ST. PETER’S, NOTTING-HI LL.—A second visit to this church enabled us to
hear a sermon preached by the respected Vicar himself, the Rev. John
Robbins, D.D. The text was taken from 2 Tim. i. 12: ‘For I know whom I
have believed.’ The subject of the discourse was _Faith_; and after a
brief _exordium_, illustrating that faith was man’s own act under the
influence of Divine grace, and improved by the exercise of a man’s own
faculties, the preacher proceeded to show that when God commands us to
believe, and when he is pleased to make our faith a condition of
salvation, it would seem that faith cannot be “some magical and arbitrary
something which suddenly falls into the soul,” but a thing which in some
measure depends on ourselves. Faith, in all its stages and degrees,
“always” depended on the _will_. The principle was illustrated by the
experience of two persons starting in life, each having a certain faith
in justice and honesty derived from early education—the one yields to the
temptations of evil, and the other resists, the result being that the
first loses all faith, whilst the other grows in it to
perfection—retaining “the moral ideal and will” to a “high and happy
development.” Each of these characters is responsible for the degree of
his faith, that “depending on the action of his own will.” Faith, then,
was strengthened by fidelity; and he would say to them, “Live for
holiness, truth, justice, the good, the beautiful, the true, and then
they would surely believe that they were not mere cold abstractions of
theology, but the most real of all things! Let them now go to the very
core of religious faith. If the Gospel told them to believe in Jesus
Christ, was it not that Jesus Christ is truth, was holiness, love, living
and incarnate? The more they followed him the more they would believe in
him. For instance, there is one who as yet sees in Jesus a mere man, but
his doctrine attracts and seems of a beauty incomparable. He would not
like to pass for a man without faith, yet when he analysed his faith he
found that it reduced itself to a mere belief in Christ’s moral teaching.
That was very little, said some of them. But he was not one to despise
little beginnings. Let him act up to his faith, and strive to conform
his own life to the sublimity of Christ’s morality, and keep that object
courageously and unflinchingly in view, and he would not need to continue
this long before he would be forced to admit that he was very far from
his end, and that the holiness of Christ’s life completely and utterly
transcends the natural strength of mere humanity. It would not then
require a great effort in him to believe that the Scripture speaks truly
when it speaks of the fall of man and the slavery of sin. He would defy
him to examine his state long before a voice from the depths of his own
heart told him that he too needed pardon. Following this it would bring
him to the foot of the cross, and then, casting a glance of holy
self-abnegation (which was faith in her truest aspect), he would
gratefully adore the divine wisdom which was able to reconcile on the
cross, justice and mercy; and, ravished by a pardon which alone could
satisfy the conscience, he would rise the redeemed of the Lord, and able
to say with St. Paul, ‘I know in whom I have believed.’” After some
further discriminating views as to the possible variations in human
experience in the attainment of saving faith, the preacher concluded with
a pointed application of the truth to his hearers, the sermon lasting
about forty minutes. As a preacher, Dr. Robbins is earnest and
intelligent. He uses his MS., but does so freely, without apparently
being trammelled by it. As we before remarked upon his excellent reading
of the Scriptures, we can now record a similar view of his pulpit work.
His manner is natural and impressive, and his style fresh; whilst there
is evident painstaking to think out a subject for his audience, and to
enable them to follow him along the course of his argument. His
congregation is large, and, in appearance, of the more wealthy and
educated classes; and his mode of teaching the experience of true faith
as above was probably an adaptation to the mental habitude and
circumstances of his hearers. We can conceive a different class of
audience whom Dr. Robbins would soon discover to require quite another
way of putting the process of religious experience. But it is surely a
great part of the wisdom of the Christian teacher to find out the
readiest line by which those to whom he is ministering can be led to
Christ. Yet, the impression is probably correct that the Rev. Doctor is
in theology of the “Broad Church School.”
THE PRO-CATHEDRAL, KENSINGTON.—At the time of our former sketch of this
place, the principal preacher did not occupy the pulpit, and we therefore
now append a note on Monsignor Capel, who is unquestionably a leading
attraction at the Pro-Cathedral. This rev. father appears about forty
years of age, and may be said to be very superior in everything as a
preacher, except that in which, after all, we must conclude it is of the
highest moment that a preacher should attain perfection—viz., the Gospel.
To say that he does not preach the Gospel would not be quite correct; but
there is just so much that is not the Gospel intermingling in his
discourses, that we much fear that in many the good wheat must be choked
by the tares. As a divine, he is, of course, framed upon the Roman
Catholic system of theology—and all that can be said is that his
preaching does not illustrate the peculiarities of Popery more strongly
than the fundamental truths of the Christian religion. To a cultivated
theological ear the latter will form the staple of his discourses, and
the former the colouring incidents. And they are there in sufficient
degree to show that Monsignor Capel studiously identifies all the errors
of Romanism with the Gospel—enough to a decided Protestant ear to mar the
better effect of his eloquence. To hear him makes one grieve that such
elocutionary powers as he manifestly possesses are not confined
altogether to the illustration of those great verities of the Gospel upon
which he often descants with feeling and power. But he is trammelled by
Romish dogma and tradition. It is impossible to deny that Monsignor
Capel is an orator of no mean order. We have heard greater pulpit
orators certainly, but seldom one who, upon the whole, has been more
pleasing in his own style. He has not only the natural gift of voice and
manner, but he has culture, which together, if he were in any other than
the Roman Catholic Church, would probably open his way to extensive
influence. He is now, however, ministering to a congregation of four or
five hundred in the morning, and six or seven in the evening, in great
measure of a very miscellaneous and unsettled character. He preaches
quite extempore; but such is the order maintained throughout his
discourse, and such the flow of appropriate language, that an idea of the
most careful preparation is conveyed to the hearer. We are creditably
informed by those who know the habits of the rev. gentleman that he is a
very hard worker; that, in fact, he works “night and day” at sermonising;
hence no doubt the freshness and general excellence of his pulpit
orations. Such harmonious arrangement of thought, with such general
felicity of diction, continued, as a rule, for from forty-five minutes to
an hour, can only come of mental labour in the study. The discourse we
heard was from the words “The Prince of Peace,” being the morning of
Christmas-eve. After an appropriate introduction, the preacher proceeded
to enlarge on the following topics: I. Christ was the only source of that
principle on which peace could be obtained by man. Under this head the
enmity between God and man, by reason of original sin, and reconciliation
by the atoning death of Christ were topics fully brought out; and an
affecting appeal was made to the congregation on the “vanity” of seeking
peace in earthly or conventional sources without coming to the cross.
II. Christ was the sole undivided object of our affections, and as such
was the centre of, the Prince of Peace to his people. Here the ways in
which the Saviour seeks to win the affections of his people were
treated—even, the preacher said, to the “multiplying himself upon our
altars.” In view of such tokens of condescending love, the
uncharitableness of Christians, and their frequent cynical criticisms on
their fellow-Christians, “even from the Pope down to the peasant,” were
sharply rebuked, and the habitual imitation of Christ’s own love and
tenderness enforced: for thus were all men to know that they were his
disciples—that they “loved one another.” III. Christ was the Prince of
Peace in that he prescribes the rule by which we are to follow peace. We
must submit to his authority in this; and this authority he had placed in
his Church. Many sought it outside the Church, in pursuing their own
fancies, or the opinions of other men; but to them there was no peace.
And even within the Church, although “the great body of Catholics held
the truth,” yet there was a vast amount of perverseness with some, and a
sad tendency to follow their private judgment, or the teaching of some
preacher or order, rather than the directions of the Church. But the
Church alone had authority to teach, and if we would have peace of soul
we must be ruled by those fundamental laws of authority reposed in her.
She taught that the royal road to peace was by the Cross. The crown of
thorns must be upon our heads. “There must be bodily mortification as
well as interior mortification.” He advised them to try a week of
mortification—willingly to take up their cross—they would then see if
peace would not follow. With this they were to connect prayer; _prayer_,
and not _vain repetitions_. They were to struggle as earnestly for this
divine peace as they had often done for some earthly object. These views
were expanded and applied with great force of language and facility of
illustration, together with a pathos in appeal which led one to lament
that it had not a sounder basis of biblical teaching to rest upon. But
Romish dogmas and discipline were often put in the place of the free and
open word of God, and bodily exercise in the place of penitent faith unto
salvation. Then as to all the eloquence, the fine, flowing sentences,
the vocal modulations, we were inclined to ask, “_Cui bono_?” It seemed
after all but beating the air—a strange confusion of Bible truth and
man’s inventions and conceits; as distinct from sound reason as from
sound doctrine.
ST. MARK’S, NOTTING-HILL.—Since our first article on this church we have
availed ourselves of a second visit. The Rev. E. K. Kendall, the vicar,
of whose usual ministry we had heard very favourable accounts, preached
the sermon. Being the first Sunday after Epiphany, the rev. gentleman
took his text from Luke ii. and 51st, “And he went down with them and
came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them.” The preacher had on the
previous day discoursed on the visit of the Magi to the infant Saviour,
and remarked upon the _humility_ of these learned men in the presence of
the Babe of Bethlehem. He now passed to the still greater example of
humility, presented in the life and conduct of the Redeemer himself, who
dwelt at Nazareth in humble subjection to his parents, and visibly grew
in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. His mother, the
lowliest of saints, might well think of these things, and wonder at the
strange dealings of Providence which led her to exaltation by such a way
of humility. The present season was full of the same teaching—viz., that
“Before honour is humility.” There was not only the lowly mother called
“Blessed” because the Most High had done great things for her; not only
the humble wise men, laying aside the pride of human learning before the
great mystery of Godliness, but there was the still more wonderful
abasement of Him who is the Son of God, but still emptied himself of his
glory and took on him the form of a servant, made in the likeness of man,
and prepared for his Divine work by the life of simple obedience in the
carpenter’s home in despised Nazareth. Strange it may seem to us—strange
in this nineteenth century, that humility should be thus set before us as
pre-eminently a Christian grace, and that the title and admission to the
blessings of the Christian covenant should be still declared, “Except ye
be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no case enter the
kingdom of heaven.” “Be ye clothed with humility.” The saints in all
ages had learned as a first lesson on entering the Divine Presence, that
the only seemly attitude of a sinner is one of self-abasement. He would
not have them to think that the religion of Christ was one suitable only
for a world in its infancy and not in its manhood, as some in their pride
taught; and therefore he would enforce the absolute necessity of all
being clothed in the same humble garment. The language of Scripture was
undeniable in its inculcation of a teachable and childlike spirit. The
Old Testament was as clear upon this point as the New, both alike
insisting on the duty of obedience not only in a child, but in a man, and
this not only to the ordinance and revelation of God, but even for the
Lord’s sake to the ordinance of man. Ambition as such was in every one
condemned. It is the duty of man to use and not abuse the powers and
gifts which come from God; and if he thus becomes great as the world
reckons greatness, it is only because God has given him the power, and
the responsibility of using that power well. But those who measure
themselves by themselves, and compare themselves among themselves were
not wise. Christianity may be summed up in three words, Repentance,
Faith, Obedience, and each of those implies that the man is humble—humble
for his own faults, which abase him in dust and ashes; humble as to his
own understanding, submitting to believe that which he cannot see; humble
as to his own judgment—even in practical matters content to obey rather
than behave as may best suit his own notions or convenience. Was it not
so, that this humility many would consider somewhat out of date. True a
man of extreme self-assertion was apt to wound the pride of his
neighbours, and so come to be despised, especially if his pretence were
without solid qualities to back it. But did we on the whole esteem and
admire those who are humble-minded; were we not too apt to judge as if
such a quality were a sign of weakness in its possessor? Or that,
however lovely it might appear, it is not one of those virtues which
ordinary men can afford to cultivate, but rather as a hothouse plant or
tender exotic; too frail to stand the rough blasts of the world? Were
there not tendencies ahead which seem to show that humility is thought by
some a virtue which might beseem the babyhood of civilisation; but that
it is ours to practice a mode of thinking and acting natural to its
manhood? Repentance well enough if it only meant living by experience of
the past; faith well enough for those devoid of critical faculties, but
certainly not to be exacted for any dogmas or doctrines even from the
unlearned, who should be left free to their own opinions; obedience well
enough as a thing to be claimed so far as society may agree to lay down
certain rules for its own protection or benefit, to which all citizens
must submit as a matter simply of mutual convenience, not at all as a
matter of duty. He (the preacher) did not exaggerate when he said that
such were the evil tendencies which seemed to him to be at work among us,
contrary alike to the principles of true religion and true wisdom,
repeating in a form suited to our own day the first temptation of our
first parents in Eden. Were they not reminded of the saying of
Scripture—that in the last days “perilous times should come; for men
shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural
affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers
of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure
more than lovers of God, having the form of Godliness, but denying the
power thereof.” He thought the lessons of the Nativity and Epiphany came
as a very wholesome corrective to these tendencies. The preacher went on
to show that the causes of this want of humility were that God was
forgotten, and self-abasing views of his holiness were, therefore, not
obtained; and that men lost sight of the fact that this humility was a
Divine grace, and insisted that it was not to be looked on as littleness,
want of enterprise or subtle resource, and certainly not a want of power,
and that the greatest of men have been most noted for humility. A very
effective sermon on the subject was brought to a close by a pointed and
affectionate application of the truth, that this humility can alone lead
us to true dignity and peace. As a preacher, Mr. Kendall possesses a
style of simple and engaging eloquence, with a clear utterance, one under
which it is next to impossible to be inattentive. Though advantage is
taken of the M.S., the sermon is nevertheless _preached_, and that with
considerable expression of manner. Indeed, we are glad to observe the
old style of simply _reading_ over sermons in a perfunctory manner
passing out of sight; and Mr. Kendall is a good example of the happy
change. The sermon was not too long or too short but struck the medium
well, at the point of thirty-five minutes. We were pleased in this case
with the fine effect of a good pulpit to preach from. St. Mark’s is one
of the best pulpits we have seen, being of noble proportions and
commanding, and is a good setting for any preacher who may occupy it.
This is no small matter in church architecture.
ST. AUGUSTINE’S, SOUTH KENSINGTON.—The church of this name, since our
former notice, has removed from the temporary iron building then used, to
the permanent structure in Queen’s gate. This was opened in an
incomplete condition in September last, the works of the exterior not
being finished and the chancel not built. In consequence of these
circumstances the Bishop of London declined to consecrate it, and service
is carried on in the nave. The edifice, when all complete, will have
cost about 18,000_l._, more than one-half of which has yet to be raised.
The building of the chancel is therefore delayed, upon which we
understand the Vicar, Mr. Chope, is intending to expend a large sum.
Meanwhile, a space is appropriated for a chancel and choir out of the
nave, and under what is to be the chancel-arch. The architect, Mr.
Butterfield, has produced thus far an elegant interior, combined with
strength. Six beautiful columns of alternate blocks of Bath stone and
Portland divide the nave on each side from the aisles, and support an
equal number of imposing Gothic arcades in Bath-stone, and clerestory of
variegated brickwork. The windows of the clerestory are numerous, and
form the only medium of light and ventilation. The west front exterior
is in the Decorated style, built of red and straw-coloured brick, with
Bath-stone dressings. A principal feature is the _window tracery_, which
is elaborately carried out. The style of the worship is precisely as in
the former place, only we do not observe the same _punctilio_ in
separating the male and female portion of the audience. At every repeat
of the _Gloria Patri_, the clergy and choristers turn their backs to the
people; the intoning was done, in the purest Gregorian tone, by the Vicar
himself, and the Litany was chanted by one of the curates, kneeling in
front of the altar with his back to the congregation. As an instance of
the effect of the Ritualistic style on the minds of persons brought up in
the plain Christian worship of the Church of England, we may mention that
at one part of the service, a gentleman, evidently a stranger from the
country, turned and observed to us inquiringly, “I suppose this _is_ a
Church of England Church, is it not, Sir?” He was clearly in perplexity
upon the subject, and after he received our answer he looked on with
growing astonishment through the whole service. The sermon was preached
by a visiting clergyman; who possessed a very good voice, but which, from
some unfortunate peculiarity in its use, did not succeed in conveying to
us at the other end of the church one single intelligible sentence.
Apart from sundry not unmusical modulations—alternating with whispers—the
whole was a blank even to our somewhat practised ear. The church has
very grave acoustic defects, or the preacher equally grave defects in the
management of his vocal organ. Accommodation is here provided for 1,000
persons. At the opening service it is recounted by persons present that
the celebrant at the communion, at the close of the service, in presence
of the people, drank up all the wine that remained, completely turning
the chalice bottom upwards, and ate all the bread with scrupulous care.
There is a large metal crucifix fixed upon a block on the altar. What is
the real difference between this and its standing on the altar itself?
It is in “apparent connection with the altar,” and the vicar must know
that this is a contravention of the law. Two huge candle-sticks with
candles are upon the altar, and occasionally lit at times “when not
wanted for the purpose of giving light.” This also is a thing not
allowed. Mr. Willis is building an organ for this church at a cost of
1,000_l._, towards which not 300_l._ has yet been promised.
Services—Sunday, Communion at 8 A.M.; matins, Litany, and sermon at 11
A.M.; second celebration at 12.30 P.M.; evensong and sermon at 7 P.M.
Week-day matins at 10 A.M.; evensong at 3 P.M. Saints’ days and
Thursdays, at 8 A.M., Holy Communion. Full choral service on Sundays and
the greater holy days. Christmas-day, choral A.M., and carols at
midnight.
ST. MATTHIAS, WEST BROMPTON.—The nave of this church is now being built,
apparently in the same style as that of St. Augustine. Meanwhile, the
temporary structure is used within the outer building shell. Mr. Haines,
since our former notice, has not failed to refine Romewards upon his even
then notorious Ritualism. Some of his immediate neighbours, who
occasionally attend his place, have expressed astonishment at his
progress. At the celebration of the Eucharist after a Sunday morning
service we ourselves observed that it was difficult in reality to
distinguish it from High Mass at the Pro-Cathedral or the Oratory. There
were three priests at the altar, with their backs to the audience,
mysteriously manipulating the elements, crossing and recrossing each
other, in frequent change of place, bowing each time to the centre,
alternately kneeling and rising together, breaking the dumb motions with
an occasional priestly murmur, given in exact imitation of the Low Latin
monotone of a Romish priest, all varied now and then with a few stains in
solo or chorus from the choir, which was in full force, apparently
emulating the Mass music of other places. All this in the dim light of a
shaded chancel, with three sevens of candles burning on altar, flanked by
two tall ones on the right and left—twenty-three candles in all—with
sundry other movements of symbolical design, and we have the St. Matthias
representation of the Mass. The congregation was a full one for a
Communion Service; but in the main composed of young persons, many of
whom appeared to be present from curiosity or in the capacity of
catechumens.
ST. PAUL’S ONSLOW-SQUARE.—On a second visit we had the opportunity of
hearing the Rev. C. Molyneaux, vicar. Having heard of his fame as an
eloquent and Evangelical minister, we were anxious that the “Index”
should not go forth in its separate form without a note which seemed
necessary to complete our former account. Our impression on hearing Mr.
Molyneaux was that public report concerning him, had “nothing
exaggerated,” nor “set down aught in malice.” And, indeed, it is
noteworthy that the general impression created concerning a minister is
seldom far from the truth as to prevailing characteristics, although it
may often be amenable to correction on those finer points which require
experience and trained appreciation to estimate. Mr. Molyneaux’s voice
is moderately strong only, but his utterance is distinct, and therefore
he can be well heard in every part of the church. He preaches
_extempore_; but has so well prepared his theme, that his thoughts and
language flow evenly and briskly on without hindrance or incumbrance to
the end. We can truly say that we have never listened to a minister
without a MS. with more of that pleasureable sense which arises from the
feeling that he who is addressing us is perfectly free from
embarrassment. Nothing troubles a hearer more than to feel that the
preacher has not thoroughly mastered his subject, and therefore is liable
at every step to mental perturbation. We can safely promise any who go
to worship at St. Paul’s and to hear the Rev. Capel Molyneaux the most
complete immunity from any such infliction. The address is intelligible
to every one, the eloquence is of that home-speaking kind which is most
likely to find its way to the heart, and, doubtless, it does reach to the
hearts of many; whilst the teaching is in the main of that unmistakable
Gospel kind which enlightens without mystifying. Mr. Molyneaux is at the
antipodes from those “priests” who are oft in preaching up the “Church,”
the “Clergy,” the “Altar,” much as though they were afraid people would
forget their own professional importance. In the ministry at St. Paul’s
all this essential emptiness is scattered to the winds. The great themes
are Christ himself, his redemption for man, his glory, and the future of
his faithful people. On the latter subject the rev. gentleman discoursed
on the day in question—“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband.” (Rev. xxi. 2.) The preacher opened with expressions of
gratitude that the new Lectionary had enabled them that day, for the
first time in the history of their Church, to read under authority from
the book of Revelation. It was to him (the preacher) a remarkable and
somewhat discreditable fact that the use of a book of Scripture into
which the Holy Spirit had introduced words of special blessing had been,
though not intentionally, yet virtually ignored and proscribed in the
public service of the Church. He intended to take advantage of the happy
change now brought about to expound to the congregation the heavenly
teaching of that important book. In everything that Mr. Molyneaux said
about the general blissful prospects of the faithful every mind would
gratefully concur; but even this excellent minister is not without his
peculiarities. If men _will_ have peculiarities of doctrinal views, we
had rather far that they refer to the future than to the past, because
here men can indulge their fancy with an innocence which they cannot when
they take liberty with the accomplished and recorded facts of Bible
history. Prophecy offers a wide scope for the imagination to play in;
and Mr. Molyneaux has lively imagination, and gives it a bold flight in
dealing with the mystical book. It was apparent enough that the preacher
was a _Millennarian_; no doubt conscientiously so. First, he considered
the City itself; secondly, its relations to this earth; and thirdly, the
general religious purpose and utility of such a revelation. The preacher
declaimed warmly against the “Spiritualists,” who explain everything in a
spiritual sense only. This city was “no shadow,” “no myth,” but “a real
city,” “a locality,” “a glorious habitation.” True there were figurative
expressions in describing its “foundations, walls of precious stones,
gates,” &c., but all this must represent something. It indicated a
reality, or else we were led astray from beginning to end. This was
evident enough. But it was not quite so plain to our understanding when
speaking of the relations of this city to earth, the preacher represented
it as coming literally down to a position “contiguous” to earth, and
there being situated with Christ the King and Ruler in it; and, by
excessive glory, giving light to the saved nations of the earth, which
(the earth) it was emphatically declared would “never be destroyed,” but
would continue “for ever and ever.” This descent of the city was to be
the salvation of “the nations” then living; and Israel occupying the
foremost place. It was an error to suppose that the nations of the earth
would ever be converted by the preaching of the Gospel, or that there
would be anything different to what we witness now, before that great
event. No nation ever had been, no nation as such ever would be,
converted until then. The conversion of individuals would go on, and
many now in sin may be and would be converted. But nothing beyond this.
We confess to feeling a great deal of prophetic confusion under this
teaching, because whilst the rev. gentleman was rapidly, and with some
appearance of appositeness, quoting passages in proof his opinions, our
mind instinctively reverted to other portions of Scripture which he did
not refer to or attempt to explain. But this, perhaps, he will do on
some future occasion. Thus one could not but think of the 11th verse of
the 20th chapter, on the subject of the earth’s abiding—“And I saw a
great white Throne and Him that sat upon it: from whose face the earth
and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them”—and in
the very verse preceding the preacher’s text—“And I saw a new heaven and
a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;
and there was no more sea.” It seemed to us a very heavy draw upon the
imagination to ask us to believe that the descent of the city was to be a
literal fact, without believing the context entitled to a literal
accomplishment. But as our object is not polemical we cannot pursue, if
we sometimes permit ourselves to suggest controversy. In conclusion we
may say, notwithstanding some divergence of view in minor matters, how
much we esteem the Rev. C. Molyneux as an able and earnest minister on
all essential themes of the New Testament, and admire him for his
sharply-defined Evangelical type; and as to vestment, declining to change
the colour of his pulpit garb from black to white, although advised by
the bishops. If men think there is anything of principle at the bottom
of the vestment controversy, they ought certainly to be decided and
unflinching on the side they conscientiously take. But Mr. Molyneux as a
Premillennialist is quite another question; and we may be excused for
expressing a serious doubt as to the possibility of maintaining the
Chiliast theories on Scriptural grounds.
KENSINGTON PALACE CHAPEL.—The palace is always associated with
Kensington, being in the very heart of the parish, although strictly
speaking not belonging to the parish. It is this which gives to
Kensington the distinction of the “Court suburbs,” although by some
ancient eccentricity of events it is really situated in the parish of St.
Margaret, Westminster. Yet it comes properly within our province to
notice it here, as far as the “Chapel Royal” is concerned, included in
the familiar red brick pile spoken of as Kensington Palace. It will
probably be known to most readers that William III. was the first Royal
proprietor and resident of the palace. In the various alterations that
monarch effected, he took care to impress upon the building the plain
Dutch style; so that if we may attribute to him the existing chapel
before it was used as such first in 1834, there is no ground for surprise
at its extremely primitive and unpretending character. It was the
character of the man who breathed his last within those walls. William
was not one with a passion for magnificent palaces; but was as happy and
content as his nature would allow in this place in society with his
beloved Mary, whose death he lamented with the modest remark, “_I cannot
but grieve_, _since I have lost a wife who_, _during my marriage_, _has
never been guilty of a single indiscretion_.” Queen Anne, both beloved
and adored by her subjects, Prince George of Denmark, were much at this
palace; also the two first Georges and Queen Caroline, who herself
effected most of the improvements in the Royal residence. It is
impossible that we should forget to note in our day, that here her
present Majesty passed her early days, and here too she held her first
council on acceding to the throne. In taking a seat in this little
chapel, it is difficult to repress, even for higher considerations, a
multitude of thoughts which gather around our modern English history. It
has nothing of architectural beauty to boast of, being nothing more nor
less than a loft apartment in the palace set apart for Divine service.
The ceiling is heavily ribbed and panelled, the walls simply distempered,
and the three arched openings to the west answer, without the slightest
ornament, the sole useful purpose of admitting the light. A dado all
round forms a back to the high square pewing, and the communion table,
which is fixed, without any ecclesiastical reference, at the south end.
There is a simple prayer-desk on the east, and a high pulpit on the west
side, in which, in consequence of disproportion to the entire space, the
preacher is well nigh lost to view. The north end is occupied by the
Royal pew, elevated considerably above the rest, and screened by crimson
curtains. The body of the chapel is filled with about forty chairs. Any
strangers, or people from without, are here accommodated, whilst the
servants and other members of the household occupy the tall pews which
run parallel with the walls—there being in all 71 seats. The singing is
assisted by a harmonium, the young lady performer on which is not cheered
with much vocal companionship. The instrument was presented by Queen
Victoria. The communion plate is marked with the initials and arms of
William III., Queen Anne, and George II. Worship is here conducted in a
simple, homely manner; and the Rev. W. T. Bullock, the Chaplain, is a
minister that has to content himself with that, and appears to have no
disposition to go beyond. His sermon, however, struck us as being more
elaborate than necessary to the audience then present; but it must be
remembered that he often has to address royal personages from that high
pulpit. The Princess Mary Adelaide of Teck, her circle and royal
visitors, sometimes step into the high pew, and the minister is put upon
his best efforts, and to be always ready is to be on the safe side. On
Sunday there is a short household service at 8.30 A.M.; full service,
with sermon, at 11.15; evening prayer, without sermon, at 3.30; singing
practice at 4 P.M. Family prayer every morning at 8.30. Holy communion
first Sunday in the month.
ST. MATTHIAS, WARWICK ROAD, WEST BROMPTON.—This church is now near
completion. The nave and aisles are built, and the flooring laid down.
It is Early English in style, the arcades and columns and lofty roof,
with the distant stained window of the chancel, producing a pleasing,
though quiet, effect. The interior is everything here, the exterior is
very plain, the lancet windows alone defining the structure. There is no
entrance from the west and principal front, and the public approach to
the church is only by two doors—one on the north, and the other on the
south side; an arrangement approved of by the Incumbent as one to prevent
the gathering of idle persons around the entrance from the main road, and
so securing greater quiet in the services. The building is calculated to
accommodate, on one floor, 1000 persons, and upon special occasions 1200
might find place in it. It is built after the designs of Mr. J. H.
Hakewill, of South Molton Street, by Messrs. R. Avis and Co., of Baltic
Wharf, Putney. In our former account we referred to the very superior
organ with which this church is furnished, built by Mr. Henry Jones, of
the Fulham Road. We are pleased now to be able to give a complete
description of this fine instrument.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGAN IN ST. MATTHIAS’ CHURCH, WARWICK ROAD,
KENSINGTON.—This Organ has 3 Manuals, compass of each CC to C, 61 notes,
and an independent Pedal Organ, compass CCC to F, 30 notes. The Stops
are arranged as under:—
GREAT ORGAN, CC to C, 61 notes.
Compass. Pitch. Pipes.
(Feet)
1. Bourdon CC 16 wood 61
2. Open Diapason CC 8 metal 61
3. Rohe Flöte CC 8 wood 61
4. Gamba C 8 metal 49
5. Flute CC 8 ,, 61
Harmonique
6. Octave CC 4 „ 61
7. Flute CC 4 ,, 61
Harmonique
8. Octave Quint CC 2⅔ „ 61
9. Super octave CC 2 „ 61
10. Great Mixture CC various „ 214
(4 ranks)
11. Trumpet CC 8 „ 61
12. Clarion CC 4 „ 61
Total 903
SWELL ORGAN, CC to C, 61 notes.
13. Bourdon CC 16 wood 61
14. Open Diapason CC 8 metal 61
15. Salicional C 8 ,, 49
16. Lieblich Gedact CC 8 wood 61
17. Octave CC 4 metal 61
18. Flute CC 4 „ 61
Harmonique
19. Super octave CC 2 ,, 61
20. Mixture (3 CC various ,, 183
ranks)
21. Horn CC 8 „ 61
22. Oboe C 8 ,, 49
23. Clarion CC 4 ,, 61
Total 769
CHOIR ORGAN, CC to C, 61 notes.
24. Geigen CC 8 metal 61
Principal
25. Dulciana CC 8 ,, 61
26. Lieblich Gedact CC 8 ,, 61
27. Flauto Traverso CC 4 wood 61
28. Flautina CC 2 ,, 61
29. Keranlophon C 4 metal 49
30. Clarionet C 8 ,, 49
Total 403
PEDAL ORGAN, CCC to F, 30 notes.
31. Great Bass CCC 16 wood 30
32. Sub-Bass CCC 16 wood 30
33. Violoncello CCC 8 ,, 30
34. Trombone CCC 16 [wood and
metal] 30
Total 120
ACCESSORIES.
35. Coupler.—Swell to Great Organ.
36. ,, Swell to Choir Organ.
37. ,, Swell to Pedals.
38. ,, Great Organ to Pedals.
39. ,, Choir to Pedals
40. ,, Choir to Great Organ.