Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

It is said, that in order to avoid this doom, the natives are accustomed to force a kind of snuff up their noses, on these occasions, in prodigious quantities; and are thus enabled to feign a grief they cannot feel.

VII. Dress and Personal Appearance.-The men wear what they call “ Umtchas,” and “ Senemies." The first are strips of skins of animals, neatly fastened to a small strip of hide, reaching from hip to hip, fastened in front by cords. The second are slips of skins, reaching from the waist to the knees. .

The dress of the women is called an “Issecarker.” It consists of a kind of petticoat, fastened round the waist, and descending to the knees; sometimes a piece of skin, made flexible, is worn to cover the breast.

A profusion of beads are worn by both sexes round their heads, necks, waists, legs and arms. They also wear brass and copper armlets; with brass balls and collar for the neck.

Boys, under ten, have no ornaments, but go perfectly naked. Girls of that age, and above it, wear a sort of fringe, (manufactured from roots,) round the middle, about four inches deep; the other parts of the body are quite naked and unornamented.

A chief, when attired in his war dress, has a cap, or ring of otter skin round the forehead, and just above the eyes ; in which is introduced a crane's feather, in front. On his shoulders, breast and back he wears a tippet, made of white cow's tail; while round each arm and wrist, and above each ankle, is worn some more large tails, belonging to the same animal, An Umcooboola ; or, kilt, made of the skins of the civet cat, is appended to the waist, and descends to the knees.

The dress of the warriors consists of a cap and feather, tippet and cow's tail; but with the addition of a piece of hide, in imitation of the tails behind.

On occasions of great festivities, the principal women deck themselves out in the skin of a buck, with the hair scraped off the middle, fastened under the arms, so as to cover their breasts; two rows of brass balls being attached at the bottom, and the tops ornamented with beads.

Ronnd their waists is fastened a petticoat, manufactured from bullock's bide, reaching to the ankles, with two strips, each about a yard long, dragging as a train on the ground; the whole of it being coloured black to resemble black cloth or duffle.

Over the shoulders are tastefully thrown two negligees of seed beads, forming a cross, behind and before, with four rows of beads round the forehead. The dress is completed by a few beads around the arms, waist and ankles.

The tout ensemble of this dress must be quite elegant for a savage.

The Zoolu men are said to be, without exception, the finest race of men in south or eastern Africa. They are capable of enduring great fatigue, and their agility is almost beyond comprehension. Like all savages, they have an insatiable thirst for war, and the blood of their enemies.

The females are of a middle stature, and rather prepossessing than

otherwise. Among them the stoutest are considered the handsomest.

VIII. Customs, apparently of Jewish origin. It is a singular fact, that the Zoolus possess many customs in common with the Jews. Among these may be numbered circumcision, now obsolete, but which was observed until Charka's reign; the practice in the younger brother to marry the widow of his deceased brother, and the festival of first fruits.

The proper name of Ham, also, is not uncommon among the Zoolus. It is generally given to those who have a fierce counte. nance and voracious appetite ; or, in other words, who were “ Hyenamen," as they are not inaptly designated.

To say that savages have the vices of savages is the veriest truism that ever man uttered; for savages must possess the vices of savages, or else cease to be such. These vices the Zoolus indeed possess, but intermixed with many good qualities. They are willing to receive improvement-willing to learn. Among them you have nothing to pull down, but all to build up. At present they are waste ground; but once enclosed, and put under a careful cultivation, they would bring forth good fruit in due season.

In the mean time we hope their innocent pastimes and amusements will be respected by all missionaries and others, who may take the work of regenerating the Zoolus into their hands. Such exercises do no harm; but are on the contrary productive of much good. We know not whether a great deal of the discontent which now prevails in many districts of our own bonny isle, may not be traced to the injudicious suppression of the rural fairs and wakes.

S. C.

I CANNOT SMOKE.

Lines written on being forbidden to smoke in the Harbour at Havre de Grace.

I CANNOT smoke! I cannot smoke!

Talk not to me of mirth and joys;
The vacant smile, the empty joke,

Have nought to me but what annoys.
I miss, I miss, my light Cigar,

Whose soothing fumes have power to win
My soul away to regions far,

Far from this world of care and sin.
The lover boasts his lady's glance,

Vows that it deals a welcome death,
Swears, in her eyes that Cupids dance,

That Araby glows in her breath.
But O my light Cigar can show

A brighter glance than woman's eye,
And its delicious fumes bestow

Fragrance more rare than Araby.

The amorous boy, in wisdom young,

May pass his hours at woman's feet,
Caught by the graces of her tongue,

Like Aies whose honeyed death is sweet.
But O my light Cigar's warm lip

Imparts to mine more glowing fire,
Than ever amorous youth did sip

From beauty's kiss with soft desire.
Wbiter, no doubt, than spotless snow,

Seems to the boy his lady's fame,
Dearer than gems untold, the vow

In which she owns a kindred flame :
But O my Cuba's pure bright hue,

Is bright as fame of lady fair,
Nor doth its smoke melt from the view

So soon as woman's love in air.
My light Cigar! thou hast the pow'r

To raise, as though by magic art,
Visions to glad the careless hour,

And fantasies to cheer the heart :
Cares that annoy, and thoughts that vex,

All from thy influence fade away ;
False friends and woman's fickle sex

Are all forgotten in thy ray.
Thy graceful fumes which eddying curl

İn spheres fantastic to the sky;
Sorrow and sadness with them wbirl,

And chase the grief which dims the eye:
Life is a dream, they tell us, here,

Then till we wake to brighter parts
In worlds above, come thou to cheer,
And drive the nightmare from our hearts.

WALTER RALEIGH, SECUNDUS.

THE “TRACTS FOR THE TIMES” IMPARTIALLY AND

. DISPASSIONATELY CONSIDERED.* NEVER was title more aptly, nor, in many senses, more appropriately, chosen. The times, indeed, have their necessities — nor among them is the want of right discipline and doctrine the least. In so far as the writers of these pamphlets have attempted to supply them with such or with directions for the attainment of such — their efforts have been laudably conceived and executed. But they have erred in ascribing too much influence to the past, and too little importance to the present and the future.

Ever since the period of the Reformation, it is confessed on all hands, that the Union, Discipline, and Authority of the Church, have suffered diminution. The Oxford divines, in the publications before us, seek to effect the restoration to her of these privileges; but therein they run the

"Tracts for the Times,” by Members of the University of Oxford. 5 vols. 1834.5-6-7-8.

risk of kindling ultra-protestant jealousy :-nor from this can they expect to be saved on account of any general words of renunciation directed against the papal heresy. Practices which have once resulted in superstition, will still be viewed with suspicion, and the original use will be forgotten in the evil of the more recent abuse.

Nor is it always possible for the most unprejudiced mind to sympathise with their feelings. The Roman ritual, however good for its time, need not be immortal-nay, may well be substituted by a later service. They contend, that it was a precious possession :— Granted. But when they proceed to regret that “we, who have escaped from popery, have lost not only the possession, but the sense of its value"--and to declare that "it is a serious question, whether we are not like men recovered from serious illness with the loss or injury of their sight or hearing - whether we are not like the Jews returned from captivity, who could never find the rod of Aaron or the ark of the covenant, which, indeed, had ever been hid from the world, but then was removed from the temple itself ;" – Protestants naturally join issue, and are apt to impugn the authors of more than fine writing ; especially, when hereupon they find Dr. Wiseman corroborating the statement, and conceding the grievousness of the lamentations, exclaiming, “ Thank God that the members of the Church of Rome have no occasion to make them! The deposit of traditional practices which we received from our forefathers, we have kept inviolate. We have rejected no rite—we have hardly admitted one in the administration of the Sacrament since the days of Gelasius and Gregory." Nor are Protestant feelings at all mitigated, when it is found that to the whole tirade (according to the principles of the declaimers), Protestants are not permitted to rejoin--" What are all these regrets for the lost treasure ?- Have we not the Bible left ?" It is hard for Protestants to be taunted with their “ idolatry of the Book," while the Orielists claim the privilege of idolizing the Ritual! But so it is!

We have been betrayed, however, into a tone which it is far from our wish to maintain. It is not as Protestants that we design to argue this question—but as CHRISTIANS. We shall proceed with the subject in a Catholic spirit, guided by philosophical principles, such as no man, who admits the fact of his own existence, can logically dispute.

The first of the Tracts of the Times is addressed Ad Clerum, and contains Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission. According to the writer, this is not to be rested on private unsupported assertion, on popularity, on success, or on temporal distinctions--but on APOSTOLICAL DESCENT. To this we readily concede. But the writer goes on to state that the apostolical gifts are transmitted by the prelate to the candidate in the act of ordination. To this we demur. The office of the Bishop is only declarative of a gift already received immediately from the Spirit of God, and signified by the willingness of the candidate to share in the rite ; to have it registered ; and to be bound by its obligations. Who art thou who standest between God and another? Who made thee a day's-man between God and him? By what magic, white or black, had the Apostles themselves, much less their successors, such power of transmission? If we mistake not, the assumption smacks more of Simon Magus than of St. Peter. He who makes deacons and priests is none other than he who makes bishops. “ The Holy Ghost," says the venerable

Hooker, repeating the Apostle, “ doth make bishops, and the whole action of making them is God's own deed, men being therein but his agents."

However much Romanism may insist on direct transmission, Protestantism is so far from depending on it, that the judicious author just named, is compelled to raise an argument, shewing that ordination is sometimes lawful without bishops. Ordinary courses, he argues, are for ordinary occasions; but on extraordinary occasions, extraordinary courses are not only permissible, but “not unnecessary.” God uses the labour of some without requiring that men should authorise them; “but then," adds our ecclesiastical politician, “he doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens, himself, from heaven ; and thus, even such as believed not our Saviour's teaching, did yet acknowledge him a lawful teacher sent from God.” Bishop Jewel also pursues the like argument : “ If Christ," says he, “had determined from the beginning, that nothing should be taught and preached without a licence from the bishops, and had referred all his doctrine to Annas and Caiaphas, what had become of the Christian faith by this time? and who had ever heard anything of the Gospel ?” Furthermore, Hooker concludes, that “we are not, simply without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles, by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.”* It is, therefore, not to be taken for an historical fact, as the tract writers insist, that we can trace the power of ordination from hand to hand, until we come to the apostles at last. If apostolical succession is to be understood of historical « lineal descent," we are bold to say that it cannot be maintained. We must therefore, if we (as we do) hold the doctrine, interpret it in other than an historical sense. The churches founded by Calvin and Luther cannot safely depend on it.

The fact is, that the historical succession is appointed only as a type of the true apostolical descent, and has been destined by providence to be imperfect, that it may not be legitimately taken for more than a type. A sign of the thing signified it is; but no more than a sign-sometimes unaccompanied with the thing, as sometimes the thing is unaccompanied with the sign.

• Compare with this candid admission of the judicious Hooker, the reckless assertion of the tract writer:-“We have confessed before God our belief, that through the bishop, who ordained us, we received the Holy Ghost, the power to bind and to loose, to administer the sacraments, and to preach. Now, how is he able to give these great gifts? Whence is his right? Are these words idle, (which would be taking God's name in vain)? or do they express merely a wish, (which is surely very far below their meaning)? or do they not rather indicate that the speaker is conveying a gift? Surely they can mean nothing short of this. But whence, I ask, bis right to do so ? Has he any right, except as having received the power from those who consecrated him to be a bishop? He could not give what he had never received. It is plain, then, that he but transmits, and that the christian ministry is a succession. And if we trace back the power of ordination, from hand to hand, of course we shall come to the apostles at last. We KNOW we do, as a PLAIN HISTORICAL PACT ; and therefore all we, who have been ordained clergy, in the very form of our ordination, acknowledged the doctrine of the apostolical succession."-No. 1, p. 3.

“As to the fact of the apostolical succession, i. e. that our present bishops are the heirs and representatives of the apostles, by successive transmission of the prerogative of being so; this is too notorious to require proof. Every link in the chain is known from St. Peter to our present metropolitans."-No. 7. p. 2. N.S.-VOL. I.

TT

« AnteriorContinua »