Page images
PDF
EPUB

the first belong to the supreme power of the crown, (as if the external discipline of the church were a more essential subject of ecclesiastical cognizance than the sacred service of the Lord of glory, and the celebration of the holy mysteries,) has no foundation whatever that I can find. We have seen already from Heylyn, to whom Dr. E. himself referred us, that there is as much doubt whether the articles in 1552 passed the convocation, as there is whether the Common Prayer did. We find the Act of Uniformity, 1662, expressly referring to the acts of convocation, as the ground (together with the king's approbation) for passing that act confirming the Common Prayer; and we have seen the letter of Edward VI. alleging the consent of convocation as one of the grounds why the Common Prayer Book of his reign was entitled to the conscientious reception of Bonner. As to the difficulty Dr. E. suggests on account of the English convocations having no authority to bind the Irish church, it need not occupy much attention. If it be the desire of the church in Ireland to proceed pari passu with that in England, a national synod would be as easily summoned as a provincial one; or the several convocations of the respective provinces might empower proxies, episcopal and presbyteral, to act in their behalf in a general assembly. But if the Irish church generally adopt the sentiments of Dr. Elrington, and prefer the sole control of the secretary of state to their own ecclesiastical synods, that, I hope, is no reason why the church in England should also be deprived of her spiritual liberty and constitutional privileges. I will only observe, that if such are the sentiments of the Irish clergy, they must be very much altered since the time when in convocation, in 1705, their proctors drew up a paper, of which the following is the concluding

sentence:

"We do, in the last place, declare our deepest and most grateful sense of the paternal tenderness of our archbishops and bishops for the lower clergy, very observable in their lordships' great zeal and readiness to concur with them on all occasions in the recovery and preservation of their rights, and in every other good work; and are heartily thankful to Almighty God, that we do enjoy all these several rights and privileges without the least struggle, contest, or difference with their graces and lordships; and do bless him for the perfect unity and harmony between both houses, which being so very conspicuous, we look upon to be a great security to that national church, a great discouragement to her professed enemies, and a great vexation and disappointment to the more close and dangerous underminers of her apostolic and orthodox constitution."-Wilkins, Conc. M. B. iv. 633.

Sir, I am yours, very faithfully, ARTHUR PERCEVAL.

East Horsley, July 3, 1838.

CONGREGATIONAL RESPONSES.

SIR,-In a late number of your Magazine I observed a letter upon the subject of the responses in the liturgy, and the duty of the parish-clerk in that particular. I perfectly agree with your correspondent, that nothing can be more undesirable than (which is too frequently the case) that the whole duty of making the responses should be left to the parish-clerk; still I cannot quite agree with the writer

of the letter alluded to respecting the best means of counteracting the evil complained of.

In the first place, although a most decided enemy to the duetto system, I am of opinion, that it is desirable to have some one person to lead, and (if I may so speak) give the tune in which the responses are to be made by the congregation. Again, I cannot agree with your correspondent as to the propriety of the clerk's part being performed in the same sort of tone and manner as that of a "reader ;" it appears to me that if a whole congregation are with "one voice" to join in repeating-e. g., a verse of a psalm-this cannot be otherwise so conveniently effected as by the response being made in a certain rythmical tone or "sing-song" manner, as your correspondent would term it. In Cumberland, where (perhaps from its proximity to Scotland) presbyterian manners seem to be in a great measure engrafted on the episcopal services, it is the fashion for the parish-clerks to make the responses in such a manner as to display their own fancied fine reading; (and doubtless in that county the clerk often is a better reader than the clergyman;) to me, however, nothing was so disagreeable as this style of alternate reading; and I observed that in most places not a single voice was raised among the congregation. I must say, that to my fancy the mode adopted in London is far preferable,—viz., making the school-children follow the clerk in a "sing song" tone and with a loud voice; by this means the effect of congregational responding is in a great measure produced, and the voices of the children form a good basis for the voices of the congregation, who may feel more comfortable in "being thus enabled to join in the service without making their voices unduly loud." I am quite certain that the instances in which a good loud response can be obtained without the aid of clerk or children will be very few; but herein perhaps I differ from your correspondent, who probably thinks a loud response not desirable; for my part, I agree with a living popular clergyman in this respect, that I wish to hear the responses "like thunder."

Upon the whole, I think that congregational responding is to be obtained, not by silencing the clerk and school-children, but by reminding our congregations of their duty, and exhorting them to pray to and praise God, not with the heart only, but with the voice,-yea, with a loud voice also. I wish it were more the custom to explain the service to our people; I am sure it would be more profitable than three-fourths of the doctrinal sermons and lectures now preached.

I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, T. S.

CONGREGATIONAL RESPONSES.

SIR,—I have noticed in some of your numbers the anxiety of the clergy for their congregations to join in the responses; and having myself paid attention to the probable causes of their not properly doing so, though frequently urged to it, I have arrived at a conclusion that a plan might be adopted that would induce them the more

readily to do so than they now do, by removing what I am satisfied proves an obstacle to it.

The responses, or at least the parts of our church service in which the congregation ought to join, are of two descriptions, the first, where they repeat along with the clergyman,-the other, where the clerk and congregation alone repeat the responses; in these latter I have observed the congregation apparently join much more audibly than the former, and I apprehend the reason is, that, owing to the rubric directing the congregation to say "after" the clergyman, the clerk thinks it his duty to let the clergyman be always half a sentence ahead of him; the consequence is, a confused jumbling of sounds between the parson and clerk,-and again, with the congregation, or so many as force their voices to be heard in the mass of words, all repeating different words at the same time. This occurs in the confession, the Lord's prayer, the creed, &c., and I conceive is entirely the result of mistaking the meaning of the word "after," as if it meant "at a short period subsequent," whereas I am satisfied no such construction was ever intended. I once possessed a Latin copy of the church service, and in it the word rendered "after" in the rubric, was "secundum," which may certainly be translated "after," but more properly "according to," shewing that "saying after me" means only saying as I do;" had it been otherwise, the Latin word "post" would have been used.

[ocr errors]

If such then be the true sense of "saying after me," how absurd is the present plan adopted by parish clerks! There is no difficulty for any one who has any ear at all to regulate his voice so as to keep up with the clergyman, and not overrun him in those parts of the service, as is manifest from the congregation generally keeping pace with the clerk in the psalins, &c., and from the impressive manner in which the congregation usually join with the priest in the communion service in the short sentence, "Therefore with angels and archangels," &c.

I am persuaded, therefore, that if the clergymen would direct their clerks to regulate their voices in the confession, Lord's prayer, creed, &c., so as to go along with them, not a space after them, the improvement in the audible joining of the congregation would not only be manifest, but those parts of the service rendered tenfold more impressive than they now are. The habit also of joining aloud in those parts would contribute much to the like joining in the responses, more properly so called, when the clergyman is not repeating with the congregation.

Let this plan be but once tried, I feel assured it will be found to

answer.

Indeed, the ear being accustomed to the present plan can alone account for our not being struck with its manifest absurdness, as we should be if each one of the congregation, at separate intervals, began to sing a psalm, commencing the air one after another, and so going through it. I conceive clerks adopted the present absurd plan when few of the congregation could read, and were therefore obliged to listen to the clergyman's words, in order to repeat them; but as VOL. XIV.-August, 1838.

[ocr errors]

cessante causa cessat effectus is a maxim of universal adoption, surely the absurdity need not now, when every one can read, be longer continued. Yours, T. T.

BANS OF MARRIAGE FORBIDDEN FOR SCANDALOUS CONDUCT.

SIR,-A very few words more, with your permission, in reply to "S. P.," and I will take my leave of him.

He begins by stating the advantages of anonymous correspondence: I never doubted them, under certain circumstances; for instance, I think "S. P." was right in anonymously submitting to the judgment of your clerical readers the propriety or lawfulness (under the circumstances mentioned) of his ministerial conduct. At the same time, I neither did nor do conceive that I could so properly, under a feigned signature, censure such conduct; nor that I was wrong in requesting (not requiring) "the same openness" on the part of any one who might censure my sentiments upon the question. However, this is a mere matter of feeling, upon which opinions might be expected to differ, and was least of all intended to shackle "S. P.," who would, with myself, I supposed, there leave the matter for the arbitration of others. So far from calling upon him, in particular, to "adopt my conclusion as to what was right and proper, with reference to the disclosure of the writer's name, as he most erroneously supposes, I must say that, since he has, contrary to my expectation, renewed the controversy in his own person, he appears to me to have exercised a wise discretion in continuing to withhold his name; whether he has shewn equal discretion in his arguments, or in writing at all, is another question, which I am quite content to leave for the decision of those who have read the correspondence. I will only add, with reference to this part of it, that, upon the same principle that, as "S. P.," he "has no character to defend," there was, perhaps, no need of any such little finesse as speaking of the clergyman who had forbidden the bans, in the first letter, as a friend, and, in the second letter, avowing himself to be the clergyman who had so done.

"S. P." fancies to have detected an inconsistency in that part of my letter wherein it was intimated that, as a guide to clergymen in determining upon disqualifications for wedlock, the canons and rubric are equivalent. But what does the rubric say? "At which day of marriage, if any man do allege and declare any impediment, why they may not be coupled together in matrimony, by God's law, or the laws of the realm," &c. Now, by "God's law" can only be meant that exposition of the eighteenth of Leviticus expressed in the table set forth by authority in the year of our Lord God 1563, and confirmed by the 99th canon; and by "the laws of the realm," or the ecclesiastical law, the restrictions imposed by the 100th and 102nd canons. And therefore, with all deference to "S. P.," I must insist that there is a connexion, an obvious and close connexion, an identity, upon this subject, between the rubric and canons,-since the one refers us

to the other, is incomplete and unmeaning without the other. Consequently, the first clause of the new marriage act is complete, and confirms our obligation of obedience to the canons equally with the rubric, though it only mentions the rubric by name; and consequently I was correct in replying to the inquiry of "S. P.," that he had incurred no "penalty" under the said act, but (if any) under the canons, as before, since the new act prescribes that, notwithstanding anything therein contained, the solemnizing of marriages shall continue to be performed by every person in holy orders of the church of England according to "all the rules prescribed by the rubric." And now, Sir, on which side is the inconsistency?

But "S. P." contends that these are only a part of the canons relating to the "impediments" of wedlock; that they are "supplementary merely to those which had gone before." That other canons had gone before, I was of course perfectly aware; but I am not at all aware that a clergyman is supposed to make a declaration of obedience to every canon which may have been promulgated from the re-establishment of the church of England by Augustine and Theodore in the seventh century. But, granting the existence of canons promulged under papal sanction which (as far as they go) justify "S. P." in "forbidding bans for scandalous conduct," why does he not specify these canons? and when this is done, he must also shew that, though there be no express declaration to that effect, these, and all other anterior and obsolete canons, were not virtually repealed by those passed in the reign of James I., A.D. 1603, which are the only ones set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, and which limit the forbidding of bans to the cases therein specified. Wheatly appears to consider them the only lawful "impediments," for he says, (p. 412,)" the impediments which they are solemnly charged to reveal are those, I suppose, which are specified in the 102nd canon of our church," and he makes no allusion to any preceding canon as increasing or lessening those impediments. I have no means, at this moment, of consulting greater authorities, but shall be happy to be enlightened, if "S. P.” will take the trouble to produce them. At the same time, perhaps, he will favour your readers with a few specimens of those "unseemly and even monstrous unions," for the restraining of which he considers other canons than those of 1603 so essentially necessary. He says, indeed, that "the imagination easily supplies" such instances; I acknowledge, with all due humility, the poverty of my own imagination,-for it supplies nothing of the sort.

While "S. P." contends for the practical re-instatement of canons of such remote date that they seldom meet the eye of the ordinary reader, I hope I shall not be deemed presumptuous in expressing my regret, in which I am sure that most of my clerical brethren share, at the indifference with which too many clergymen appear to view even such canons as are of great practical importance, more adapted (on the whole) to the circumstances of modern times, and daily forcing themselves upon the observation of all in the Book of Common Prayer. To quote one, for instance, which has relation to the present subject, the 62nd; this requires the bans to be published "three several Sundays, in the time of divine service, in the parish churches and chapels where

« PreviousContinue »