Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

separate it from the tittle-tattle and scandal of the day-from mere nicknames and frivolous jesting, from personal abuse and controversial irritation. We should resist the error and condemn the heresy, with eternity full in our view, and bearing in mind the everlasting issue which it involves, the salvation and perdition of immortal souls. If the error be subtle and alluring, then surely we need all the moderation of Christian wisdom, patiently, calmly, and perseveringly to unthread the labyrinth of deceit, to rise ourselves into the pure atmosphere of divine truth, and then fling its bright visions around us to scatter the delusion. If it be, as it is, the revival of the old Roman apostacy in a new form, then we need to reflect on the power of that entrenched fortress of corruption, which has endured through so many ages; and with deep seriousness of spirit and self-distrust, to advance to the conflict of so mighty an adversary. Every charge we bring against the system opposed, yields a distinct argument for humility, watchfulness, and prayer, in our efforts to stem the tide of evil. The human agents at work are but a small part of this weighty crisis of providence. Other and deeper powers, though unseen, are busy in this hour of temptation which is coming on the Church. The words of the Apostle, always true, apply now with redoubled power," For we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with principalities, with powers, with the rulers of the darkness of this world, and with spiritual wickedness in high places." And hence we need greatly, both in public and private, " to take the whole armour of God, that we may be able to withstand in the evil day," which seems now to threaten the Church of God.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE SERVICES FOR THE 5th of NOVEMBER; the 30th of JANUARY; the 29th of MAY; and the QUEEN'S ACCESSION, CONSIDERED. By the Rev. T. LATHBURY, M.A. London: Painter. 1843.

THE ORIGINAL SERVICES FOR THE STATE HOLIDAYS, with Documents relating to the same. Collected and arranged by the Hon. and Rev. A. P. PERCEVAL, B. C.L., &c. London: Leslie. 1838.

THESE are days in which it appears probable that all things will be tried and sifted. And, however disagreeable, and sometimes alarming, the process may be, we can hardly wish it forbidden; for the truth may ever hope to come brightened out of the conflict.

The Common Prayer-book of our Church is one of the matters which must undergo this sifting; and we trust and hope that it may derive improvement from it. We are sure that it is susceptible of such improvement.

Yet, doubtless, it will appear exceedingly alarming, to many implicitly-believing churchmen and churchwomen, to be assured. and that on the authority of a very high churchman, even of a royal chaplain, that there is much in the Common Prayer-book, as it is currently printed at Oxford and Cambridge, which has no right to be there. Nay, that, in the deliberate opinion of the said royal chaplain, "a further question may be raised, namely, whether the printers to the crown and to the universities are not liable to be called to account for appending the four services last mentioned to the Common Prayer, instead of the three more duly authorized ones; and for interpolating the calendar established and confirmed by 24 Geo. II." 1

The history of this question is thus sketched by Mr. Lathbury, -no mean authority in such matters.

"The service for the 5th of November was first published in the year 1606, the year after the discovery of the Gunpowder Treason, and was intended to commemorate the merciful interposition of Divine Providence, in favour of our Church and nation, at that period. Like other special services, it was set forth by royal authority; nor did it possess any other in that and the suc ceeding reign. During the time of James I., and also in the reign of Charles I., until the clergy were almost all ejected from their livings, this service was duly read in our churches. When the book of Common Prayer was proscribed, this service experienced the same treatment; for during the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, no form of prayer was allowed, the ministers being left to their own discretion in the management of public

1 Perceval's Original Services, p. 16.

worship. At the Restoration, the book of Common Prayer was necessarily rescued from the oblivion, in which it had been placed by the Presbyterian and independent factions; and with the Common Prayer the service for the fifth of November was restored to use. In the year 1661 the service was revised by the convocation: consequently, in the state in which it was published in 1662, it had the sanction of the Church-the highest sanction which can be pleaded; though, of course, we know that acts of parliament may interpose and overrule the decisions of the Church. Still, where no act of parliament interferes, the authority of the Church, duly expressed by convocation, must be viewed as paramount by consistent churchmen.

"The service, therefore, was settled by convocation; and the observance of the day was enjoined by act of parliament. Thus the civil authority commanded all persons to observe the day as a day of thanksgiving; and the Church, or the ecclesiastical authority, prepared and enjoined a special service to be used on the occasion. Still the service was not sanctioned by parliament; for when the act of uniformity was passed, the special services were not annexed to the book of Common Prayer. This and the next two were ordered to be appended by royal authority.

"Matters continued in this state until the reign of King William. Shortly after his accession to the throne the special services were revised; and that for the fifth of November was materially altered. It happened that William landed on the fifth of November; and as the Church and the nation were delivered, by the prince's arrival, from the danger which then threatened them, it was deemed desirable to commemorate both events-namely, the discovery of the Gunpowder Treason and the coming of the Prince-in the same service; and certain changes were accordingly made, so as to render the form suitable to both occasions. These alterations were made by the bishops, and sanctioned by the crown. They were not submitted to convocation; nor is it probable that they would at that time have been sanctioned by that assembly. All the portions of the service, therefore, which refer to King William are new. So that, as a whole, the present form has only the authority of the crown, though the original parts have that of convocation. Such is a brief sketch of the history of this service. The changes, which were introduced subsequent to the revolution, may be seen, by comparing the present form with the service in any of the books of Common Prayer previous to that event."-(pp. 4, 5.)

"The service for the 30th of January was prepared and duly authorized by convocation, in 1661, under the following title: A form of prayer, to be used yearly upon the thirtieth day of January, being the day of the martyrdom of King Charles I.' In this form it was appended to the book of Common Prayer by the authority of the crown. The observance of the day, as in the preceding case, is enjoined by act of parliament, and the ecclesiastical legislature provided the special service for the occasion. It continued in its original state until the accession of James II., when it was subjected to revi sion and alteration. The alterations, too, were important. It is remarked by Burn, that in the original service there was no 'reflection on the first authors of the opposition:' but in the revision, even in the title, a great change was made, in this addition-' to implore the mercy of God, that neither the guilt of that sacred and innocent blood, nor those other sins, by which God was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited upon us or our posterity.' Several sentences were added to the introduction, and certain additions were made to the collects, corresponding in their character with the addition to the title. When King William came to the crown, no change was made in this service, so that we now have it in the form in which it was left by King James. Probably William was fearful of making the attempt to restore it to its original state. At all events, no alteration was attempted. As in the service for the Fifth of November, therefore, this form, NOVEMBER, 1843.

5 L

in its present state, rests only on the authority of the crown. The original portions, indeed, have the sanction of convocation. A comparison of the present form, with the service, as it stands in the Prayer Book prior to the accession of James II., will show what changes were effected in 1685."— (pp. 6, 7.)

The service for the 29th of May, was also prepared in convocation in 1661, like the preceding, and was duly authorized by that assembly. It was intended to commemorate two events-the king's birth and the Restoration, The twenty-ninth of May was the birth-day of the king, and on that day he made his public entry into the kingdom. Both these events were noticed in the original service, which was published under the following title:-‘A Form of Prayer, with Thanksgiving, to be used yearly upon the Twentyninth day of May, being the day of his Majesty's birth, and happy return to his kingdom.' The day was also appointed by act of parliament, to be observed for ever, though no notice was taken of the special service, which was prepared by convocation, and sanctioned by the crown, with the two preceding forms. On the accession of James II. this service was very materially altered. Changes were indeed necessary, for portions of the service referred to the birth of King Charles; and to have used it in its original form, after the death of the king, would have been singular. All those passages which referred to the birth of King Charles were accordingly struck out, both from the title and from the body of the service, and it was made to refer to the restoration of the royal family as well as of the king.”—(p. 7.)

In this state of things three sorts of opinions, and three systems of practice, have grown up in the Church, which Mr. Perceval thus describes.

"There appear to have been no less than three distinct varieties of opinion upon the subject, producing corresponding difference of conduct. 1. There were some who held the authority of the book of Common Prayer to be so paramount and exclusive as to oblige them to use only the ordinary service prescribed by it. 2. There were others who considered the particular service as printed now at the end of the Prayer Book to have every possible authority,' and therefore felt themselves bound to use it. 3. Others, again, considered the particular service now existing to be destitute of due authority, but readily conceded that authority to the particular service of 1662, and accordingly used such parts of that service as were left untouched in the subsequent alterations of it."-(p. 5.)

But how far do these contrarieties of opinion lead to oppositions in practice? Let the following case, detailed in the Record of Nov. 13, answer this question.

"On Sunday, Nov. 5, a clergyman who is the incumbent minis"ter of a district-church near the New Road, standing up in the "desk, gave notice to the congregation assembled at Morning "Service, that he should not read the portion appointed for the "day in commemoration of the Popish plot in the reign of James "the first, because he did not consider the authority from which it "emanated as binding on any minister of the Church of England. "The order bearing the signature of a Secretary of State, and "purporting to be issued by the sovereign in council, he could "not admit to be such as to require his compliance. He denied

"that any authority short of that of a General Convocation could "legalize any departure from the rubric."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It is naturally asked, in the same paper, "whether, in case of a general thanksgiving, ordered on the occasion of some national "blessing, such as the escape of the sovereign from a murderous attempt on her life ;- —a plentiful harvest, or any other occurrence "which might call for a nation's gratitude, he would object to "the commanded services as not duly authorized? To be consistent, he must do so, inasmuch as these and all similar directions "emanate from the Sovereign in Council."

Now, in passing, we would just remark one singular inconsistency, into which the contumacious party, (i.e. the Tractarian party,) have wilfully fallen in this instance.

A question has arisen, concerning the right and lawful mode of conducting Divine Service on certain occasions. They themselves state, that such question has arisen,-and they state, moreover, that three different views have been held, and may be held, by the clergy, on the disputed points.

Now in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, to which these gentlemen have solemnly subscribed their entire and "ex animo" consent, this very difficulty is foreseen, and a remedy provided. Thus runs the statute, for nothing less than a statute is it,-in the said case made and provided:

"And forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same: to appease all such diversity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts, concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book; the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall alway resort to the Bishop of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in this book. And if the Bishop of the Diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof to the Archbishop."

Now we ask these gentlemen, who have made public in various ways, their doubts and difficulties on the subject, whether they have ever taken the course which the Prayer-book itself thus points out, and which they themselves have solemnly engaged to take, whenever such a case of doubt should arise? Have they ever "resorted to the Bishop" in order that he might "take order for the quieting and appeasing of such doubts and diversities?" Or have they not rather,-believing that the determination of the Bishop would not be according to their own taste, have they not taken the decision of the whole matter into their own hands;

« ZurückWeiter »