« AnteriorContinuar »
reproved St. Peter, for behaving in a way to lead people wrong on a very chief point of faith. He does not speak to him at all as if he was the Head, but as one equal might expostulate with another who had made a mistake."
H. “Then the Church had not at first one King in our Saviour's place, but all the Twelve Apostles were, as it might be, a Council of Kings.”
B. “ Just so; and when there was a doubt, they met and settled matters between them; as you may see in the 15th chapter of Acts, where they meet in Council to determine how far Moses' Law was to be kept by Gentile Christians; and St. Peter speaks, not as directing all, but as one among the rest.”
H. “But, my good friend, do let me ask you, if all were equal, how could things go on? Suppose the Apostles differed, who was to decide ?
B. “ The Apostles would not differ in any point needful to salvation, for our Lord had promised to them all His Spirit, to guide them into all truth. But even without that extraordinary help, there was no need for the Church to fall to pieces for want of one single earthly Head. Our Club does not fall to pieces, though no one person rules it with authority. The State of England does not fall to pieces, though King, Lords, and Commons have each so great power in it, that neither can ordain things without consent of the other. So the Church had from the beginning its Councils, which going on by certain rules, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, kept things together under the One Head, Jesus Christ, without any need of any visible Head here on earth.” Well, I see that it might be so, and I dare
was so; or rather, I see clearly, little as I am of a scholar, that it was so in the time of the Apostles.”
B. “And that is all we were talking of now: if you please, we will have a talk another time, as to how things were meant to go on afterwards.”
The two friends then proceeded, each with his Bible in his hand, (which he used with all reverence) to make out from the Book of Acts the other points which Hyde and Mr. Jones had set down-how in each one of them the Church kept to the rule made on that first Whitsunday:
They saw, for instance, and that very easily, how, all through that Holy Book, Baptism is spoken of as the regular way in which believers should be added to the Lord. So that even those
who by miracle had received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as Cornelius, had need to be afterwards baptized.
They saw what care was taken that all should understand it to be a Catholic or Universal Church; St. Peter being specially sent, as to the Jews in the second chapter, so to Cornelius in the tenth : and St. Paul being called und raised up for this very purpose, that he should be the Apostle of the Gentiles.
They saw how that, all through the Acts, no such thing is spoken of as a Christian out of Communion with the Apostles, and that all the Churches every where received the decrees for to keep, which were ordained by the Apostles and Elders in Council at Jerusalem.
They saw that “coming together to break bread” was spoken of as a thing to be done of course by the Disciples on the First Day of the week.” And it came into both their minds at the same moment, how great a thing and how necessary that Sacrament is shewn to be in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
So that, as Butler said in conclusion, when he was in the act of putting away the Book, after moving the mark to the last chapter of Acts, “ It is like coming from time to time to see how a tree is growing, after one had been by at the planting of it; you see the same shape and principal limbs, and you cannot doubt that it is the same, though as it grows larger many things come out which you might not have observed; but He that planted the Tree knew and intended them, or allowed for them."
6« Yes, of course it must be so," said Hyde: but as he spoke, there was some trouble in his look; and perceiving that Butler was gazing on him as if in embarrassment, and going to question him, he said, “ Nay, don't talk to me more now, I have not time to stay; but we will meet again soon if you please, and then I will tell you what scruple has come into my mind. It is not so very distressing, yet I should like to have it answered. But perhaps, before then, God's good Spirit may have helped me Himself to the right answer.”
56 Amen, say I, with all my heart,” replied Butler, affectionately: and they went their several ways for that time.
“ WHAT IS MEANT BY THE QUEEN'S SUPREMACY ?" WE said in our last number that the Queen is not the Head of the Church but that she is “ Supreme Governor well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal.” (See XXXVI Canon of the Church of England.)
Her Majesty is Supreme over both, but Supreme according to law: that is, She may and ought to compel the law of the State and the law of the Church established in Her dominions to be duly administered. But she can no more make or administer law herself, in her own proper person, in the one case than in the other; though it is her duty to see that the proper judges of the temporal part, as well as those of the spiritual part, put in force the law of the State or the law of the Church as the case may
be. We learn from History that even so far back as the year 1272, when King Edward I. reigned, that this Monarch frequently sat himself in the Court of King's, or as we now call it, Queen's Bench; and it is said that James I., who reigned in 1603, also sat there in person—the last prince we believe that ever did so; but he was informed by his judges that he could deliver no opinion. And there is now no doubt at all that if our Queen was present in any Court of Justice in her dominions she could not determine any cause therein, having committed all her judicial authority to her judges.
In like manner, when the State and Church of England threw off the yoke of Rome, it was formally declared in one of the most important Statutes of the Constitution of this country, that the spiritual part of this kingdom had judges of its own competent to decide all questions relating to it without the interference of any foreign authority; in other words, that the Church of England was as independent as any other portion of the Universal Church of Christ.
It has happened from a peculiarity in the history of this country that the Ecclesiastical Courts have had jurisdiction over certain temporal matters, such as wills and administration of personal property, as well as over spiritual matters. The judges of these courts are appointed by the Archbishops and Bishops, sometimes acting by themselves, and sometimes as assistants or assessors to the Archbishops and Bishops. But the Queen has no power of sitting and determining causes therein.
Before the Reformation, Appeals from the sentences of these Courts were made to the Court of Rome; this practice led to great and grievous abuses, and was abolished at the Reformation; the authority of the Crown, acting through certain judges selected by the Chancellor, being substituted in its place; therefore, these judges were usually Prelates of the Church and certain persons learned in the law of the Church. The Crown was at this time almost absolute, and appointed its ministers, and among them its Chancellor, without reference to Parliament; and after this had come to be the case Parliament was composed only of Churchmen. Moreover, the Convocation (or Parliament) of the Church was then sitting, and deciding for itself, with the sanction of the Crown, upon all matters concerning the doctrine and discipline of the Church.
In later times, however, there has been a great change in all these matters, which has led, unintentionally and unexpectedly, to great confusion in the Church ; and which calls loudly for a remedy. How this comes to pass we will explain in our next number.
“ WHY IS THE SERVICE SOMETIMES CHANTED ?”
To get at a clear answer to this question, let us first understand what is meant by Chanting the Service.
We say that the Service is Chanted when the Minister says the prayers on one note or tone in a sustained voice; when the people say with him the Lord's Prayer, Confession, and Creed, altogether, on one note (or as musicians call it in unison); when the versicles and responses (before the Psalms and after the Creed) are said for the most part on one note, having a slight change of voice (or inflexion) at the end of each; when the Litany is sung much in the same way; when the Psalms are sung to Chants (that is, to tunes consisting of a few simple notes) repeated over for each verse, and the Canticles (“ We praise Thee, O God," and the rest,) and the Hymns in the Communion Service, either to some such simple Chants, or to regular melodies or musical pieces.
So then the remarkable point in a Chanted Service, is that no part of it is said in the usual voice of conversation : the Minister chants the prayers ; the Congregation chant the responses ; and
altogether, Minister, Choir, and People, chant or sing Creeds, Psalms, and Hymns.
And it is chanted, because it is God's SERVICE.
For, first: as the voice, capable of expressing our thoughts and desires, is one of God's chiefest gifts to man, so the musical use of that voice is its highest, most beautiful, and most pleasing power. This is evidently the root or ground of all singing whatever. We listen with delight to the voice of one who sings, while we should care little to hear the same person read the same words. And since we are bound to dedicate and give to God, and to use in His service, the greatest gifts and highest powers we possess, it is fittest to employ in addressing Him in prayer and praise the noblest and most perfect use of the voice which He has given us : that is, to chant or sing, not to speak in the common way, His Service.
But again: we ought to make a difference in employing the same things in God's Service, and for ourselves and our fellowcreatures. Thus we build the same materials into a very different form and shape when we erect a church, and when we construct a house or a common room. When we go abroad into the world among created things, we are erect, as having dominion over the earth and all inferior animals ; when we come into the presence of God and address Him, we kneel down and bow our knees before Him Who is Lord over us. Just in the same way when we address our fellow-creatures we use that common speaking tone of voice which expresses our natural feelings, our human emotions, or our passions; when we speak to God we ought to use a different tone of voice, expressive (not now of our human emotions or passions which ought to be banished) but of our reverence and awe, in addressing the Majesty of our Creator and Judge.
And again: we ought in all things belonging to the Service of God to avoid every thing like confusion or indistinctness : it cannot but be displeasing to God, Who has revealed of Himself (by St. Paul) that “ He is not the author of confusion ;” and it is most unedifying to the worshippers who come together to offer a reasonable worship, distinct to themselves and easily joined in. But if a large number of people say the same thing at the same time in the common voice of conversation, there must of necessity be produced some degree of indistinctness. The voices of a crowd are notoriously indistinct, often from the
very eagerness of the persons composing it to say the same thing at