BISHOP McILVAINE'S ADDRESS TO THE LATE OHIO DIOCESAN CONVENTION. The subject of this address is "Processional Singing." The Bishop appears to have treated it with his usual kindness and good feeling. While firmly maintaining the truth, on the one hand, he avoids all harshness, and screens the offenders, while he deals with their errors without the slightest appearance of hesitation. "A case," he says, "has occurred, in a congregation of the Diocese, of what I regard as an unlawful innovation on our established wor ship, by the introduction of a ceremonial which has never appeared in this Diocese before. It seemed my duty to address to the Rector, and through him to the Vestry, a communication on the subject, containing my views of the matter, under the laws and usages of our Church. I am happy and thankful to say that, so far as I know, it is the first instance in this Diocese of any addition to the appointed and customary order of our Morning and Evening Prayer which has seemed to need any interference on my part. But in the present remarkable fondness of a class of minds in our General Church for ritualistic novelties, there is no knowing what a seed of this sort, unheeded, may speedily grow to. I think it well, therefore, to state to the Convention, and through it to the whole Diocese, the ground I have taken and my reasons therefor, premising however that, as I have no desire to draw attention to the particular parish referred to, I shall treat the subject in as much abstraction therefrom as possible. Indeed, I should have preferred to avoid even this very general reference, had it not been necessary as a reason for introducing to the Convention what I am going to say; and I wish very emphatically to forbid, at the outset, the thought that, in any portion of what I shall say, any reflection is intended upon the motives or intentions of those most nearly concerned in originating the case referred to. "What I am going to read is simply an enlargement of the views contained in the paper sent to the Rector. Having obtained from him an admission of the correctness of the information on which I proceeded, the statement of the practice is as follows: At the opening of Morning and Evening Prayer, a procession, consisting of some fifteen boys and some men, all vested in surplices, is formed, which, entering the church at the front door, proceeds, singing as it advances, up the middle aisle, till it reaches the seats or stalls (so called) before the chancel, where the members of the procession find their appointed seats-the congregation being expected to stand until those choristers are seated, when the Rector begins the sentences at the commencement of the Morning or Evening Prayer, as the case may be. This practice has been continued, I believe, some months in the parish referred to. It presents itself to my notice under three aspects: First-The procession. Secondly the procession entering the Church and proceeding up the aisle, with singing. Thirdly-The members of the procession vested in surplices. 1. The procession. If this were unconnected with the singing and the surplice, a mere device for better order, the choristers silently entering together for the prevention of such confusion as might attend their coming in at different times, there would be no exception taken. But such is not the character of the procession. I pass, therefore, to the second particular noted. "The procession, with singing. I do not inquire whether anything is sung besides the Psalms and Hymns set forth in the Prayer Book, and which, according to the Rubric prefixed to the Psalms in Metre, ' are allowed to be sung before and after Morning and Evening Prayer, at the discretion of the Minister.' Were such the case, the ground of objection to the whole proceeding as unlawful would be much strengthened. But I will take it for granted, and have since learned, that nothing else is used in that processional singing. Now, that practice must be regarded as intended either as an act of worship, or as one of mere musical ceremony for display or entertainment. Shall we suppose the latter? I am unwilling to impute a want of reverence and propriety which, until better informed, I cannot believe. Then we must take the other supposition (which I have been informed is correct), that it is an act of worship. It is thus public worship, and I learn it is so understood; the congregation being expected to rise at the entrance of the procession, to stand until the singing is terminated, and to take part therein. But the Rubric says the morning and evening worship of the congregation shall begin in quite another mode: The minister (it says) shall begin the Morning (or) Evening Prayer, (as the case may be,) by reading one or more of the following sentences.' There is no credible meaning in this but that when the congregation have assembled for the regular appointed public worship of the morning and evening, the first opening of that worship shall be such reading, and before that beginning no act of common worship shall be introduced. To this, in the English Prayer Book, there is no exception. Hence, in the valuable and learned 'Notes, Legal and Historical, on the Book of Common Prayer, by Archibald John Stephens, Barrister at Law,' published by the Ecclesiastical History Society, we read under the above Rubric: 'It is clear, from this Rubric, that the Sentences must begin the Morning Prayer, and that they cannot be preceded by any other words.' And in the recent work of the Rev. R. P. Blakeney, LL.D., on the Book of Common Prayer, 'in its History and interpretation, with special reference to existing controversies,' we read under the same Rubric, that the practice of commencing service with a procession and chanting is unauthorized. The Rubric is express. To begin the service processionally is unlawful. It is true that Queen Elizabeth legalized the singing of a hymn at the opening and closing of the services, but she expressly forbade processions."" The Bishop having noticed some slight differences between the English and American prayer-book, proceeds thus: "But I am assured that in the practice under consideration nothing else than one of those Metrical Psalms or Hymns is sung. Where, then, is the fault? Let it be marked that the Rubric authorizing either a Psalm or Hymn says, 'allowed to be sung in all the congregations of the said Church before and after Morning and Evening Prayer, and also before and after sermons.' From these words it is evident that the sort and mode of singing thus provided for are just what are usual in the congregation, and by the congregation, after Morning Prayer, and before and after sermons-the usual congregational singing by the people, in their usual places, and their usual way of participating in that species of worship. Now, it is vain to argue that a hymn or psalm, sung by some fifteen or twenty persons as they march the length of the church, though the whole congregation unite with them, is the mode of worship contemplated in the Rubric. What if the congregation as may sometimes be the case, be composed in the major part of that procession? Certainly it is not the grave, composed, orderly, undistracted worship provided for in the Rubric. It was unknown to our Church when the Rubric was made. It is something intended to derive excitement from the spectacle and ceremonial of that procession, and not merely from the union of the musical expression with devotional thought. Such processional singing was common in the Church of England before the Reformation, under the reign of Popery. It is in perfect keeping with the whole peculiar character of a system which lays the stress of its religion and power so much upon the excitements of a pompous ceremonial. Such processions are appointed in the Rituale Romanum. They were abolished in the Church of England, whether they took place outside or within the place of worship, by the Royal Injunctions in 1547, and the prohibition was renewed in 1559, and one of the reasons given was, that the people may the more quietly hear that which is said or sung to their edifying.' The only exception to this was what was called 'the annual perambulation of the parish; and Archbishop Grindal, in carrying out the injunction, directed that in that excepted case, in which nothing was to be done within the church, all the ceremony should consist of the Minister saying certain parts of Scripture and certain prayers, with the reading of a homily, but with the express provision that the procession should be with out wearing any surplices, carrying of banners, Popish ceremonies.'—Grindal's Remains, p. 141, P.S. or such like "The revival of processional singing in these days has arisen entirely out of that discontentment with the old ways of our Liturgical and Protestant worship, as established in the laws and usages of all the centuries since the Reformation, and out of that morbid coveting of increased ceremonial, of which the extreme Ritualism of these days, in England and in certain places this side the sea, is the notorious manifestation. Such an innovation upon the established order of our worship, such a disturbance, I may better say, could not have been anticipated by the framers of our American Prayer Book. But a few years ago, before the ritualistic atmosphere reached its present temperature, no Episcopal clergymen would have ventured to counsel its introduction. If such processional singing be lawful before the Morning Prayer, it is just as lawful after it and before the sermon, or whenever a psalm or hymn is sung in the congregation. If, on the other hand, it would be unlawful before the sermon, it is unlawful before the service." Bishop McIlvaine remarks what concerns only the American church, and proceeds only with what is common to both. "In answer to that precise claim, that whatever is not prohibited is lawful, applied, by English Ritualists of the present extravagant sort, to practices in use before the Reformation and not since formally prohibited, the Address to the Clergy of their respective Dioceses, drawn up in 1851, and signed by twenty-four Archbishops. and Bishops of the Church of England, says: We believe that, at the Reformation, the English Church not only rejected certain corruptions, but intended to establish one uniform ritual, according to which her public services should be conducted. But it is manifest that a licence, such as is contended for, is wholly incompatible with any uniformity whatsoever, and at variance with the universal practice of the Catholic Church, which has never given to the officiating ministers of separate congregations any such large discretion in the selection of Ritual observances.' These words are as true in principle for our Church as for that of England. "The present Bishop of Exeter, venerable in his extreme old age, and one whose general relation to the controversies of these times gives special weight to his views on such a question, in delivering his mind, in the way of rebuke, to a clergyman for placing the image of the cross on the communion table, pronounced the same principle, with more amplification: Would it be lawful,' he said, for any persons whomsoever to deck the Lord's table, in preparation for the Holy Communion, with vases containing flowers, and with a cross placed on the table? Certainly not, unless there be an express or implied direction so to do. The very nature of the case -the general requisition of uniformity-alike lead to the same conclusion, that it is not lawful for any person whomsoever to introduce novel ornaments at his own discretion. In truth, where would the claim of such discretion end? If one person may at his pleasure decorate the Lord's table with a cross, another may equally claim to set a crucifix upon it, whilst a third may think it necessary to erect some symbol of puritan doctrine or feeling, to mark his reprobation of his Romanizing neighbours.' "The principle thus expressed, that it is not lawful for any person whomsoever to introduce novel ornaments at his own discretion, is equally applicable to novel ceremonies, and applies as well to a surpliced processional introduction to our Morning Prayer in the American Church, as to a cross on the communion table in the Church of England. But there is law in long established and un varied usage, which demands compliance, and that law forbids these novelties in our Church. "Since the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country until the last very few years, processional singing in our congregations was never heard of. It is still so very infrequent, that to pretend that it makes anything that may be called a usage of the Church, so as to limit in any degree the law of usage derived from the universal mode of our worship for more than seventy years preceding it, is out of the question. The same is true of the usage of the Church of England. No such thing takes place in the Ca thedral service, or that of the University Chapels. Ever since the year 1830, I have, during various visits to England, attended the service of many English Cathedrals and of the chief University Chapels, and not only did I never witness processional singing therein, but I have no knowledge, to this day, that it obtains in any of them. As to parish churches, there is no doubt that it has obtained a place in a few-so few, however, that to call it a usage is simply preposterous; and what there is of it has come in within a very few years, and as the offspring of precisely that school of Tractarian Ritualism which has been so long desiring to draw nearer the Church of Rome in these things, and of late has ventured to appear in so many other offensive conformities to her sacerdotal ceremonial. 66 and Besides professional singing, the wearing of the surplice by any but Clergymen is equally a novel innovation on the usages of our American Church. It is so also in the Parish Churches of England, except the very few into which a contrary practice has of late been introduced, under the same craving for what is called a higher cere monial, that has given birth to processional singing. I am well aware that choristers in Cathedrals and in some University Chapels are vested in surplices: by what authority I do not know. But the fact that, until within a few years of growing Ritualism, the prac tice was confined to such places, and was kept out of the Parish Churches, shows how little the usage, if it may be so called, is ap plicable to our Churches. It is a very new novelty among us, as yet has very little following, whatever it may seek and hope for, and however we may have reason to fear it will be extended unless timely measures be taken to check its growth. The contrary usage is too universal and too long established to be in the least affected in point of authority by any practice so infantile in age and so limited in extent, and is a law in our Church, if ever there was a usage which deserved that name. It is pertinent here to call to mind that the Declaration signed by twenty-eight of our Bishops, and moved in the meeting of the House of Bishops assembled in New York in October, 1866-a declaration occasioned by the alarming efforts of extreme Ritualism, and in which, referring to the idea that we in this Church are subject in any degree to the laws or usages of the Church of England, it was emphatically declared that our Church was duly organized as 'a particular and National Church,'-in that paper, I say, it was declared that because it is thus a National Church, no laws of the Church of England have any force of law |