Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Jan. Feb. Union Poor Houses-Bishop of Exeter's Speech respecting the Attendance of the Inmates on Divine Worship. Tithes Commutation-Return of the Number of Notices for Commutation received by Commissioners in the several counties. Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels. Report from Committee of First Fruits and Tenths, and Administration of Queen Anne's Bounty. Church-rates and the Dissenters-Hertfordshire. Church-room in the Diocese of Salisbury. Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels, (Annual Report.) Canons and Regulations regarding the Observance of the Lord's-day, which have obtained in the church at different times. Order in Council relative to the Revenues of certain Sees. Petition of the Dean and Chapter of Winchester to the Houses of Lords Memorial of Clergy of Archdeaconry of Durham, and of Officialty of the Address of Bishop and Clergy of Down and Connor to the Queen, and Canons and Regulations respecting the Observance of the Lord's-day- Act to explain and amend the Marriage and Registration Acts. Church Commission—Order of the King in Council (May 10) for Ap- Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels. 1838. Abstract of Lord Brougham's Education Bill. Petition of the Manx Clergy for the Preservation of the See of Sodor and Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels. Address of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, to all the Deans and University College-Letter of Dr. J. P. Smith on the Scripture Exa- Sodor and Man-Petition of the Manx Bar for the Preservation of the See. March. Church Commission-Draft of Fifth Report, presented Dec. 22, 1837. New Registration Acts-Extracts from the Petition of the Clergy of the April. Appeal of the Society for Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. May. June. Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels. Irish Home Mission-Proceedings in the Consistorial Court of Armagh, Tithes in Ireland-Resolutions intended to be proposed by Lord John Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels. Act to amend the Law for providing fit Houses for the Beneficed Clergy, (1 Vict. c. 23.) Irish Home Mission-Proceedings in the Consistorial Court of Armagh continued. Petition of Archdeacon and a Number of Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Society for Enlargement &c. of Churches and Chapels It is with great reluctance that a rightly feeling man ever comments on the proceedings of an individual; but when, under the influence of private feelings, an individual allows himself to say or do that which is injurious to institutions of great importance, that reluctance must be overcome. A petition from Dr. Birch, one of the prebendaries of St. Paul's, has lately been presented to the House of Commons by Lord Chandos, calling on the House, in fact, to interfere with the disposal of the preferment of the Chapter of that Cathedral, and alleging great abuses and evils. The petition itself is not at all clearly drawn up, and, if it is misunderstood, Dr. Birch has only to thank himself for any inconvenience which may arise. As far as one can understand, Dr. Birch's ground for petitioning is this:-A good many years ago, on becoming prebendary, he undertook to officiate for the residentiaries when they did not attend, on the understanding that he should succeed to a place in the cathedral, then held by Mr. Watts, on that gentleman's decease. Now Mr. Watts has not yet been obliging enough to make room for Dr. Birch, and Dr. Birch fears (as one supposes, but this is not clear) that the proposed bill for altering the cathedrals will sweep away the place in question, and he has consequently made a demand on the members of the chapter for payment of his services in another way—namely, by their giving him some living belonging to the chapter. He particularly alleges his having asked for and been refused some living which Mr. Tate disposed of as a great grievance; and he then goes on to state the amount of preferment given by deceased and present residentiaries to their friends and families, and appears to insist on the propriety of its being first offered to prebendaries, &c. Now, before listening to an accusation, it is impossible not to look to the feelings and motives of the accuser. In this particular case one cannot but say, that although it may be very hard on Dr. Birch that Mr. Watts will not die, and that he has not enjoyed Mr. Watts's place— the point he bargained for—for the last ten years, yet that this is not the fault of the chapter. They have broken no faith with Dr. Birch, and done him no wrong. Whether hereafter, if by any legislative act they are prevented from giving him what they promised, they are not in conscience, or at least in honour, bound to find him an equivalent, is quite another question. But it is obvious that the time for that consideration is not come,-that no mortal wit can imagine what bill respecting the cathedrals will be passed, or when; and that, consequently, Dr. Birch cannot possibly say that, when a vacancy does occur, he may yet still have the very thing he wished and agreed for. If, instead of waiting for the decision which time only can give upon this, (and if there had been no projected bill he still must have waited for the vacancy,) he has chosen to go and demand preferment, surely all candid reasoners will say that he had no right at present to expect anything but a refusal. The simple question is, by what right does he demand something different from what he agreed for, till he knows that he cannot have that? and with what justice does he come forward to denounce those who refuse him to the country as guilty of heavy misdemeanours against the church? Surely it is quite competent to the chapter of St. Paul's to say that "they are perfectly ready to stand by any agreement which they have made,-that they do not yet know that there will be anything to hinder the fulfilment of it, and that, consequently, they cannot but consider the sort of claim preferred to a different remuneration as improper, both in itself and in the way and time in which it has been made; that the statement made by Dr. Birch of the necessity of giving the preferment to members of the cathedral can hardly be serious, as it is well known that many of the stalls in the cathedral are themselves of considerable value, and that their holders would never think of urging such a claim; and that the notion of giving a right to preferment to some stalls and not to others is quite untenable; that, in fine, while the occasion has not yet offered itself for Dr. Birch's just expectations being fulfilled, it is really grossly unjust to them that they should be accused of ill using him, because they do not at once grant demands for which there is no foundation in right, and at present none even in feeling." If an answer so reasonable as this can be made to Dr. Birch's petition, surely the proof thus given of the temper under which it must have been drawn up will not dispose men to look very favourably at its contents; nor are they calculated to conciliate feeling towards Dr. Birch. He chose to undertake certain duties for a certain remuneration. With what justice or propriety does he try to fix odium on the large incomes of those whose duty he undertook? Does he wish to excite bad feeling against the cathedral establishments? Does he think that the projects for reducing them are not extensive enough, and does he wish to give his aid to a wider and more sweeping reform? Dr. Birch's petition is printed in Documents, as he might otherwise complain of being unjustly treated, and it may, in one respect, be of some value. Surely its statistics as to attendance go to shew that four is not a sufficient number of prebendaries for a cathedral. OCCASIONAL SERVICES. MY DEAR SIR,-I am sorry to occupy the pages of your Magazine again with the controversy, but the publication of Mr. Perceval's book on the Occasional Services calls for some notice, as it appears to me that the doctrines it inculcates will not serve the cause of our national church. Even in the variety of extraordinary opinions which are every day broached, I cannot but feel surprise at a clergyman of the united church of England and Ireland, a chaplain to her Majesty, designating the Revolution-which, humanly speaking, saved that church and placed that queen upon the throne-as a foreign invasion and a royal parricide. I must ask, were such opinions as true as I hope they are false, what use in bringing them forward now? nearly a century and a half have elapsed since the title of the reigning sovereign was fixed on those acts, and why brand them with infamy now? The legality or illegality of the service for the fifth of November does not in the least depend upon the nature of the event it was intended to commemorate; and therefore I must say, that an attack upon the principles of the Revolution has been as unnecessarily as injudiciously brought into the discussion. I shall now follow Mr. Perceval's course of argument. He says, "that the question as concerns those who have urged the exclusive authority of the common prayer, in vindication of their total omission of the particular service for the fifth of November, turns upon thisnamely, whether the indirect sanction to the particular services afforded by this act (the act for changing the style) would avail to warrant them in departing from the act of uniformity by using them." Now, I do not think the question turns upon this point at all. The act of parliament which enjoins the observance of these days repeals the act of uniformity as far as these days are concerned; it recognises the right of using, instead of the morning prayer, other service of God; and therefore for those days there is now no more obligation to adhere to the ordinary morning service than if the act of uniformity had never existed-nay, I should go further and say, there is an obligation imposed of deviating from the service established by the act of uniformity. This obligation is, I conceive, imposed by parliament, and not, as Mr. Perceval asserts, by the ecclesiastical legislature. His argument is-The article in the thirty-sixth canon, by which every clergyman binds himself to use the Book of Common Prayer and none other, must be regarded as an acknowledgment of the authority of convocation in respect to the liturgy, and therefore as virtually binding men to observe all alterations put forth by the same authority." This is certainly an extraordinary argument; because the thirty-sixth canon binds the clergy to conform to the liturgy, therefore the convocation have authority over the liturgy, and can bind to observe any alterations they make in it. By the same mode of arguing from the sixth article, it could be proved that convocation had authority over the scriptures, and could bind men to observe any alterations they chose to make in the word of God. But there is a simple answer to the statement. When the thirty-sixth canon was framed, the convocation had never been consulted about the liturgy. Edward the Sixth appointed commissioners to draw up the form of administering the Lord's supper, and it was printed with a proclamation in the name of the king as its authority. The liturgy was similarly entrusted to the "Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most learned and discreet bishops, and other learned men, and when completed was dehvered to the king's highness. It was then submitted to parliament, and an act passed imposing penalties for not using uniformity of service. A similar course was pursued with regard to the second prayer book of Edward, and with regard to the prayer book issued in the first year of Elizabeth. The alterations made in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. were not even submitted to parliament, but having been prepared by certain of the bishops were approved by the king, and stood in force by virtue of the royal proclamation alone. There was indeed a question raised, whether that form of prayer to which the thirty-sixth canon referred, as it was only authorized by the king's mandate, was of sufficient authority to supersede and exclude the "prescript form" established by act of parliament in the reign of Queen Elizabeth ; but the rights of convocation were never considered in the discussion. The form for the fifth of November was itself a subject of controversy; and in the year 1637, when the puritans objected that two places had been changed in the prayers for that day, the answer was, "The alterations are of no moment, and are made by his majesty's own direction." Collier, who would have been most anxious to bring forward the authority of convocation, vindicates the liturgy from the charge of being a parliamentary work by stating that, "as bishops and clergymen of eminence composed the liturgy used in the reign of Edward the Sixth, the same method was taken under Queen Elizabeth, and a committee of divines ordered to bring the whole service under review." And Heylin, equally anxious to uphold the authority of convocation, acknowledges that "the whole body of the clergy in their convocation had no hand therein, either as to decree the doing of it, or to approve it being done; but that it was resolved on by the king with some few of the bishops, by which bishops and a small number of learned churchmen being framed and fashioned, it was allowed by the king, confirmed, or imposed rather, by act of parliament;" and he proceeds to justify such a proceeding as being the practice "both ancient and universally received over all the church;" and a little further he says, "the king, advising with his bishops and other churchmen, though not in a synodical way, may cause the same (that is, forms of prayer) to be revised and revived; and having fitted them to edification and increase of piety, either commend them to the church by his sole authority, or else impose them on the people under certain penalties by his power in parliament."* What, then, is the state of the case? Parliament suspends its own act of uniformity, as far as the three days are concerned, and desires some appropriate service to be performed. The king, in right of his supreme power in ecclesiastical matters and causes, determines to supply the defect, and commissions the convocation to draw up forms of prayer; they obey, and present them to the king, who adopts them as he would the suggestions of any body of bishops and inferior clergy deputed by him, and issues them with a proclamation in his own name, and by his own authority, never mentioning the convocation,a circumstance particularly to be remarked, as, in confirming the articles and canons, the drawing up of which belonged to the convocation, the king especially mentions that they were so drawn up. On the accession of James II. he no doubt deputed some of the bishops, and changed the service for the 29th of May, leaving out the * Reformation of England Justified, page 39. |