Page images
PDF
EPUB

This statement, if I rightly understand it, speaks of leaving out the rubrical direction, from the edition of the Common Prayer Book there specified, as an act of the editor. The fact, however, is, that the editor did not presume to interfere with the text of the Common Prayer Book, with respect to the rubric, or to any other of its contents: the book being printed at Oxford, according to the editions of the Clarendon Press, with which, to the best of my knowledge, it constantly corresponds, unless any typographical error may have accidentally occurred. And accordingly, with respect to the particular " direction from the rubric," noticed by your correspondent, as being "left out by Bishop Mant, in his Prayer Book," which was printed in 1820, I find the same omission in the earlier Oxford editions at the Clarendon press, of 1801, 1803, and 1816, as well as in the later ones, of 1825 and 1826; which are all that I am, at present, able to refer to.

I am desirous, however, of noticing this misapprehension, on account not so much of the individual fact, as of the principle involved in it. For surely it would be very unwarrantable and blameable conduct, if a person, professing to put out an edition of "The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland," with notes, as is professed by the editor in question, were to take it upon himself to "leave out," upon his own responsibility, any "direction from the rubric," whatever reason he might give in a note for the omission.

As to the practice of the delegates of the Clarendon press in this behalf, they are, no doubt, fully able to justify themselves. Indeed, to enter on their vindication would be altogether beside the purpose of this letter, as it would likewise be to touch on other points mentioned by your correspondent; although I cannot but heartily concur with you, Mr. Editor, in opinion, that the publication of banns after the second lesson is in English churches "a very serious interruption to the service," and one from which I should be glad if there were legal authority, which, for my own part, I fear there is not, for departing. I am, Sir, with much respect, your faithful servant, R., D. & C. August 7, 1833.

PUBLICATION OF BANNS.

MR. EDITOR, The Act of Uniformity passed in Charles the Second's reign (14 Car. 2, ch. 4, sec. 24) applies to any violation of the then new Prayer Book such punishments as had been enacted in respect of the old Prayer Book. The Act of Uniformity passed in Elizabeth's reign (1 Eliz., ch. 2, sec. 3 & 4) is in the following words :

"And further be it enacted by the Queen's Highness, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That all and singular Ministers, in any Cathedral or Parish Church or other place within this realm of England, Wales, and the Marches of the same or other the Queen's Dominions, shall from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, be bounden to say

and use the Mattens, Even-song, Celebration of the Lord's Supper, and Administration of each of the Sacraments, and all the common and open Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book, so authorised by Parliament in the said fifth and sixth years of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, with one alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the Form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two Sentences only added in the Delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicants, and none other or otherwise.

"And that if any manner of Parson, Vicar, or other whatsoever Minister, that ought or should sing or say Common Prayer mentioned in the said Book, or minister the Sacraments, from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, refuse to use the said Common Prayers, or to minister the Sacraments in such Cathedral or Parish Church, or other places as he should use to minister the same, in such order and form as they be mentioned and set forth in the said Book, or shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, use any other Rite, Ceremony, Order, Form, or Manner of celebrating of the Lord's Supper, openly or privily, or Mattens, Even-song, Administration of the Sacraments, or other open Prayers, than is mentioned and set forth in the said Book, [open Prayer, in and thoughout this Act, is meant that Prayer which is for others to come unto, or hear, either in common Churches or private Chapels or Oratories, commonly called the service of the Church,] or shall preach, declare, or speak any thing in the Derogation or Depraving of the said Book, or any thing therein contained, or of any part thereof, and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this realm, by Verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession, or by the notorious evidence of the fact, shall lose and forfeit to the Queen's Highness, her heirs, and successors, for his first offence, the profit of all his spiritual Benefices or Promotions coming or arising in one whole year next after his conviction. And also that the person so convicted shall for the some offence suffer imprisonment for the space of six months, without Bail or Mainprize."

There are other clauses for the punishment of non-beneficed clergymen.

The fourteenth canon is as follows:

"The Common Prayer shall be said or sung distinctly and reverently upon such days as are appointed to be kept by the Book of Common Prayer, and their Eves, and at convenient and usual times of those days, and in such place of every Church as the Bishop of the Diocese, or ecclesiastical ordinary of the place, shall think meet for the largeness or straitness of the same, so as the people may be most edified. All Ministers likewise shall observe the orders, rites, and ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, as well in reading the Holy Scriptures and saying of prayers, as in Administration of the Sacraments, without either diminishing in regard of preaching or in any other respect, or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof."

The 4 Geo. IV., ch. 76, sec. 21, is as follows:—

"And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall, from and after the said first day of November, solemnize Matrimony in any other place than a Church, or such public Chapel wherein Banns may be lawfully published, or at any other time than between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon, unless by special licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or shall solemnize Matrimony without due publication of Banns, unless licence of Marriage be first had and obtained from some person or persons having authority to grant the same, or if any person, falsely pretending to be in Holy Orders, shall solemnize matrimony according to the rites of the Church of England, every person knowingly and wilfully so offending, and being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be deemed and adjudged to be guilty of Felony, and shall be transported for the space of fourteen years, according to the laws in force for transporta

tion of Felons, provided that all prosecutions for such Felony shall be commenced within the space of three years after the offence committed."

To answer your question is not within my branch of the profession: but as far as I may venture to speak on this subject it seems to me that a clergyman who obeys the rubric is not liable to censure or penalty. There is a further question of much importance, and which principally depends on the word due in the Marriage Act, and the construction put upon the second section of that act printed in your last number; and this question is, whether a clergyman who obeys this Marriage Act is liable to censure or penalty, taking that act as it seems to have been generally understood. The letter of the law was given in the first instance that every reader may construe its enactments for himself; and it may perhaps be allowable to express some regret that the mode in which the journals of the Parliament are kept should be such as to throw so little light upon the purposes of the legislators. The journals of the Lords do not supply any information which I can find upon the time and place for publishing banns: nor do the journals of the Commons, in the numerous amendments suggested in the debates which arose on the Marriage Act, such as it had passed the Lords in the presence of thirteen bishops, on the 4th of May, 1753. The debates in the Commons, although in a tone somewhat objectionable, contain much that is good in substance. The Attorney-General, Sir Dudley Ryder, who moved the reading of the bill, in going through its purposes and detail, used the following words, according to Hansard's Par. Hist. vol. xv. p. 9:-" All other the rules prescribed by the Rubric concerning the publication of Banns, and the solemnization of Matrimony, and not altered by this bill, shall be duly observed."

Upon the whole then, if the rubric and the Marriage Act of 1823 be each of them to have the fullest effect, and the strict letter of the statute be enforced, a clergyman who publishes banns immediately after the second lesson in the morning service, and then solemnizes matrimony by virtue of such publication, is guilty of felony, and liable to transportation. The words "knowingly and wilfully" would interpose in practice a very considerable difficulty, such as might often correct the severity, and sometimes embarrass the justice of the punishment. It is difficult to refrain from some complaints against this and other laws affecting our religion and establishment, and the mode in which they are enacted. In this very act, the twenty-second section declares four sorts of marriages null and void, to all intents and purposes, without any charge of adultery-yet it seems an error for a Christian state to declare any marriage void to all intents and purposes, except for the cause sanctioned by the God under whom that state holds its name and power: and so sanctioned as to exclude any other cause in the common acceptation of words. In other cases it would surely be enough to exact that the marriage should be void for the purposes of the state in regard to the descent of honour and property. Yours respectfully, W. W. HULL.

August 10, 1833.

VOL. IV.-Sept. 1833.

2 T

NOTICES AND REVIEWS.

Two Sermons on Heb. iv. 5. By J. T. O'Brien, D.D., Fellow of Trin. Coll, and Archbishop King's Lecturer in Divinity at Dublin. London: Longman & Co. pp. 73.

An Attempt to explain and establish the Doctrine of Justification by Faith only, in Ten Sermons on the Nature of Faith. By the same. Same publishers. pp. 412. DR. O'BRIEN is a powerful, energetic, and clear writer, very decided in his views, and very decided in his mode of stating them. In the first of these publications, he is engaged in refuting the error of Mr. Irving respecting the liability to sin in our Lord's human nature. His view is this, that sinfulness consists not in the desires and propensities of our nature to certain objects, but in our wills not exercising a due control over them-that our Lord's nature had the propensities, and consequently felt the temptation, but had not that deficiency in control in which man's depravity consists. This is a view of the subject deserving consideration, and the sermons will fully repay the reader.

In the other publication, Dr. O'Brien discusses at length the doctrine that we are justified by faith only, affirming it in the strongest terms, and commencing with an examination of the words faith, which he takes for trust, not belief, and justify, which he takes for declaring, not making righteous. On a controversial subject like this the Reviewer feels no wish to enter. He will only say that Dr. O'B. advocates his own views with great power—that the three concluding sermons on the moral effects of faith are very excellent and true—that the proposition that by faith (i.e. when we come to trust in the merits of Christ Jesus) we are accounted righteous by God, is admirably made out, but that then the real difficulties of the question, the difficulties which have led to the whole controversy, viz. how we are saved at last, are left just where they were-and that the famous passage in St. James is got over by a very free paraphrase indeed. Why cannot controversy be avoided by eschewing technical terms, and practising a little syncretism? Do not all parties agree that no one will be saved who has not a full trust and dependence on the merits of his Redeemer, and whose life and temper are not like those of his Master?

Dr. O'B. has thought fit to treat Archbishop Lawrence and Bishop Bull with great severity, and has not quite spared Dr. Burton. The living are fully able to take care of themselves, but it must be said that Bull is treated in a most improper way. He is not a man to be spoken of as flippant, artful, positive, dogmatical, &c. A reproof for positiveness would come ill from Dr. O'Brien to any one, for he seems to entertain no doubt about the clearness of his own opinions. But the learning and piety of Bull, and the invaluable services which he has rendered to orthodox Christianity, ought, at all events, to have protected him from insult. They do what is, perhaps, better-namely, render such insults insignificant. But one must further inquire why Dr. O'B. treats all who differ from him as full of artifices, devices, misrepresentations, &c. &c. Can no one hold an opinion different from Dr. O'B. in honesty? Controversies can never end if such suspicions are entertained and exprest. Again, when Dr. O'B. says that he is in Antiquitate plane hospes,' and calls our reformers the next in authority to the apostles, does a person of his powers really mean to vilify antiquity, and really think that the faith of the first three centuries was wrong, or is of no consequence?

A Guide to an Irish Gentleman in his Search for a Religion. By the Rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan, A.M., Rector of Killyman. Dublin: W. Curry, Jun. & Co. 1833. 12mo. pp. 348.

THIS volume may be confidently recommended to the perusal, not only of

Romanists, but of Protestants also, who are constantly not aware of the answers by which the cavils and specious objections of their adversaries are to be met, or of the strength of the ground on which they stand themselves.

Mr. O'Sullivan is perfectly versed in the whole argument-learned, acute, and quite temperate. It is much to be wished that he would turn his attention to the preparation of a small volume, which, without reference to any particular book, like the Irish Gentleman,' should contain, in as concise a form as the importance of the subject will allow, a view of the question between the orthodox catholic churches and the Roman catholic church. Such a book is much wanted-for Matthew Poole's book seems at present the only tolerable compendium, and there are many objections to it. Mr. O'Sullivan seems to possess all the qualifications necessary for such an undertaking.

One very valuable part of Mr. O'Sullivan's work is the way in which he directs attention to the wretchedly unsatisfactory state in which the Romanist is left between the Council of Trent and Pope Pius's creed as to what he is to receive as the legitimate interpretation of Scripture.

Sermons intended for Popular Instruction. By the Rev. H. Hughes, B.A., Curate of Great Linford, Bucks. London: Rivingtons. 1833. 12mo, pp. 212.

A Series of Discourses on Christ's Temptation, delivered in Lent, 1833, at Trinity
Church, Mary-le-bone. By the Rev. F. H. Hutton, M.A. London:
Bowdery and Kerby. 1833. 8vo.
pp. 225.

MR. HUGHES's little volume exhibits thought and considerable energy of language-occasionally perhaps a little overstrained. But this is no serious fault, and will be corrected by time. English preachers sin much more from want of energy than excess of it.

Mr. Hutton's sermons are deficient in what appears to the Reviewer very essential-simplicity of language. But this probably is their especial recommendation to many audiences.

Why are you not a Communicant? By J. D. Coleridge, LL.B. Launceston: Brays.

[ocr errors]

THIS is a very clear, excellent tract, likely to do great good and make a strong impression by the plain and affectionate manner in which the arguments are stated. It should be on the Society's list.

National Apostacy considered, in a Sermon, preached at St. Mary's, Oxford, before the Judges, on Sunday, July 14th, 1833. By John Keble, M.A., Fellow of Oriel, and Poetry Professor in the University of Oxford. Oxford: 1833. THE name of Keble is praise enough, and this sermon is well worthy of that honoured name. Would that such words were heard in every pulpit in England! Men may talk of ultra-ism; but they cannot put down argument. They may talk of the failure of a particular providence since the taking of Jerusalem, and so try to set aside reference to the Old Testament; but they cannot get over the strong clear statement, that the tempers and conduct punished and rewarded among the Jews will be punished and rewarded by the same God, whether visibly now, or years hence, or in the world to come. To the Old Testament we may turn then in full confidence, whether as individuals or a nation, for guidance and warning. And Mr. Keble has shewn, with fearful power of application, what reason we have to look to it now, and to take warning at least, if we will not receive direction.

« PreviousContinue »