The Pastoral Use of the Prayer Book

The Substance of Plain Talks Given to His Students and Younger Clergy

By William Paret

Bishop of Maryland

Maryland Diocesan Library Baltimore, Md., 1904

[By date this applies primarily to the 1892 American edition of the book of Common Prayer.  The principles apply as well to the 1928 edition.]

Contents

Prefatory Note

1          Introductory

2          The Daily Prayers

3          The Litany and Holy Communions; How often?

4          Hymns, Anthems, Music

5          The Lessons and Calendar

6          The Manner of Reading

7          About Reading (Continued)

8          The Order for Holy Communion

9          Repelling From Holy Communion

10        The Holy Communion – The Administration

11        The Holy Communion (Continued)

12        Holy Communion – The People’s Part

13        The Creed and offertory

14        The Payer of Consecration

15        The Administration

16        Holy Baptism

17        Private Baptism

18        The Catechism

19        Confirmation

20        The Confirmation Class

21        The Marriage Service

22        Pastoral Visiting

23        Visitation of the Sick

24        The Burial Service

Prefatory Note

      Among the very pleasant and very restful parts of a Bishop’s work, I count the times of free and affectionate meeting and counsel with students for Holy Orders, Deacons and others of the younger clergy.  I recall especially the Friday morning hours when, during several years, eight or ten would be gathered about my study table while I talked to them about the pastoral use of the Prayer Book.  Many requests have come to me for the publication of these counsels.  But though the substance of them was carefully thought out, they were never written.  They were very familiar, very informal, entirely conversational; and while that conversational character made them, I think, more helpful, it makes it very hard to reproduce them.  But I yield to the urging and make the attempt.

1 – Introductory

      I have been following very closely, young gentlemen, the course of your instruction and study in the Maryland Class of Theology.  Besides the special subjects for which I meet you personally, I have, myself, marked out the whole course, and have very closely watched your progress under the others who have so kindly helped by their learning and their patience.  But in addition to those more formal lectures and recitations, and as a way of applying them all and bringing them to practical results, I have wanted to bring you together for some more free and informal conversation, some hints and lessons from myself about your future work, about the way in which your knowledge is to be applied in the pastoral life.  And for this purpose our talks will be about the Pastoral Use of the Prayer Book.  Not about its history, nor about its deeper principles of liturgics; only the question which each one of you will be consciously or unconsciously asking, “How am I going to act, what am I going to do in the services and the pastoral work which are before me?”  I shall try to keep very closely to this, and to speak very simply and freely; and I hope that if in anything I am not clearly understood, you will feel at full liberty to ask questions at any time.

      Remember, then, it is not the Prayer Book about which I am going to talk, but only the way of using the Prayer Book.

      There are very few books, indeed, which contain in themselves instructions for their own use so minute and careful and helpful as those which we find in the Book of Common Prayer.  From beginning to end, on almost every page, we find interspersed through the more solid substance or body, most minute directions as to the precise way in which the services are to be held, the devotional acts done, and the words of prayer and teaching spoken.  We call those special rules and directions the “Rubrics”.  No matter now about the derivation and history of that word; it is not liturgical theory or history, but practical pastoral work about which we are now to speak and think.  We meet (not often, but sometimes) clergymen who take pleasure in treating the rubrics as of very little importance; who seem to be annoyed by them as if they were fetters on our lawful liberty; who want to treat them as suggestions rather than as positive laws; who do not feel themselves really governed by them, evade them when they can, and are glad to speak flippantly about them, or to find occasion for disregarding them.

      I recall one incident at a public meeting where certain rubrical questions came under discussion, and one enthusiastic speaker said, “Oh, these rubrics! they worry me, they fret me, they choke me.”  And as he accompanied these last words with an expressive gesture, clutching at his throat, if I had not been restrained by my position as presiding, I wanted to quote for him,

“No thief e’er felt the halter draw,

With good opinion of the law.” –

Or the same principle as told by St. Paul, “The law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient.”  Laws, whether divine, civil, or ecclesiastical, are not fetters on liberty.  They are helps to liberty, and protection for it.  The rubrics are like the fences by the road side.  They mark out the safe, broad path, and help to keep it safe; and they protect private rights from the incursions of the unruly.  A man can, if he be willful, rush against them and take pleasure in breaking them.  But the wise man will gladly accept their guidance and protection.

      If I were walking over the Niagara suspension bridge, I would feel a great deal safer and keep the right line better, for a good fence on either side, and I am very sure that I should not be fretting against them or trying to break them.

      The rubrics are the accumulation and careful record of the eighteen centuries of the Church’s experience.  You will find careful obedience to them, yes, minute obedience, your truest liberty and your best safety from your own fancies or willfulness, and from the fault-findings of others.

      A few words about the Preface to the Prayer Book, but remember, not historically, but only as it bears upon our pastoral use.  You will note the statement towards the end of the Preface, that “this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline or worship; or further than local circumstances may require.”  It is important that we should know just what that means.  Some have argued (and acted on it) that it gives them very large liberty to go back and use things in the Church of England Prayer Book which are not found in ours.  If, for example, in our Prayer Book something has been omitted (though not distinctly prohibited) which was in the English Book, but which in their opinion involves something very important in doctrine, discipline or worship, they act on their own judgment of that importance, and say, “The Church did not mean to depart from the Church of England in this important respect and we are at liberty therefore to continue the use in our Churches here.”  Or in some matter of very little comparative importance, involving no essential or even great question of doctrine, discipline or worship, they in their private judgment can see no “local circumstances” which required that it should have been omitted or changed.  They argue, “the Prayer Book says it was not intended to change further than local circumstances require; but we can see no such local circumstances, and, therefore, we may assume that no change was here intended, and may act as if it had not been made.”

      I want to show you that such argument and action are not sound or fair.

      In taking the Church of England Prayer Book as a foundation, and on that and out of that providing and enacting a Prayer Book for the Church in America, this Church did not continue in use the English Prayer Book, but put another in its place.  The Preface expressly distinguishes between “this,” and “the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England.”  In making changes the Church acted upon and asserted the claim to “alter, abridge, enlarge, amend, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people.”  If then, in enacting her own Prayer Book, this National Church has in any instance altered (by change of language or direction), abridged (by omitting), enlarged (by adding), or amended, we are bound in honor and truth not to say, “I can see no reason of ‘expediency’ or ‘local circumstances,’ and therefore I am free to act as if no such alteration or omission had been made.”

      The sound, fair argument is rather this: “Here is a change actually made by the Church’s authority (by altering, abridging or enlarging).  But the Church declares that it makes no change involving any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship.  However important to me, therefore, this particular thing, I must accept the Church’s decision that there is no breach of essentials in conforming myself to the change so made; and I must obey.”

      And on the other hand the very lack of importance in certain changes is urged as a plea for doing as one pleases.  And here the wrong argument would be, “The Church did not intend to depart from the Church of England further than ‘the edification of the people’ or ‘local circumstances’ require.  But I see no such ‘local circumstances,’ and I think it would be much more to edification to go back to the English rule, and I will do so.”

      The right argument will be, “The Church did not make any change, unless required for ‘edification’ or by ‘local circumstances’.  But the Church did omit, alter or add in this instance; whether I see it or not, then, the Church has decided that these changes were required for edification or by local circumstances.  And as a loyal Churchman, I yield my private opinion to that decision.”

      Young men, be Americans, I beg you.  You are none the less Catholic, you are none the less Anglican, because you hold strongly to the ancient, Catholic, and always Anglican principle of the independence of National Churches.

2 – The Daily Prayers.

      Referring to page vii of the Prayer Book, whose title is “Concerning the Service of the Church,” I want to speak to you today on what we commonly name as “the Daily Service,” including Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer.  I want you to have some clear idea of your own obligation and duty in this respect, and the purpose and intention of the Church concerning it.

      First of all, in our American Prayer Book there is no distinct and absolute command that every clergyman must every day say those services.  There is such a distinct law of the Church of England, that every clergyman, not hindered by other duties or important hindrances, must say the Morning and Evening Prayer every day; in the church if he has pastoral charge, and in private if he has no such charge.  But in the change made from the English Prayer Book, the Church in this country left out that rubric.  What was the intention and effect of that change?  Plainly it was not to prevent the daily service in Church, nor was it to prohibit or censure the private saying, but only to take away the absoluteness of the obligation; to leave larger discretion to the minister.  It is not now said “you must;” but the provision remains for doing it, and the Daily Service stands as the general appointment, as in the Church’s idea desirable.  The Prayer Book in its entireness gives us the high ideal of full worship.  There are parishes and churches where that full ideal is possible and practicable; in institutions and seminaries, in the strong, permanent work of a city church, for instance.  But in the poorer parts, in the country, among people widely scattered, and in missionary work, it is often impossible to gather a congregation in church with any such regularity.  And the clergyman, keeping the Church’s full ideal always before him, must use his own discretion in his practical work.  That ideal of full worship is the Morning Prayer and the Evening Prayer daily; the Litany every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday; the Holy Communion on every Sunday and Holy Day, and at other times.  Work towards that ideal; lead your people up to it as you can.  But do not say or teach that it is the people’s duty to come to the daily service, nor reprove them if they fail to do so.  Even the English law does not make it an obligation for the people.  It makes it the minister’s duty to say the Service, and directs him to say it in the church, if he has a church, and then to give notice by the ringing of the bell, that “the people who are so minded may attend.  It is a privilege for the congregation, an opportunity, a blessing.  Persuade them to love it, to use it, but do not make it a law.  And do not give it up because only a few attend.  Do not make that fearfully common mistake of measuring the value and blessing of a service by the size of the congregation.  Our Lord meant it when He said, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”  It is poor faith in Him to doubt it.  I have heard of a clergyman’s saying, “Brethren, I find only two of you here today, and I will omit the services.”  It was shameful!  I have heard persons sneer at a clergyman’s saying the service with only one or two, or at his praying alone in his Church.  Don’t be ashamed of God, nor ashamed of praying to him.  Pray for your people, if you cannot pray with them.  We are beginning to boast of having a working Church.  But when I see the churches with their doors fast locked on week days, I ask myself whether the Lord does not want a praying Church also.

      And if you cannot yourself say the Morning and Evening Prayer in church, let me enjoin upon you the habit of saying it (praying it, rather) in private.  If you do it in earnest it will not be a formality. It will not check your longer and free devotions.  It will help to their constancy and fervor and fullness.  Thousands of clergymen have found and are finding the power of these Daily Services in keeping up the prayerfulness of their daily lives.  Some of the greatest examples of fervent private prayer grew to that fervor by the help of the prayers of the Church.  Andrewes, Herbert, Bishop Wilson, Ken, John Wesley, are but a few of those who are great patterns of fervent private prayer; and all of them were helped to that by the unbroken daily worship of the Church.

      In our own day, alas! in the hurry and whirl and din of Church business and organization and work, many a clergyman finds his prayers almost crowded out.  Believe me that if you form the habit of saying the Daily Service in private, the prayerful habit and prayerfulness will form around it.

      “The Order for Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion, are distinct services, and may be used either separately or together; provided that no one of these services be habitually disused.”

      Looking back about fifty years, to the time when my own work in the Holy Ministry began, I cannot remember that I ever at that time on a Sunday heard the Morning Prayer, unless in immediate connection with the Litany, and what was called the Ante-Communion.  It seemed the imperative tradition or unwritten law that they must go together.  It would have been counted a serious breach of good Churchmanship to have separated them and said them at different hours.  It seemed like a mutilation and the old-fashioned people would have been horrified.  The three services, it was thought, must be joined in one.  Even so late as the first year of my own Episcopate, when on a very hot Sunday morning, I suggested to the Rector that I would omit the Litany, hoping to have it said later, and put the Confirmation Service in its place, I was met by a protest almost indignant, that it was the custom of Maryland, and of all my predecessors in the Bishopric, to give the people the full service.  The people would think it an innovation.  I yielded, but that same clergyman is wiser now and gladly accepts the permission which this rule of separation seems to give.  I say “seems” to give, because the liberty already existed.  There was no law of the Church which required them to be said in immediate connection.  So far as the rubrics were concerned, one was just as free then in this respect as now.  It was the power of an almost cast-iron custom fastened upon the rubrics; an unwritten law more rigidly observed than the written law.

      We will think a little about the force of custom, the measure of obligation in unwritten usages, and your own practice with regard to them.  These old customs, these long-established unwritten laws, though not obligatory, deserve very careful respect.  If you find any such in a parish where you are placed, and they be not in violation of the Prayer Book, be slow about disturbing them.  Some of your people may magnify them into matters of conscience, and so prove their consciences unenlightened and weak.  But we are expressly commanded to have patience with weak consciences and not needlessly offend them.  Be very slow and careful in making changes in old parochial usages.  Do not force them upon your people, however wise it may seem to you.  I remember an instance where it had been the settled usage in a large church to have the Holy Communion only at the midday Service on the first Sunday of the month.  A new rector earnestly wished to have it on every Sunday and every Holy Day, as the Prayer Book suggests and almost appoints.  Knowing that the parish had been divided by some sore party questions, he felt the ground carefully, and found in some of his best parochial advisers grave fears that the new custom would awaken again the differences which seemed to be dying.  So, important as the change seemed to him, he waited; alluded in occasional sentences in his sermons to the Apostolic customs; added line to line and precept to precept on the subject; till at last, in a sermon on the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, he said: “Dear friends, if those early Christians in the days of first fervor and miracles needed the grace which they received in the frequent reception of the Holy Communion, surely the Christians of today need it quite as much.  If those inspired Apostles needed that blessing every week to strengthen them in their great work, surely the uninspired ministers of this day must need it more.  I need it.  I feel the need.  I want in my work all the grace I can gain.  So without making a law for you, I intend hereafter to administer and receive the Holy Communion every Sunday, and every Holy Day.  Some of you (they may be few) will feel the same need, and I invite you to come.  Some of you may not feel the need, or like the change from your own old usage.  Such need not come.  Let there be full liberty.  Let each do as his or her own conscience bids, and let none judge another’s conscience.  This frequent Communion I mean as a privilege and not an obligation.”

      You almost laugh at the thought of such carefulness in these days; but those were times of tinder and powder, when a spark would make an explosion.  There are old-fashioned parishes still; there are still some extravagantly conservative people; but their views, if not always the best, have a right to be considered.  Don’t force your people into even necessary changes, but lead them.

      Permission to use separately the Morning Prayer, the Litany, and the office for Holy Communion is limited by a condition: “Provided that no one of these Services be habitually disused.  What is “habitual disuse?”  It is not easy to answer.  The Prayer Book does not define it exactly, and we can therefore only suggest and advise.  Now the use should, so far as possible, conform to the ideal of the Church, obeying strictly as to times and frequency wherever, as in a strong parish, strict obedience is possible; and under the conditions of a very scattered and feeble parish or in missionary charge, keeping the ideal always in mind and coming as near to it as it may be.  That standard of the Church’s ideal of worship is plainly given in the Prayer Book.  As to the Morning Prayer, its very title is “Daily Morning Prayer,” though some seem to read “Sunday Morning Prayer,” or “Occasional Morning Prayer.”  The Calendar gives the table of “lessons for every day in the year.”  It is written, “The Psalter shall be read through once every month.”  This then is the law, to be fully obeyed where obedience is possible; the ideal to be aimed at where full obedience is not possible.  And in my opinion the clergyman having a Church where a few, if not more than the two or three, would generally come, who, not hindered by necessary duties, fails to give them the blessing which the Church provides for them, and substitutes for the constant round the weekly or occasional prayers only, such an one would be “habitually disusing” the Daily Morning Prayer.

3 – The Litany and Holy Communion; How often?

      The Litany is appointed “to be said on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.”  There are churches now where the Litany is very rarely used, and omitted for very light reasons; some, where it is said; even on Sundays, only three or four times in a year, and where on Wednesdays and Fridays it is never heard.  There may be special conditions which would call for an occasional omission on these days, but occasional omission should have very strong reason, and not grow into general omission with only occasional use.  The Litany may now be said not only in connection with the Morning Prayer, or by itself, but in connection with the Evening Prayer; and we wish that usage would grow.  It would lighten our Evening Services and be very attractive to the strangers who come at such times.  Nor is its use confined to Sunday, Wednesday and Friday.  It may be used on any day.  And the clergymen who are sometimes asking for a third Service or something for a special occasion, might find in this all they need.  I wish we might often have the Evening Prayer in the afternoon with the children, as introducing the Sunday School or Catechism, and a strong preaching at night introduced by the Litany.  Try it sometimes.  At the meetings of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, lasting for a month, the Litany was used daily at the opening of every business meeting, and all felt its fitness and its power.

      But while it may be said every day, the Prayer Book certainly implies that it should be said on the three days named, and habitual breaking of that rule, willful or careless, or unnecessary departure from the standard of frequency which the Prayer Book gives, would, in my opinion, be “habitual disuse”.

      And as to the Holy Communion, while there are no words which command a definite measure of frequency, there is something almost approaching it.  The provision of a Service for the Holy Communion with distinct Epistle and Gospel for every Sunday or Holy Day, very clearly shows the Church’s intention and wish.  The provision of special Prefaces to be used on Easter day, and seven days after; on Christmas day, and seven days after; these and other like appointments come very near to a requirement.  True, provision is made and direction is given in certain rubrics, for cases where the Holy Communion is not administered on those days; but the language is such as to imply that these cases are exceptional and it is commanded that “upon the Sundays and Holy Days, though there be no sermon or Communion, there shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, unto the end of the Gospel, concluding with the Blessing.”  This is the warrant and command for using, when thus necessary, what is familiarly, but wrongly, called the Ante-Communion Service.  There is no such Service known to the Prayer Book, and I hope you young men will conform to the Church’s own language.  It is a part of the office of Holy Communion, and distinctly so named; and it is commanded that even if for some good reason the Holy Communion be not fully celebrated, it shall be kept before the minds of the people by the use of certain parts of the Service.

      I grant, then, that it is not always possible to have it with the frequency for which the Church has provided; but I am sure that the general usage could come far nearer to it than it does.  When you have put upon you that solemn responsibility, the pastoral care of souls, remember that the Holy Communion is a blessing which your people need, not fitfully and rarely, but regularly and often.  The Lord provides it for them.  Think of it not as a service to be performed, but as a Grace to be administered.  And think seriously of two words in the Prayer for Christ’s Church Militant, where we ask for ourselves, and for all Bishops and other Ministers, that they may “rightly and duly” administer the Holy Sacraments; “rightly,” that is, as Christ has commanded, and with the fullness of reverent order which this Church has set forth; and “duly,” that is, at due time, in due frequency, with due regularity, so often and so regularly that no needy soul may lose its blessing.

      Perhaps, young men, all this may seem to you like being particular about little things; but the Holy Communion is not a little thing.  No part of God’s worship is a little thing.  Punctuality, time, order, reverence, are not little things in God’s sight.  It was God himself who commanded and established in His earlier worship the law of an unbroken round of earnest worship, the temple doors never shut, the everyday morning and evening Sacrifice.  We do not have the same forms, but we should have the same or greater fidelity of earnest worship.  Do not leave these appointments to your own fancy and convenience, nor to the people’s whims.  Do not let even the modern hurry of what is called “Church Work” interfere with them.  Your Church work will be best done and most effective when it is constantly “Sanctified by the Word of God, and by Prayer.”

      SPECIAL SERVICES come next, i.e., Services for which no forms are provided.  Note two things: the freedom given, and the limits or restrictions to that freedom.  Freedom defined and protected is real liberty.  Freedom undefined is lawlessness.  If you use the liberty, be sure to observe the conditions, and be very slow to institute or multiply Special Services.  Be sure they are really needed.  Nowadays almost every guild, or circle, or society, wants its own peculiar services and forms.  In most cases it would be far better to ask them to come to Morning or Evening Prayer or Litany, and be content with that.  They will find enough to meet all their needs, and it will help them to see and feel that their work is not separate from, but part of the grand work of the Church.  It will help to keep our Church work a unity instead of breaking it into little portions.  I have already spoken of such use of the Litany by the Lambeth Conference; and if this body of one hundred and fifty Bishops, studying and praying for all the diversified relations of the Church in all the world, found that they needed no special prayers, that the Prayer Book, as it is, met all their needs, surely our smaller or parochial societies might helpfully do the same.  I know I have sometimes given offence because I refused permission for special services when it had been asked.  Bring your organization into parish unity by drawing them to the regular Church Service, and do not have weak substitutes to please their fancy.

      Yet, needs do come; a third or fourth Service, perhaps, where the Morning and Evening Prayer, and Litany, and Holy Communion have all been held.  But why not sometimes repeat one of these services?  Churches now sometimes have even three or four distinct Celebrations of Holy Communion.  Why not Evening Prayer twice?  Not twice with the very same congregation, but if said at four or five, with one set of worshippers, why not again at eight, with another set?  Try it.

      And to help you to see how sufficient the ordinary services are, the freedom for special services is limited by the condition that the Morning and Evening Prayer are to be used the same day.  Not till you have fully used what the Church has appointed, may you pass to something else.  I need not dwell upon the other conditions, so clearly stated, that unless the Bishop provides and approves other forms, you are limited to what is contained in the Bible and the Prayer Book, and that even for that you must have the Bishop’s approval.  Do not hesitate to ask it, if necessary.  But do not run to him for unnecessary things.  Do not ask for a form for blessing an altar, or a font, or a pulpit, or vases, or candlesticks.  The best dedication of them will be in their right use in holy things.

4 – Hymns, Anthems, Music.

      We come next to the rubric about the use of Hymns and Anthems; the use of music in the Services.  Taking rubrics and canons together, both the authority and the duty of the minister are made very clear.  He is to appoint the hymns or anthems.  He is commanded to give direction concerning the tunes to be sung, and especially to repress all light and unseemly music.  The offertory, hymn or anthem must be, it is written, “under the direction of the minister.”  And it is but right that he should have this full authority, since music is so important an element in public worship, so helpful to true devotion if wisely used, so unhelpful and harmful otherwise.  Please note that it is not the minister’s right, or his privilege, but his duty so to use authority.  It is not that he “may,” but he “shall”.  All the responsibility for the right and helpful rendering of the worship is laid on him.  I urge you, when you may have parochial charge, to recognize that duty and not to shirk the responsibility.  But remember, authority here, as in other cases, may be used helpfully and healthfully and pleasantly, or harmfully and ungenerously.  The best exercise of authority is that which is least noticed, which makes itself effective by its gentleness and wins acceptance instead of compelling it.  If yourself thorough in the knowledge and practice of music, keep the ability in the background.  Let it be felt, not seen.  You can have all the control you need by your relations and influence with organist and singers, apart from the time of service but avoid being conspicuous in the music in time of service.  I have seen a clergyman pass outside the rail and take his seat at the organ, going back to the prayers; or going down in like manner to stand with the singers and take one of the parts in an anthem.  Don’t do it.  Good music is indeed desirable, but fussiness is harmful, and reverence in prayers is more important.  Do not let any action of yours make your congregation think that you lack confidence in organist or singers.  Uphold their delegated authority during the service.  Advise them, if you will, elsewhere.  Perhaps you have, like myself, no special musical ability.  Whether you have or not, I think the true secret is that rector and organist and choir leader be trustful and loyal to each other.  A loyal organist will do anything that a reasonable rector wishes.  Again, do not pass over your duty and responsibility to a committee of the vestry or a single member of it.  It always ends in trouble.  When I became Rector of the Church of the Epiphany, in Washington, the vestry, in organizing after the first Easter election, proceeded to appoint a music committee.  My voice and manner indicated surprise and one of them at once explained, saying: “Do not be alarmed, our music committee is to uphold the rector, not to interfere with him.  We always choose two persons who know nothing at all about music, and our first direction is that they do not meddle with the music.”  “What do they do then?” I asked.  “Why, our music has two relations: its musical and devotional side, and its business side.  It is with this business side that the committee has to do.  Besides, there do come little frictions, and the rector may ask sometimes to have a committee come in between and save him some trouble.”  That committee was indeed very helpful.  So I sum up.  You have a sacred duty and responsibility for the music as part of the worship.  You have corresponding authority.  Use it, but use it lovingly and with common sense, and you will not have much trouble.

      Some of you have asked my advice about the Choral service.  It is certainly lawful, but some things lawful are not always expedient.  In England it is almost universal, in the smaller churches and in the country, as well as in the larger churches of the city.  And there I have almost always found it helpful to devotion, even when, as being no singer myself, I could take my part only almost inaudibly.  And it was helpful because it was thoroughly congregational, because it was not taken out of the mouths of the people by the appointed singers.  Everybody sang.  The same pointing of canticles and Psalter was almost universal, and all were familiar with it.  The chants and tunes were simple and well known.  But I must say that in this country the choral service seems quite different.  Practically, the appointed singers do take it away from the people.  Even in the churches where it is best done, very few of the people do more than listen.  There is no generally accepted dividing of words.  One parish has one division, and another a different one.  And the chant tunes are not so simple as in England, and are continually being changed.  The aim seems too often to be excellence in musical art and skill rather than earnestness and unity of devotion.

      My advice then is, first, be slow to change in either way.  If in authority where the choral service is already established, do not give it up on account of your own preference or prejudice.  The worship is not for your satisfaction, but for your people’s use and benefit.  Consider them.  If not helpful to congregational worship, try to make it so.  Get your organist with you; convert him to your wishes and you will succeed.

      If the question be as to introducing it where not in use, again I say, be very careful.  If well convinced that it will help to heartier worship, it may be well; provided, first, you can find persons skilled in music to help you effectively.  (I know few things more unhelpful than a weak and unskilled attempt at a choral service, and I have heard such.)  And provided, second, that you have your people with you.  Old usages and ways must be considered.  Prejudices, even unreasonable prejudices, must be dealt with tenderly.  The best choral service imaginable would be dearly bought at the cost of parish strife.

      But whether you have choral service or not, do not turn your churches into concert halls.  Do not advertise “musical attractions”.  Do not make the music the chief thing.  I have seen churches with grand organs and costly choirs and cultivated voices, where the richness of the music obtruded itself conspicuously, overloaded the worship, and kept devotion in the background.  The Church for worship; the concert room for musical display.

5 – The Lessons and Calendar.

      About the lessons.  As you study the calendar you will see that while exact appointment seems to be made for every Sunday, every Holy Day, every day in the year, yet ample provision is made for deviating from that strict routine, when necessary or desirable.  There is not a day in the whole year in which, under the rubrics, some departure from the appointed lessons would not be permissible.  Let me urge you, however, to be very sparing in your use of such liberties.  There is something grandly helpful in the continuity of Holy Scripture; not only in the succession of thought and teaching in each distinct book (which was included in the inspiration), but even in the order and collocation of the books, which was not inspired, but in which, I feel assured, the wisdom of the Church was divinely guided.  The Church in the Lectionary has taken pains for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth;” yet I have known clergymen, instead of keeping to that helpful continuity, to press their liberty to extremes and give their people lessons taken haphazardly.  Let me remind you then of another important word used in these rubrics of permission.  I mean the word “discretion;” “such devotions as he shall at his discretion select from this book;” “such lessons as he shall think fit in his discretion.”  I think that sometimes in his mind and action the minister understands by that word “discretion” his fancy, whim, impulse, wish.  But discretion implies consideration, thoughtfulness, careful examination.  Do not leave anything, I beg you, to the impulse of the moment.  Study all beforehand.

      Do not abandon the Psalter for the day just as you come to it, because it is long, and take a haphazard selection because it is short.  I was once at a service where the minister (who had not read his lessons beforehand, as I urge you to do) turned to the first lesson, glanced at it a moment, suddenly opened the book at another place and read one of the very familiar chapters from Isaiah.  After service I asked the reason.  He said: “I saw at a glance that the appointed lesson was not very helpful, only something about the wars of Israel; I like Isaiah better.”  One of the congregation afterwards said to me, “Our Rector must think he has a dry congregation, for he gives us ‘Ho, everyone that thirsteth’ ten or twelve times a year.”  Do not let your “discretion” become indiscretion.  Be careful in the use of your liberties.  Let the “shall” of the rubrics express to you the Church’s clearer and fuller purposes and will; and the “may” indicate only occasional possibilities, to be used with very careful “discretion,” and for valid reasons.

      In answer to your questions about the use of the special lessons for Lent and for the Rogation days and the Ember days, I give not decision but advice.  Those, though called “Proper Lessons,” are not obligatory as the other proper lessons are.  The head line says, not “they shall,” but “they may be used instead of those appointed in the Calendar.”  If it were my privilege to serve in a parish where the daily service was maintained, I am sure I should not interrupt the grand continuity by which almost all of Holy Scripture is in order brought before us.  I would hold fast to the regular Calendar.  But if in a Church which had no daily service throughout the year, that argument of continuity would not hold, and I would by all means use the proper lessons permitted for those special seasons.  The Calendar of Lessons looks to some much like an Almanac, and they treat it as of little more value.  But to some it is a guide to daily devotion, and a help to the continuous, thoughtful, Christian life.  Perhaps I can best here answer a question asked by one of you.  “What shall we do about the black letter Holy Days?”  I do not find any such days.  Remember it is the Prayer Book of this American Church we are studying, not that of the Church of England.  And there are no “black letter days” at all in its Calendar.  They were not even in the English Calendar of the Prayer Book of Edward VI; none at all in the first of King Edward; four only in the second.  They were then deliberately stricken out from the observance and worship of the Church, and those which now stand in the English Prayer Book were put there later in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but with no observance of worship appointed for them.  For this reinsertion, Wheatley well gives the reasons, as follows:

      “The reasons why the names of these Saints’ days and Holy days were resumed into the calendar are various.  Some of them being retained upon account of our Courts of justice, which usually make their returns on these days, or else upon the days before or after them, which are called in the writs, Vigil, Fest, or Crast, as in Vigil. Martin; Fest. Martin; Crast. Martin, and the like.  Others are probably kept in the calendar for the sake of such tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and others, as are wont to celebrate the memory of their tutelar Saints; as the Welshmen do of St. David, the shoemakers do of St. Crispin, etc.  And again, churches being in several places dedicated to some one or other of these Saints, it has been the usual custom in such places to have Wakes or Fairs kept upon those days; so that the people would probably be displeased if, either in this, or the former case, their favorite Saint’s name should be left out of the calendar.  Besides, the histories which were writ before the Reformation do frequently speak of transactions happening upon such a holy day, or about such a time, without mentioning the month; relating one thing to be done at Lammas-tide, and another about Martinmas, etc., so that were these names quite left out of the calendar we might be at loss to know when several of these transactions happened.  But for this and the foregoing reasons our second reformers under Queen Elizabeth (though all those days had been omitted in both books of King Edward VI excepting St. George’s Day, Lammas Day, St. Laurence and St. Clement, which were in his second book) thought convenient to restore the names of them to the calendar, though not with any regard of being kept holy by the Church.  For this they thought prudent to forbid, as well upon account of the great inconveniency brought into the Church in the times of Popery by the observation of such a number of holy days, to the great prejudice of laboring and trading men, as by reason that many of those Saints they then commemorated were oftentimes men of none of the best characters.  Besides, the history of those Saints and the accounts they gave of their other holy days, were frequently found to be feigned and fabulous.”

      And so, dropped deliberately in the two Prayer Books of King Edward, and restored (not for worship, but for business convenience and local usages) in the time of Queen Elizabeth, they were again deliberately cut out by this National Church in adapting the Prayer Book to our American uses.  We have no need of them; no court or business usages requiring them as dates; no local usages dependent on them.  Look again at the preface to our own Prayer Book.  In these changes there is no departing from the Church of England in any essential point, but “only as local circumstances may require.”  Local circumstances made those “black letter days” unhelpful for us, took away the need for them, and required the change.  If you would be loyal to your own Church, and true to your Ordination promise, “to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States,” keep the days you find in our own Calendar and let the English Calendar alone.  We do not need King Charles or King Edward or St. Chad or St. Dunstan in our American Calendar, nor do we need the fantasies and of ten unsound traditions which some other names recall.  As for Corpus Christi and All Soul’s Day, they are not even on the English list, but taken bodily from Rome.  Let them all alone.

      Certain sentences at the beginning of Morning Prayer are marked for special seasons or days, Advent, Christmas, etc.  You are not bound to use them.  Note that they are marked off from the other sentences, before and after, which were in the Prayer Book before its recent revision.  I have never used one of them myself; I do not think I ever will.  They seem to me like a patch of new cloth on an old garment.  The tone is entirely different.  What follows them at once is confession of sin.  The old sentences invited to confession, to approaching God in humility.  It seems to me incongruous to say, “Awake, awake, put on thy beautiful garments,” and at once, “Let us humbly confess our sins.”  You may use the new ones if you wish, but I hope you will not wish it very often.

6 – The Manner of Reading.

      It is a good place here to say something about the manner of reading.  Let it be so that the people can hear and understand and follow; therefore, with full voice, distinctly, not too rapidly.  In the English Prayer Book it is commanded to be “with a loud voice;” “distinctly” is the word used in another rubric.  It was a protest against the habit prevailing before the Reformation, when priests “pattered” and “mumbled” the prayers, gabbling them over hurriedly as if they were a mere formal service to be rendered by the priest for the people.  With our Prayer Book it is for priest and people together, the priest leading the people, but the people accompanying and doing their part.  It is not that simply the priest offers his prayers to God; the people are to pray, and any reading so indistinct, or so hurried, that they cannot follow both with mind and voice will be wrong.  But there is an opposite error of theatrical or bombastic reading; some describe it as declaiming or preaching the prayers, with very marked changes of tone and emphasis.  You may avoid both by remembering and observing one or two things.  The prayers are to be read for yourself and for the people.  Put your own soul into them; mean them; feel them; let the honest reverence and devoutness of your own heart speak out, and there will be neither the haste and lifelessness of mere formality, nor the artificial seeking for effect.  And it will be easy by habit to combine with your own full devoutness the remembrance that you are also leading the people, helping them to pray.  Very rarely indeed is the service said too slowly.  Very often indeed it is said too fast, especially in those parts which, like the Confession and the Creeds and Lord’s Prayer, are to be said in concert.  Note that such parts have a special manner of printing.  The capital letters are used not by the ordinary rules, but for the purpose of breaking the words into marked clauses like the bars in music, to keep the voices together.  I often find these said so rapidly and continuously that I am almost out of breath in trying to keep up with the reader.  Study to separate these clauses by a distinct pause, and you will soon have a fuller and clearer responding.

      Another help to right reading will be found in very exactly observing and marking the punctuation as given in the certified editions.  A great many in reading, run over commas and semicolons, and make their own pauses chiefly by their own capacity for breathing, or by the monotony of equal length divisions without regard to the meaning.  Shut yourself in your study sometimes and practice a few of the prayers or collects deliberately, with exact observance of punctuation.  Try the first exhortation, “Dearly beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us,” etc.  Read  the opening sentence down to the word “wickedness,” as it is commonly read in a single unbroken breath, and then read it again and put in the three commas as they are given.  You will see the difference, and a little such practice will help you greatly.

      There are different methods of using the Gloria Patri, when it is said instead of being sung.  In some churches minister and people together say the whole of it.  In some, when the Psalm ends with a verse of an odd number, and so is said by the minister, the people at once begin the Gloria.  I wish we had a uniform usage, and it seems to be suggested where the Gloria appears in the Litany.  It is plainly indicated there that the first portion should be said by the minister and the second part by the people.

      The Te Deum is now almost always turned over to the organist and choir; far too often, in my judgment.  The Prayer Book says it is to be “said or sung”.  I plead for a little less singing and a little more saying.  There are musical renderings to the Te Deum, which are not only musically rich, but grandly expressive of devotion and helpful to it.  And I hear a great many renderings which are merely musical (often music bad in conception and in rendering), with the devotion forgotten.  I do not like to have people say after a service, “What beautiful music!”  A good critic in such matters wrote that he had heard and enjoyed the grandest choir music in England, but he never knew the real devotional power of music till at the opening of the Vatican Council he heard the Te Deum given by six or eight thousand male voices in unison, with one of the simple Gregorian tunes.  Try reading the Te Deum sometimes, even with a large congregation, and see how the power of that great Creed of Praise is brought out.

      Before leaving the subject of Church music and the minister’s duty with regard to it, there are some other points which deserve our notice; for under the head of music we must include not only the sounds but the words and their meaning.  And this is the point in which not only is the minister’s absolute authority most strongly affirmed, but in which the real exercise of that authority is a sacred and imperative duty.  After direction from the minister as to the general character of the tunes, avoiding florid display, and studying harmony with the tone of the services for the season and day, and devotional helpfulness rather than sensuous satisfaction, the music as to details may be largely left to a competent organist, or leader, who understands and is loyal to the minister’s wishes.  Yet careful watchfulness as to words is needed here.  Even good music may help or harm right devotion.  I have heard more than once a Te Deum chosen by a good choir leader, which instead of the three-fold “Holy,” repeated that word four times, by soprano, tenor and bass separately, and then a strong fourth “Holy” in full chorus.  It was good perhaps in mere musical effect, but it robbed the very heart, and destroyed the grand meaning of that sublime hymn of faith and praise to the Blessed Trinity.  But the selection of the words ought never to be left to the choice or fancy of leader or choir.  For general soundness in doctrine the Church has provided safeguards, effective safeguards, if only the rules of rubrics and canons be exactly obeyed.  Those rules command that nothing be sung in church unless in the words of the Bible, or of the Prayer Book, or of the authorized hymns.  And the duty of strictly maintaining those safeguards is expressly laid upon the minister.  For failure to fulfill this duty, things are of ten sung as offertory anthems which would be absurd if they were not so irreverent.  I have heard as an offertory anthem a sentimental love ditty, without a word or suggestion of love or faith or praise to God.  I have heard even at a service for the consecration of a bishop a battle song taken from a popular opera which could have been sung by a heathen as well as by a Christian.  I have heard false teaching sung, and words absolutely in opposition to the tone of the day’s worship and to the sermon just preached; all taken without much regard to the words, merely because the musical rendering was “sweet,” or pleasing.  More wrong ideas of religion are sung into people’s minds than many sermons could preach into them.  Watch your anthems then, and see that the words are first, and the sound subsidiary to the sense.  Let me repeat that you will find strict obedience to the Church’s wisdom in rubrics and canons about music your very best safety.

      And I beg you, announce your anthems; read the words, so that the people may know what is being sung.  Very of ten as I stand in the chancel, with no way of knowing what the anthem or hymn may be, St. Paul’s words about an unknown tongue came back to me with a little change (1 Cor. 14): “Except ye utter words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is being sung?  For ye shall sing into the air.  For if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that singeth a barbarian, and he that singeth shall be a barbarian unto me. ... I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.”  It may be very rich music, but St. Paul seems to think it barbarism, unless the music is fitted to and helps to bring out the meaning of clear words and thoughts.