Sidor som bilder

by the discretion of the minister?" The first, second, and fourth would be very suitable for the first and last Sunday in the year; the first and third for sick societies, or the commencement of any public work.

8. Why do clergymen often forget to observe the proper use of the collects? I do not allude to the question what is to be used on a saint's-day, &c., but to the fact, that many overlook the change arising from the varying number of Sundays after Epiphany and Trinity, and have perhaps scarcely observed the directions given before and after the collect for the first Sunday in Advent, and after those for St. Stephen's day, Ash Wednesday, and the last Sunday after Trinity. I remember a clergyman reading the collect for the Nativity on New-Year's-eve, when the congregation was specially assembled for worship on the last evening of the year, and that for the Circumcision would have been peculiarly appropriate. In another

church, so frequent has been the blundering, of course from mere inattention, about the collects, that a layman offered to supply the vestry and desk with clerical almanacs, if the clergy would promise always to look what Sunday it was.

9. Why are the beautiful prayers "for those to be admitted to holy orders," in the Ember weeks, so seldom heard? I have actually written above them in the church book the four times of the year at which they are ordered to be used; and I always find that ordinations have taken place in some of the dioceses. And I hope I am not very blameable in always using them whenever I know of one in my own diocese, and in specially requesting the prayers of the congregation when a labourer is to be ordained for our own parish. As our ordinations are distant in place from many of our parishes, it was intended that our parishioners should be thus present in spirit. Might not a greater interest in the clergy, and a greater blessing from God upon them, be expected, if the duty of prayer for them were not neglected at these seasons? The church, at least, is guiltless.

I could enlarge upon many other matters in relation to the celebration of the communion, and several other of the offices of the church; but not being quite sure whether the above remarks may meet your approbation, I will pause for the present; and if you should deem the present letter suitable for insertion in your Magazine, I will gladly, at a future time, extend the enumeration. Believe me, yours very truly,

F. V. H.


SIR, I have often seen it remarked by those who write either in defence or in eulogy of our church, that one of the great beauties of our liturgy is, that the people are not only allowed, but required to take a vocal part in the public devotions. And yet it is surprising in how few churches this is done. For my own part, being bred up from childhood in a parish in which so full a body of voice rose

throughout the church that the voice of the clerk was barely distinguishable, and having always felt how cheerful a thing it was to attend divine worship in my parish church, I cannot describe the damp and chill it cast over me when I first attended divine worship in a church in which that practice was not observed. It appeared like being debarred of a rightful privilege, for I durst not venture to raise my voice amidst a general silence. I was, however, told by my tutor that it was my duty to conquer what he called a false shame, and give the Almighty the public honour which the church ordained, whatever others might do. I accordingly did so, and have continued the practice of responding, in a voice more or less audible, wherever I was. Sometimes this led to unpleasant remarks; but I remember particularly that, upon one occasion, on entering church in a strange place, not a voice was heard in the part of the church in which I took my seat; but I had not been there ten minutes when there had arisen by degrees a general murmur all around me-all being willing to take their part, but none having resolution to make a beginning. Ever since I have been in orders, I have directed my attention to the subject, and have spoken to my congregations from time to time, sometimes at length, sometimes more incidentally, and always with some degree of success. But it is only in my present parish, and recently, that I have arrived at anything like a complete accomplishment of my wishes. The plan I have adopted is the same pursued by the vicar* of the parish I have alluded to. Besides repeated addresses on the subject, I trained my Sunday-school children to respond aloud. It is true that there are some harsh voices amongst them, and there are some who are occasionally too zealous; but they supply a great desideratumviz., a body of voice to support those who are too diffident to like to hear their own voices. Most persons, however, after a time, become indifferent upon that subject. But my great triumph has been getting my singers to join in a body, and in something of a chanting tone. It supplies a kind of rude music, it encourages others to raise their voices a pitch higher, and it adds a cheerfulness to our worship which makes us all feel that it is pleasanter than formerly to be in the house of God; and the feeling that we are not alone in our approaches to the throne of grace makes our prayers and praises more hearty and more delightful. If any other of your correspondents have any questions to ask, or any objections to make, I shall be ready to reply.

Leigh, March 15th, 1836.

I remain, Sir, yours, &c., J. B-N.


SIR,-Permit me to call your attention to an absurdity which has forced itself into my notice. I happen to reside in a parish where the

The Rev. Samuel Hey, brother of Hey, of Cambridge, Vicar of Steepleashton, Wilts, a man absolutely revered through all that neighbourhood for his primitive and apostolical habits, and manners, and appearance, his strict attention to his duty, his striking manner of performing his public offices, and his close adherence in his own person to old-fashioned church-of-England principles and practices, without any of the spirit of party.

only regard that the clergyman vouchsafes to the season of Lent, is the reading prayers on the morning of Ash Wednesday, and also on Good Friday, when a sermon follows them. The church, except on Sundays, and for the performance of parochial duties, remains, as at other times, closed. Nevertheless, in each of the Sunday's sermons, we are regularly edified by a string of allusions to "this time of humiliation," "the season of fasting ordained by the church," &c., &c. Now this method of proceeding would, in every-day matters, be deemed farcical; nor do I see why it should gain greater credit when adopted in religious observances. Either the keeping Lent is a worthless ceremony, an infringement of Christian liberty, a relic of popery, or else an wholesome and salutary discipline; if the former, let it be wholly neglected, or observed just so as to escape ecclesiastical censure; let it be dealt with as I have described; but let it not, while practically scorned, be obliquely recommended and extolled; if the latter, he surely is not clear of guilt who, through carelessness or sloth, omits to give the people committed to his charge every opportunity of benefiting by it. This kind of conduct, either with regard to Lent, or any other fast or festival of the church, must disgust thoughtful men, afford an excellent topic for ridicule to the profane, and be passed unheeded only by the merest triflers.* H. F.


MY DEAR SIR,-The clergy of the present day are not the only ones who have foreseen the effects which liberal principles would produce. I have just, by chance, hit upon what might almost be called a prophecy of the excellent Bishop Lancelot Andrews. I found it in Chalmers' "Biographical Dictionary;" but not perhaps where any one of your readers would look for it. It is under the article, "Matthew Wren." This man may be heard of in the chapel of both Peterhouse and Pembroke, Cambridge; his introduction to Andrews may be found in Wilson's "Merchant Tailors' School," p. 142, and in the "British Critic," vol. v. (1816) p. 390. He became chaplain to Andrews; and in the same capacity attended "baby Charles," as his father, if I err not, used to call him, in his unhappy matrimonial voyage to Spain. Chalmers says, p. 314-" After his return to England, he was consulted by the Bishops Andrews, Neile, and Laud, as to what might be the prince's sentiments towards the church of England, according to any observations he had been able to make. His answer was, I know my master's learning is not equal to his father's,

* "H.F." is surely not a little hard on his pastor. The duties of Lent are, selfexamination, repentance, humiliation, mortification, fasting. These are to be recommended by the pastor, and practised by the people in private. Prayers on Wednesdays and Fridays (in those small parishes where this is not the case throughout the year) would surely be desirable. There is a great demand for more sermons, but surely the benefit of this holy season cannot be done away by there being no more sermons than usual, if those which are preached are appropriate to the The desirableness of more must depend on circumstances.-ED.


[ocr errors]

yet I know his judgment is very right; and as for his affections in the particular you point at-the support of the doctrine and discipline of the church-I have more confidence of him than of his father, in whom you have seen better than I so much inconstancy in some particular cases.' Neile and Laud examined him as to his grounds for this opinion, which he gave them at large, and, after an hour's discussion of the subject, Andrews, who had hitherto been silent, said, "Well, Doctor, God send you may be a true prophet, concerning your master's inclination, which we are glad to hear from you. I am sure I shall be a true prophet. I shall be in my grave, and so shall you, my Lord of Durham (Neile), but my Lord of St. David's (Laud), and you, Doctor, will live to see the day, that your master will be put to it, upon his head and his crown, without he will forsake the support of the church."

Everybody knows that Laud took precedence of Charles, in being "put to it upon his head." The Bishop of Ely (as our "Doctor" had then become) had eighteen years in the tower for reflecting upon Andrews' discerning the signs of the times; if he had not employed every minute of them in a way which so much exceeds all that, in my wildest presumption, I have ever thought it possible for me to do, that I have always been inclined to doubt the fact, did not the writings which he contrived to have constantly conveyed to a place of safety (in a manner by stealth, Walker, p. 21,) still exist-several of them in print and reprint, to shew me that a human being may employ any length of time to the honour of God, and the benefit of his creatures, under the most adverse circumstances that can be conceived. Second only to this is my wonder at seeing him, with a mind as unbroken as that of another prisoner-the Prometheus of Eschylus-reject the counsel given him by his nephew, Christopher Wren, almost in the words that the tragedian puts into the mouth of Prometheus-" Adulate the liberal that is at present in power," (Ownтε тоv кратоννтα, 936 Butler, 973 Blomfield,) and this, not as the sarcasm goes in the poet"Make it your constant practice" (a). This unconquerable man waited till the Protector's death occasioned bigotry and illiberal principles again to stalk abroad, rather than do one single act of homage to him. Yours, FRANCIS HUYSHE.


DEAR SIR, I heartily concur in an opinion expressed in your January number, (p. 67,) that "it is not very advisable for one periodical to consider how another deals with particular books." But, of course, in laying down this rule, you do not mean to prohibit the discussion of the opinions or doctrines maintained in periodicals any more than you would wish to prevent the consideration of them as they are maintained in any other works.

Without more preface, then, let me offer some remarks on a passage

in the last number but one of the "British Critic," (p. 241,) to the effect following:-The reviewer is speaking of a sermon of the late Mr. Saunders, from which he quotes this passage abridged, but not garbled, by myself.

The preacher had been saying, that concessions had been made on the ground of expediency, which are working fatally. "Expediency," he proceeds," is the watch-word of the many, and also of the few.* And under this plea of expediency, what evils have not been perpetrated? what injustice not committed? Alas! so it has been ever since the day that an unjust judge sat to administer according to the law, and condemned the innocent contrary to the law; and consigned the adorable Saviour to the harpy fangs of a lawless and depraved multitude, with this ominous sentence It is expedient that one man should die for the people.'

On which the reviewer breaks out" So, because the word in this text happens to be ovμpépe, it is expedient-the same word, by the way, which is used by our Saviour where he says, 'it is expedient, ovμpépe, that I go away,'-Mr. Saunders, misled perhaps by an idle annotation, has the preposterous weakness to quote scripture,' as against the doctrine of all expediency, from the pulpit of St. Paul's. Why, he might as well denounce any other principle whatever, because the term which expresses it has been prostituted to the purposes of wicked men; he might as well make our Lord, as Caiaphas, the author, or advocate, of the tenet which he abominates from the expressions of the New Testament."

I will confess that this criticism, proposed in this tone of confidence, struck me with much amazement; and, as the general subject involved is one of no small interest or importance, I am anxious to give it a chance of fair discussion in your pages, if any considerable doubts shall be supposed to hang over it. I will endeavour carefully to abstain from the politics of the question, and look only to the point of sound apprehension of scripture.

Does the reviewer, then, in the above passage, mean to contend that, because our Lord has used the word ovμpépa to the effect described, no argument can, therefore, be derived from any other use of this same word in scripture? Such notion, followed out, would go the length of virtually maintaining that doctrines must depend more on the use of special words than upon context and connexions of thought. The bias of the speaker's mind, the evident or the presumable intention, with which he uses such or such words, becomes, in such a view, of no consideration or importance whatsoever. Our Lord has used a certain word, and Caiaphas is represented as having used the same; therefore, seeing our Lord has used it in a good sense, no inference can lie from any sense in which a wicked man has prostituted the same term.

I should be extremely sorry to misrepresent any writer; but if I do not so in deducing this consequence from the reviewer's proposition, that proposition will at once be felt to be a startling one.

The fairest way of bringing the matter to an issue, without any appearance of unworthy cavil, will be, to take three several places of

« FöregåendeFortsätt »