and unyielding.
When he says, "to his face," Paul accuses the false apostles of slandering him behind his back. In his presence they dared not to open their mouths. He tells them, "I did not speak evil of Peter behind his back, but I withstood him frankly and openly."
Others may debate here whether an apostle might sin. I claim that we ought not to make Peter out as faultless. Prophets have erred. Nathan told David that he should go ahead and build the Temple of the Lord. But his prophecy was afterwards corrected by the Lord. The apostles erred in thinking of the Kingdom of Christ as a worldly state. Peter had heard the command of Christ, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." But if it had not been for the heavenly vision and the special command of Christ, Peter would never have gone to the home of Cornelius. Peter also erred in this matter of circumcision. If Paul had not publicly censured him, all the believing Gentiles would have been compelled to receive circumcision and accept the Jewish law. We are not to attribute perfection to any man.
Luke reports "that the contention between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp that they departed asunder one from the other." The cause of their disagreement could hardly have been small since it separated these two, who had been joined together for years in a holy partnership. Such incidents are recorded for our consolation. After all, it is a comfort to know that even saints might and do sin.
Samson, David, and many other excellent men, fell into grievous sins. Job and Jeremiah cursed the day of their birth. Elijah and Jonah became weary of life and prayed for death. Such offenses on the part of the saints, the Scriptures record for the comfort of those who are near despair. No person has ever sunk so low that he cannot rise again. On the other hand, no man's standing is so secure that he may not fall. If Peter fell, I may fall. If he rose again, I may rise again. We have the same gifts that they had, the same Christ, the same baptism and the same Gospel, the same forgiveness of sins. They needed these saving ordinances just as much as we do.
VERSE 12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles.
The Gentiles who had been converted to faith in Christ, ate meats forbidden by the Law. Peter, visiting some of these Gentiles, ate meat and drank wine with them, although he knew that these things were forbidden in the Law. Paul declared that he did likewise, that he became as a Jew to the Jews, and to them that were without law, as without law. He ate and drank with the Gentiles unconcerned about the Jewish Law. When he was with the Jews, however, he abstained from all things forbidden in the Law, for he labored to serve all men, that he "might by all means save some." Paul does not reprove Peter for transgressing the Law, but for disguising his attitude to the Law.
VERSE 12. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Paul does not accuse Peter of malice or ignorance, but of lack of principle, in that he abstained from meats, because he feared the Jews that came from James. Peter's weak attitude endangered the principle of Christian liberty. It is the deduction rather than the fact which Paul reproves. To eat and to drink, or not to eat and drink, is immaterial. But to make the deduction "If you eat, you sin; if you abstain you are righteous"—this is wrong.
Meats may be refused for two reasons. First, they may be refused for the sake of Christian love. There is no danger connected with a refusal of meats for the sake of charity. To bear with the infirmity of a brother is a good thing. Paul himself taught and exemplified such thoughtfulness. Secondly, meats may be refused in the mistaken hope of thereby obtaining righteousness. When this is the purpose of abstaining from meats, we say, let charity go. To refrain from meats for this latter reason amounts to a denial of Christ. If we must lose one or the other, let us lose a friend and brother, rather than God, our Father.
Jerome, who understood not this passage, nor the whole epistle for that matter, excuses Peter's action on the ground "that it was done in ignorance." But Peter offended by giving the impression that he was indorsing the Law. By his example he encouraged Gentiles and Jews to forsake the truth of the Gospel. If Paul had not reproved him, there would have been a sliding back of Christians into the Jewish religion, and a return to the burdens of the Law.
It is surprising that Peter, excellent apostle that he was, should have been guilty of such vacillation. In a former council at Jerusalem he practically stood alone in defense of the truth that salvation is by faith, without the Law. Peter at that time valiantly defended the liberty of the Gospel. But now by abstaining from meats forbidden in the Law, he went against his better judgment. You have no idea what danger there is in customs and ceremonies. They so easily tend to error in works.
VERSE 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
It is marvelous how God preserved the Church by one single person. Paul alone stood up for the truth, for Barnabas, his companion, was lost to him, and Peter was against him. Sometimes one lone person can do more in a conference than the whole assembly.
I mention this to urge all to learn how properly to differentiate between the Law and the Gospel, in order to avoid dissembling. When it come to the article of justification we must not yield, if we want to retain the truth of the Gospel.
When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. The Law has its place and its own good time. While Moses was in the mountain where he talked with God face to face, he had no law, he made no law, he administered no law. But when he came down from the mountain, he was a lawgiver. The conscience must be kept above the Law, the body under the Law.
Paul reproved Peter for no trifle, but for the chief article of Christian doctrine, which Peter's hypocrisy had endangered. For Barnabas and other Jews followed Peter's example. It is surprising that such good men as Peter, Barnabas, and others should fall into unexpected error, especially in a matter which they knew so well. To trust in our own strength, our own goodness, our own wisdom, is a perilous thing. Let us search the Scriptures with humility, praying that we may never lose the light of the Gospel. "Lord, increase our faith."
VERSE 14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to
the truth of the gospel.
No one except Paul had his eyes open. Consequently it was his duty to reprove Peter and his followers for swerving from the truth of the Gospel. It was no easy task for Paul to reprimand Peter. To the honor of Peter it must be said that he took the correction. No doubt, he freely acknowledged his fault.
The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. If it is a question of works, then lift high the lantern of works and the righteousness of the Law. If your conscience is oppressed with a sense of sin, talk to your conscience. Say: "You are now groveling in the dirt. You are now a laboring ass. Go ahead, and carry your burden. But why don't you mount up to heaven? There the Law cannot follow you!" Leave the ass burdened with laws behind in the valley. But your conscience, let it ascend with Isaac into the mountain.
In civil life obedience to the law is severely required. In civil life Gospel, conscience, grace, remission of sins, Christ Himself, do not count, but only Moses with the lawbooks. If we bear in mind this distinction, neither Gospel nor Law shall trespass upon each other. The moment Law and sin cross into heaven, i.e., your conscience, kick them out. On the other hand, when grace wanders unto the earth, i.e., into the body, tell grace: "You have no business to be around the dreg and dung of this bodily life. You belong in heaven."
By his compromising attitude Peter confused the separation of Law and Gospel. Paul had to do something about it. He reproved Peter, not to embarrass him, but to conserve the difference between the Gospel which justifies in heaven, and the Law which justifies on earth.
The right separation between Law and Gospel is very important to know. Christian doctrine is impossible without it. Let all who love and fear God, diligently learn the difference, not only in theory but also in practice.
When your conscience gets into trouble, say to yourself: "There is a time to die, and a time to live; a time to learn the Law, and a time to unlearn the Law; a time to hear the Gospel, and a time to ignore the Gospel. Let the Law now depart, and let the Gospel enter, for now is the right time to hear the Gospel, and not the Law." However, when the conflict of conscience is over and external duties must be performed, close your ears to the Gospel, and open them wide to the Law.
VERSE 14. I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest
after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest
thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews
To live as a Jew is nothing bad. To eat or not to eat pork, what difference does it make? But to play the Jew, and for conscience' sake to abstain from certain meats, is a denial of Christ. When Paul saw that Peter's attitude tended to this, he withstood Peter and said to him: "You know that the observance of the Law is not needed unto righteousness. You know that we are justified by faith in Christ. You know that we may eat all kinds of meats. Yet by your example you obligate the Gentiles to forsake Christ, and to return to the Law. You give them reason to think that faith is not sufficient unto salvation."
Peter did not say so, but his example said quite plainly that the observance of the Law must be added to faith in Christ, if men are to be saved. From Peter's example the Gentiles could not help but draw the conclusion that the Law was necessary unto salvation. If this error had been permitted to pass unchallenged, Christ would have lost out altogether.
The controversy involved the preservation of pure doctrine. In such a controversy Paul did not mind if anybody took offense.
VERSE 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
"When we Jews compare ourselves with the Gentiles, we look pretty good. We have the Law, we have good works. Our rectitude dates from our birth, because the Jewish religion is natural to us. But all this does not make us righteous before God." Peter and the others lived up to the requirements of the Law. They had circumcision, the covenant, the promises, the apostleship. But because of these advantages they were not to think themselves righteous before God. None of these prerogatives spell faith in Christ, which alone can justify a person. We do not mean to imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the Law, circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke disparagingly of these ordinances, because the false apostles asserted that mankind is saved by them without faith. Paul could not let this assertion stand, for without faith all things are deadly.
VERSE 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
For the sake of argument let us suppose that you could fulfill the Law in the spirit of the first commandment of God: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart." It would do you no good. A person simply is not justified by the works of the Law.
The works of the Law, according to Paul, include the whole Law, judicial, ceremonial, moral. Now, if the performance of the moral law cannot justify, how can circumcision justify, when circumcision is part of the ceremonial law?
The demands of the Law may be fulfilled before and after justification. There were many excellent men among the pagans of old, men who never heard of justification. They lived moral lives. But that fact did not justify them. Peter, Paul, all Christians, live up to the Law. But that fact does not justify them. "For I know nothing by myself," says Paul, "yet am I not hereby justified." (I Cor. 4:4.)
The nefarious opinion of the papists, which attributes the merit of grace and the remission of sins to works, must here be emphatically rejected. The papists say that a good work performed before grace has been obtained, is able to secure grace for a person, because it is no more than right that God should reward a good deed. When grace has already been obtained, any good work deserves everlasting life as a due payment and reward for merit. For the first, God is no debtor, they say; but because God is good and just, it is no more than right (they say) that He should reward a good work by granting grace for the service. But when grace has already been obtained, they continue, God is in the position of a debtor, and is in duty bound to reward a good work with the gift of eternal life. This is the wicked teaching of the papacy.
Now, if I could perform any work acceptable to God and deserving of grace, and once having obtained grace my good works would continue to earn for me the right and reward of eternal life, why should I stand in need of the grace of God and the suffering and death of Christ? Christ would be of no benefit to me. Christ's mercy would be of no use to me.
This shows how little insight the pope and the whole of his religious coterie have into spiritual matters, and how little they concern themselves with the spiritual health of their forlorn flocks. They cannot believe that the flesh is unable to think, speak, or do anything except against God. If they could see evil rooted in the nature of man, they would never entertain such silly dreams about man's merit or worthiness.
With Paul we absolutely deny the possibility of self merit. God never yet gave to any person grace and everlasting life as a reward for merit. The opinions of the papists are the intellectual pipe-dreams of idle pates, that serve no other purpose but to draw men away from the true worship of God. The papacy is founded upon hallucinations.
The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of a sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.
The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ's sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.
The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it "charity infused." This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.
They also claim that we are able to love God by our own natural strength, to love God above all things, at least to the extent that we deserve grace. And, say the scholastics, because God is not satisfied with a literal performance of the Law, but expects us to fulfill the Law according to the mind of the Lawgiver, therefore we must obtain from above a quality above nature, a quality which they call "formal righteousness."
We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.
In contrast to the doting dreams of the scholastics, we teach this: First a person must learn to know himself from the Law. With the prophet he will then confess: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." And, "against thee, thee only, have I sinned."
Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul's words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin."
At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ."
In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.
In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.
Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness.
This imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the Holy Spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, "that our sins are covered," and that "God will not lay them to our charge." Sin is not held against us for Christ's sake. Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation.
After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works. "Since you have found Christ by faith," we say, "begin now to work and do well. Love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks unto Him, praise Him, confess Him. These are good works. Let them flow from a cheerful heart, because you have remission of sin in Christ."
When crosses and afflictions come our way, we bear them patiently. "For Christ's yoke is easy, and His burden is light." When sin has been pardoned, and the conscience has been eased of its dreadful load, a Christian can endure all things in Christ.
To give a short definition of a Christian: A Christian is not somebody who chalks(sp) sin, because of his faith in Christ. This doctrine brings comfort to consciences in serious trouble. When a person is a Christian he is above law and sin. When the Law accuses him, and sin wants to drive the wits out of him, a Christian looks to Christ. A Christian is free. He has no master except Christ. A Christian is greater than the whole world.
VERSE 16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified.
The true way of becoming a Christian is to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law.
We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of justification.
Here the question arises by what means are we justified? We answer with Paul, "By faith only in Christ are we pronounced righteous, and not by works." Not that we reject good works. Far from it. But we will not allow ourselves to be removed from the anchorage of our salvation.
The Law is a good thing. But when the discussion is about justification, then is no time to drag in the Law. When we discuss justification we ought to speak of Christ and the benefits He has brought us.
Christ is no sheriff. He is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29.)
VERSE 16. That we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by
the works of the Law.
We do not mean to say that the Law is bad. Only it is not able to justify us. To be at peace with God, we have need of a far better mediator than Moses or the Law. We must know that we are nothing. We must understand that we are merely beneficiaries and recipients of the treasures of Christ.
So far, the words of Paul were addressed to Peter. Now Paul turns to the Galatians and makes this summary statement:
VERSE 16. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
By the term "flesh" Paul does not understand manifest vices. Such sins he usually calls by their proper names, as adultery, fornication, etc. By "flesh" Paul understands what Jesus meant in the third chapter of John, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". (John 3:6.) "Flesh" here means the whole nature of man, inclusive of reason and instincts. "This flesh," says Paul, "is not justified by the works of the law."
The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life."
To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith.
Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.
This is, then, our general conclusion: "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
VERSE 17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves
also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God
forbid.
Either we are not justified by Christ, or we are not justified by the Law. The fact is, we are justified by Christ. Hence, we are not justified by the Law. If we observe the Law in order to be justified, or after having been justified by Christ, we think we must further be justified by the Law, we convert Christ into a legislator and a minister of sin.
"What are these false apostles doing?" Paul cries. "They are turning Law into grace, and grace into Law. They are changing Moses into Christ, and Christ into Moses. By teaching that besides Christ and His righteousness the performance of the Law is necessary unto salvation, they put the Law in the place of Christ, they attribute to the Law the power to save, a power that belongs to Christ only."
The papists quote the words of Christ: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matt. 19:17.) With His own words they deny Christ and abolish faith in Him. Christ is made to lose His good name, His office, and His glory, and is demoted to the status of a law enforcer, reproving, terrifying, and chasing poor sinners around.
The proper office of Christ is to raise the sinner, and extricate him from his sins.
Papists and Anabaptists deride us because we so earnestly require faith. "Faith," they say, "makes men reckless." What do these law-workers know about faith, when they are so busy calling people back from baptism, from faith, from the promises of Christ to the Law?
With their doctrine these lying sects of perdition deface the benefits of Christ to this day. They rob Christ of His glory as the Justifier of mankind and cast Him into the role of a minister of sin. They are like the false apostles. There is not a single one among them who knows the difference between law and grace.
We can tell the difference. We do not here and now argue whether we ought to do good works, or whether the Law is any good, or whether the Law ought to be kept at all. We will discuss these questions some other time. We are now concerned with justification. Our opponents refuse to make this distinction. All they can do is to bellow that good works ought to be done. We know that. We know that good works ought to be done, but we will talk about that when the proper time comes. Now we are dealing with justification, and here good works should not be so much as mentioned.
Paul's argument has often comforted me. He argues: "If we who have been justified by Christ are counted unrighteous, why seek justification in Christ at all? If we are justified by the Law, tell me, what has Christ achieved by His death, by His preaching, by His victory over sin and death? Either we are justified by Christ, or we are made worse sinners by Him."
The Sacred Scriptures, particularly those of the New Testament, make frequent mention of faith in Christ. "Whosoever believeth in him is saved, shall not perish, shall have everlasting life, is not judged," etc. In open contradiction to the Scriptures, our opponents misquote, "He that believeth in Christ is condemned, because he has faith without works." Our opponents turn everything topsy-turvy. They make Christ over into a murderer, and Moses into a savior. Is not this horrible blasphemy?
VERSE 17. Is therefore Christ the minister of sin?
This is Hebrew phraseology, also used by Paul in II Corinthians, chapter 3. There Paul speaks of two ministers: The minister of the letter, and the minister of the spirit; the minister of the Law, and the minister of grace; the minister of death, and the minister of life. "Moses," says Paul, "is the minister of the Law, of sin, wrath, death, and condemnation."
Whoever teaches that good works are indispensable unto salvation, that to gain heaven a person must suffer afflictions and follow the example of Christ and of the saints, is a minister of the Law, of sin, wrath, and of death, for the conscience knows how impossible it is for a person to fulfill the Law. Why, the Law makes trouble even for those who have the Holy Spirit. What will not the Law do in the case of the wicked who do not even have the Holy Spirit?
The Law requires perfect obedience. It condemns all who do not accomplish the will of God. But show me a person who is able to render perfect obedience. The Law cannot justify. It can only condemn according to the passage: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
Paul has good reason for calling the minister of the Law the minister of sin, for the Law reveals our sinfulness. The realization of sin in turn frightens the heart and drives it to despair. Therefore all exponents of the Law and of works deserve to be called tyrants and oppressors.
The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin. That this is the purpose of the Law can be seen from the account of the giving of the Law as reported in the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Exodus. Moses brought the people out of their tents to have God speak to them personally from a cloud. But the people trembled with fear, fled, and standing aloof they begged Moses: "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." The proper office of the Law is to lead us out of our tents, in other words, out of the security of our self-trust, into the presence of God, that we may perceive His anger at our sinfulness.
All who say that faith alone in Christ does not justify a person, convert Christ into a minister of sin, a teacher of the Law, and a cruel tyrant who requires the impossible. All merit-seekers take Christ for a new lawgiver.
In conclusion, if the Law is the minister of sin, it is at the same time the minister of wrath and death. As the Law reveals sin it fills a person with the fear of death and condemnation. Eventually the conscience wakes up to the fact that God is angry. If God is angry with you, He will destroy and condemn you forever. Unable to stand the thought of the wrath and judgment of God, many a person commits suicide.
VERSE 17. God forbid.
Christ is not the minister of sin, but the Dispenser of righteousness and the Giver of life. Christ is Lord over law, sin and death. All who believe in Him are delivered from law, sin and death.
The Law drives us away from God, but Christ reconciles God unto us, for "He is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." Now if the sin of the world is taken away, it is taken away from me. If sin is taken away, the wrath of God and His condemnation are also taken away. Let us practice this blessed conviction.
VERSE 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make
myself a transgressor.
"I have not preached to the end that I build again the things which I destroyed. If I should do so, I would not only be laboring in vain, but I would make myself guilty of a great wrong. By the ministry of the Gospel I have destroyed sin, heaviness of heart, wrath, and death. I have abolished the Law, so that it should not bother your conscience any more. Should I now once again establish the Law, and set up the rule of Moses? This is exactly what I should be doing, if I would urge circumcision and the performance of the Law as necessary unto salvation. Instead of righteousness and life, I would restore sin and death."
By the grace of God we know that we are justified through faith in Christ alone. We do not mingle law and grace, faith and works. We keep them far apart. Let every true Christian mark the distinction between law and grace, and mark it well.
We must not drag good works into the article of justification as the monks do who maintain that not only good works, but also the punishment which evildoers suffer for their wicked deeds, deserve everlasting life. When a criminal is brought to the place of execution, the monks try to comfort him in this manner: "You want to die willingly and patiently, and then you will merit remission of your sins and eternal life." What cruelty is this, that a wretched thief, murderer, robber should be so miserably misguided in his extreme distress, that at the very point of death he should be denied the sweet promises of Christ, and directed to hope for pardon of his sins in the willingness and patience with which he is about to suffer death for his crimes? The monks are showing him the paved way to hell.
These hypocrites do not know the first thing about grace, the Gospel, or Christ. They retain the appearance and the name of the Gospel and of Christ for a decoy only. In their confessional writings faith or the merit of Christ are never mentioned. In their writings they play up the merits of man, as can readily be seen from the following form of absolution used among the monks.
"God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen."
True, the merit of Christ is mentioned in this formula of absolution. But if you look closer you will notice that Christ's merit is belittled, while monkish merits are aggrandized. They confess Christ with their lips, and at the same time deny His power to save. I myself was at one time entangled in this error. I thought Christ was a judge and had to be pacified by a strict adherence to the rules of my order. But now I give thanks unto God, the Father of all mercies, who has called me out of darkness into the light of His glorious Gospel, and has granted unto me the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.
We conclude with Paul, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without the Law. Once a person has been justified by Christ, he will not be unproductive of good, but as a good tree he will bring forth good fruit. A believer has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will not permit a person to remain idle, but will put him to work and stir him up to the love of God, to patient suffering in affliction, to prayer, thanksgiving, to the habit of charity towards all men.
VERSE 19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
This cheering form of speech is frequently met with in the Scriptures, particularly in the writings of St. Paul, when the Law is set against the Law, and sin is made to oppose sin, and death is arrayed against death, and hell is turned loose against hell, as in the following quotations: "Thou hast led captivity captive," Psalm 68:18. "O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction," Hosea 13:14. "And for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," Romans 8:3.
Here Paul plays the Law against the Law, as if to say: "The Law of Moses condemns me; but I have another law, the law of grace and liberty which condemns the accusing Law of Moses."
On first sight Paul seems to be advancing a strange and ugly heresy. He says, "I am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." The false apostles said the very opposite. They said, "If you do not live to the law, you are dead unto God."
The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul's day. Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live." Paul, on the other hand, teaches, "We cannot live unto God unless we are dead unto the Law." If we are dead unto the Law, the Law can have no power over us.
Paul does not only refer to the Ceremonial Law, but to the whole Law. We are not to think that the Law is wiped out. It stays. It continues to operate in the wicked. But a Christian is dead to the Law. For example, Christ by His resurrection became free from the grave, and yet the grave remains. Peter was delivered from prison, yet the prison remains. The Law is abolished as far as I am concerned, when it has driven me into the arms of Christ. Yet the Law continues to exist and to function. But it no longer exists for me.
"I have nothing to do with the Law," cries Paul. He could not have uttered anything more devastating to the prestige of the Law. He declares that he does not care for the Law, that he does not intend ever to be justified by the Law.
To be dead to the Law means to be free of the Law. What right, then, has the Law to accuse me, or to hold anything against me? When you see a person squirming in the clutches of the Law, say to him: "Brother, get things straight. You let the Law talk to your conscience. Make it talk to your flesh. Wake up, and believe in Jesus Christ, the Conqueror of Law and sin. Faith in Christ will lift you high above the Law into the heaven of grace. Though Law and sin remain, they no longer concern you, because you are dead to the Law and dead to sin."
Blessed is the person who knows how to use this truth in times of distress."
— Martin Luther
"Wake up at 5am, I fell in love again. Something wrong with living life like this. At work can't help but stare, long legs, her dark brown hair."
- Self
{Sooo...Have I mentioned that I'm sick of me being the only thing I can find pictures to take of lately?}
this old beauty was given to me by my girlfriend´s dad who found it amongst his dad´s stuff. her solid metal body is somewhat battered and bruised but the lens seemed to be fully intact and clear. so i got some 120 roll film and gave it a try. the roll will be developed soon and i´m anxious to see if the shutter is still working properly.
the nettar folding cams were made by the zeiss ikon company from the 1930´s till the late 50´s. this one is a nettar 515/2 which i learned were released in 1937. more info about the nettar series here
©All photographs on this site are copyright: ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams) 2011 – 2021 & GETTY IMAGES ®
No license is given nor granted in respect of the use of any copyrighted material on this site other than with the express written agreement of ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams). No image may be used as source material for paintings, drawings, sculptures, or any other art form without permission and/or compensation to ©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams)
.
.
I would like to say a huge and heartfelt 'THANK YOU' to GETTY IMAGES, and the 48.673+ Million visitors to my FLICKR site.
***** Selected for sale in the GETTY IMAGES COLLECTION on Friday 26th January 2024
CREATIVE RF gty.im/1959354961 MOMENT ROYALTY FREE COLLECTION**
This photograph became my 6,741st frame to be selected for sale in the Getty Images collection and I am very grateful to them for this wonderful opportunity.
©DESPITE STRAIGHT LINES (Paul Williams)
.
.
Photograph taken in the magic of the golden hour around sunrise at an altitude of Two metres, at 06:42am on Thursday 5th September 2019 around sunrise off 1st Street and Bevan Avenue, between the boat jetty and Bevan Avenue Fishing Pier in beautiful Sidney by the sea on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada.
In the distance we see Mt Baker in Washington State, USA, an active glaciated andesitic stratovolcano in the Cascade Volcanic Arc and the North Cascades. Standing 3,286 metres tall, she was first ascended in 1868, her last eruption recorded in 1880.
The four Salishan language speaking First Nation bands nearest to Mount Baker know her by different names. Known to the Halkomelem as Kwelxá:lxw, Kwelshán (wounded by a shot) to the Lummi,Teqwúbe7 (snow-capped peak) to Lushootseed speakers along the Skagit River, and to the Nooksack language, the ice- and snow-covered top is Kweq’ Smánit (white mountain) while the high meadows around the peak are Kwelshán (shooting place)”. There are also unsubstanciated references to Mt Baker as Komo Kulshan (pronounced kō-ō’mah’ kool-shän’), the name for the Middle Fork which originates from the glaciers such as Deming and Thunder on the western slopes, though Koma or Komo Kulshan is not a native name for the mountain in any of the twenty three collective Salishan languages.
The name Mount Baker first appeared in print in Captain Vancouver’s 1798 narrative of his voyage around Vancouver Island. Legend has it that his third-lieutenant, Joseph Baker, was the first to spot the mountain while they sailed into Dungeness Bay on April 30th, 1792.
The Bevan Avenue fishing pier is one of the main focal points in Sidney, and Work commenced on the pier in 1993 with Phase one, a 90 metre straight section being completed in 1996. A year later the 110 metre Phase two section was completed. Currently in February 2023, tenders are being invited for major renovations to the pier to include Localized replacement of coating system on pier structures, Installation of a pile wrapping system, Localized steel repairs, and Installation of supplemental sacrificial anodes.
Work will commence April 15th 2023 and terminated in September 2023.
.
.
Nikon D850 Focal length 24mm Shutter speed: 1.5s Aperture: f/16.0 iso64 RAW (14 bit uncompressed) Image size L (8256 x 5504 FX) Focus mode: AF-C focus 51 point Area Mode: 3D- tracking Exposure mode: Aperture priority exposure Nikon Back button focusing enabled Metering Mode:Matrix metering White balance: Natural light auto, 0, 0 Colour space: Adobe RGB Long Exposure Noise Reduction: On Nikon Distortion control: On Picture control: (SD) Standard Sharpening +3.00 Clarity +1.00 Vignette control: Normal Active D-lighting: Auto
Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. Cokin GND4 resin filter (2 stops) . Nikon EN-EL15a battery.Mcoplus professional MB-D850 multi function battery grip 6960. Matin quick release neckstrap. My Memory 128GB Class 10 SDXC 80MB/s card. Lowepro Flipside 400 AW camera bag. Nikon GP-1 GPS module. Hoodman HEYENRG round eyepiece oversized eyecup.Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod 3 Sections (Payload: 5.6kgs). Manfrotto 327RC2 Light Duty Grip Ball Magnesium Tripod Head (Payload: 5.5kgs). Manfrotto quick release plate 200PL-14. Jessops Tripod bag.Nikon MC-DC2 remote shutter release cable.
LATITUDE: N 48d 38m 52.70s
LONGITUDE: W 123d 23m 36.67s
ALTITUDE: 2.0m
RAW (TIFF) FILE: 130.00MB NEF: 90.5MB
PROCESSED (JPeg) FILE: 28.50MB
PROCESSING POWER:
Nikon D850 Firmware versions C 1.10 (9/05/2019) LD Distortion Data 2.017 (20/3/18) LF 1.00
HP 110-352na Desktop PC with AMD Quad-Core A6-5200 APU 64Bit processor. Radeon HD8400 graphics. 8 GB DDR3 Memory with 1TB Data storage. 64-bit Windows 10. Verbatim USB 2.0 1TB desktop hard drive. WD My Passport Ultra 1tb USB3 Portable hard drive. Nikon ViewNX-1 64bit (Version 1.3.1 11/07/2019). Nikon Capture NX-D 64bit (Version 1.4.7 15/03/2018). Nikon Picture Control Utility 2 (Version 1.3.2 15/03/2018). Adobe photoshop Elements 8 Version 8.0 64bit.
St George, Stowlangtoft, Suffolk
Given that our parish churches almost without exception underwent restorations in the 19th Century, it should be obvious that when we enter a medieval church, we are encountering a Victorian vision of the medieval. Even when the actual furnishings and fittings are medieval, the whole piece is still a Victorian conception.
Inevitably, the question arises of what was there before the restoration and what wasn't. The obvious answer is that we must assume that nothing is as it first appears.
A prime example of a church that assumes a continuity that may not actually be the truth is here in the flat fields between Woolpit and Ixworth. This part of Suffolk can be rather bleak in winter, but in summer the churchyard here is verdant and golden, as beautiful a place as any in the county. The church is large, and yet unusually narrow. It sits on a mound that has been cut down on one side by the road. In the churchyard you'll find the well-known memorial to the art critic Peter Fuller and his unborn son, killed in a car crash in 1990.
In the churchyard wall there is what appears to be broken medieval window tracery, which is worth noticing, for hereby hangs a tale.
St George is one of the great Suffolk churches. Although it may externally appear a little severe, and is by no means as grand as Blythburgh, Long Melford and the rest, it is a treasure house of the medieval inside. Unusually for a church of its date, it was all rebuilt in one go, in the late 14th century, and the perpendicular windows are not yet full of the 'walls of glass' confidence that the subsequent century would see. The tracery appears to have been repaired, and possibly even renewed, which may explain the tracery in the churchyard wall. However, it doesn't take much to see that the tracery in the wall is not perpendicular at all, but decorated. So it may be that the broken tracery is from the original church that the late 14th century church replaced. But the wall itself isn't medieval, so where had it been all those years? Is it possible that the current window tracery is not medieval at all?
Stowlangtoft church featured in Simon Jenkins' book England's Thousand Best Churches, which sends plenty of visitors to its locked door, and may help stave off the inevitable for a while, for there is no real congregation here any more and the church is moribund. Regular services are held across the fields at Pakenham, and St George is now only used on special occasions. The key is kept across the road, where the very nice lady told me in February 2018 that the church is now headed for redundancy. It seems likely that care of it will be conveyed into the hands of the Churches Conservation Trust.
You step in through the chancel door (the lock here is very awkward, but do persevere) and if you are anything like me you will head straight down to the west end where you will find the font. Likethe window tracery, it asks some questions. Unusually, it features a Saint on seven of the panels, Christ being on the westwards face. Mortlock dates it to the early 14th century, and the Saints it shows are familiar cults from that time: St Margaret, St Catherine, St Peter and St Paul, and less commonly St George. The cult of St George was at its height in the early years of the 14th century. Mortlock describes the font as mutilated, and it certainly isn't looking its best. But I think there is more going on here than meets the eye. Fonts were plastered over in Elizabethan times, and only relief that stood proud of the plaster was mutilated. These are all shallow reliefs, and I do not think they have been mutilated at all. To my eye at least, this stonework appears weathered. I wonder if this font was removed from the church, probably in the mid-17th century, and served an outdoor purpose until it was returned in the 19th century.
The story of this church in the 19th century is well-documented. In 1832, as part of his grand tour of Suffolk, David Davy visited, and was pleased to find that the church was at last undergoing repair. The chancel had been roofless, and the nave used for services. A new Rectory was being built. Who was the catalyst behind all this? His name was Samuel Rickards, and he was Rector here for almost the middle forty years of the 19th century. Roy Tricker notes that he was a good friend of John Henry Newman, the future Cardinal, and they often corresponded on the subject of the pre-Reformation ordering of English churches. It is interesting to think how, at this seminal moment, Rickards might have informed the thought of the Oxford Movement. Sadly, when Newman became a Catholic, Rickards broke off all correspondence with him.
During the course of the 1840s and 1850s, Rickards transformed Stowlangtoft church. He got the great Ipswich woodcarver Henry Ringham in to restore, replicate and complete the marvellous set of bench ends - Ringham did the same thing at Woolpit, a few miles away. Ringham's work is so good that it is sometimes hard for the inexperienced eye to detect it. However, as at Woolpit, Ringham only copied animals here, and the weirder stuff is all medieval, and probably dates from the rebuilding of the church. The glory of Stowlangtoft's bench ends is partly the sheer quantity - there are perhaps 60 carvings - but also that there are several unique subjects.
The carvings appear to be part of the same group as Woolpit and Tostock - you will recognise the unicorn, the chained bear, the bull playing a harp, the bird with a man's head, from similar carvings elsewhere. And then hopefully that little alarm bell in your heard should start to go "Hmmmm....." because some of the carvings here are clearly not from the same group. It is hard to believe that the mermaid and the owl, for example, are from the same workshop, or even from the same decade. The benches themselves are no clue, as it was common practice in the 19th century to replace medieval bench ends on modern benches, or on medieval benches, or even on modern benches made out of medieval timber (as happened at Blythburgh). Could it be that Samuel Rickards found some of these bench ends elsewhere? Could he have been the kind of person to do a thing like that?
Well, yes he could. As Roy Tricker recalls, the medieval roof at the tractarian Thomas Mozley's church at Cholderton in Wiltshire is East Anglian. Rickards acquired it after finding it in storage in Ipswich docks. It presumably came from one of the Ipswich churches. In the ferment of the great 19th century restoration of our English churches, there was loads of medieval junk lying around, much of it going begging. But was Samuel Rickards the kind of person to counterfeit his church's medieval inheritance?
Well, yes he probably was. The faux-medieval roundels in the windows of the nave are clearly not medieval at all, but were in fact the work of the young Lucy Rickards, daughter of Samuel Rickards himself. Some are clearly to the young girl's design, and Pevsner notes that others are copied from medieval manuscript illustrations in the British Museum, although the Holy Kinship and Presentation in the Temple roundels at least are very close copies of the Flemish roundels of the same subjects in Nowton church on the other side of Bury St Edmunds.
Truly medieval is the vast St Christopher wall-painting still discernible on the north wall. It was probably one of the last to be painted. The bench ends are medieval, of course, as is the fine rood-screen dado, albeit repainted. There is even some medieval figure glass in the upper tracery of some of the windows, including St Agnes holding a lamb and four Old Testament prophets. The laughable stone pulpit is Rickard's commission, and the work of William White. What can Rickards have been thinking of? But we step through into the chancel, and suddenly the whole thing moves up a gear. For here are some things that are truly remarkable.
In a county famous for its woodwork, the furnishings of Stowlangtoft's chancel are breathtaking, even awe-inspiring. Behind the rood screen dado is Suffolk's most complete set of return stalls. Most striking are the figures that form finials to the stall ends. They are participants in the Mass, including two Priests, two servers and two acolytes. The figure of the Priest at a prayer desk must be one of the best medieval images in Suffolk, and Mortlock thought the stalls the finest in England.
The benches that face eastwards are misericords, and beneath them are wonderful things: angels, lions and wodewoses, evangelistic symbols and crowned heads. A hawk captures a hare, a dragon sticks out its tongue. Between the seats are weird oriental faces.
Now, you know what I am going to ask next. How much of this is from this church originally? It all appears medieval work, and there is no reason to believe it might not have been moved elsewhere in the church when the chancel was open to the elements. What evidence have we got?
Firstly, we should notice that the only other Suffolk church with such a large number of medieval misericords of this quality is just a mile away, at Norton. I don't ask you to see this as significant, merely to notice it in passing. Secondly, I am no carpenter, but it does look to me as though two sets of furnishings have been cobbled together; the stalls that back on to the screen appear to have been integrated into the larger structure of stalls and desks that front them and the north and south walls.
However, if you look closely at the figures of the two Deacons, you will see that they are bearing shields of the Ashfield and Peche families. The Ashfield arms also appear on the rood screen, and the Ashfields were the major donors when the church was rebuilt in the 14th century. So on balance I am inclined to think that the greater part of the stall structure was in this church originally from when it was rebuilt. And the misericords? Well, I don't know. But I think they have to be considered as part of the same set as those at Norton. In which case they may have come from the same church, which may have been this one, but may not have been. Almost certainly, the stalls at Norton did not come from Norton church, and folklore has it that they were originally in the quire of Bury Abbey.
Other remarkable things in St George include FE Howard's beautiful war memorial in the former north doorway, and in the opposite corner of the nave Hugh Easton's unexpectedly gorgeous St George, which serves the same purpose. He's not an artist I usually admire, but it is as good as his work at Elveden. Back up in the chancel is a delightful painted pipe organ which was apparently exhibited at, and acquired from, the Great Exhibition of 1851.
But St George at Stowlangtoft is, of course, most famous for the Flemish carvings that flank the rather heavy altarpiece. They were given to the church by Henry Wilson of Stowlangtoft Hall, who allegedly found them in an Ixworth junk shop. They show images from the crucifixion story, but are not Stations of the Cross as some guides suggest. They date from the 1480s, and were almost certainly the altarpiece of a French or Flemish monastery that was sacked during the French Revolution. The carvings were once brightly painted, and piled up in a block rather than spread out in a line. The niches, and crowning arches above them, are 19th century.
One cold winter's night in January 1977, a gang of thieves broke into this locked church and stole them. Nothing more was seen or heard of them until 1982, when they were discovered on display in an Amsterdam art gallery. Their journey had been a convoluted one. Taken to Holland, they were used as security for a loan which was defaulted upon. The new owner was then burgled, and the carvings were fenced to an Amsterdam junk dealer. They were bought from his shop, and taken to the museum, which immediately identified them as 15th century carvings. They put them on display, and a Dutch woman who had read about the Stowlangtoft theft recognised them.
The parish instituted legal proceedings to get them back. An injunction was taken out to stop the new owner removing them from the museum. The parish lost the case, leaving them with a monstrous legal bill, but the story has a happy ending. A Dutch businessman negotiated their purchase from the owner, paid off the legal bills, and returned the carvings to Stowlangtoft. Apparently this was all at vast cost, but the businessman gave the gift in thanks for Britain's liberation of Holland from the Nazis. No, thank you, sir.
Today, the carvings are fixed firmly in place and alarmed, so they won't be going walkabout again. But a little part of me wonders if they really should be here at all. Sure, they are medieval, but they weren't here originally, and they weren't even in England originally. Wouldn't it be better if they were displayed somewhere safer, where people could pay to see them, and provide some income for the maintenance of the church building? And then, whisper it, when St George is taken on by the CCT they might even be able to leave it open.