The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-10-05

ent sovereignttes." To say that the choral
| service is peculiar to cathedral churches in
England Is quite amlstake. 1t Is practlced In
| parochial churches In various parts Of the
kingdom. And that Bishop White did not
| entertain the opinion thRt.the psalter was in
| consistent with The rubrics of the American
| PRAYER book will appeatfrom the following e1-
tract from bis memOlrs.tsttHe would have pre-
| fe.red to the present Arrangement the allow
Ing the liberty TO the fof1ciating minister to
select psalms at his dlsqretlon. Among DINER
| CONSEQUENCES he says Zone would be that
| the number and length0f the psalms depend
ing on The choice OF the minister, there would
be great announcement 10 the introduction of
| the practice Of singing This part of the service,
instead OF repeating the verses by. the mibis-
ter and the clerk alternately" No difficulty
occurred to him on me score Of ruorics, as to
| man" objects equally with other parts. Little
| did the fathers of our church imagine that
| rubrIcs which certainly meant one thing in
! England could be tortured into giving ont q
different meaning In South Carolina.
When Bishop Howe SPOKE Of departure from
usage, he plainly referreo 10 local usage only,
but not to departure frdm use. Now, q spon-
taneous revolution In LEGAL usages Ia passing
over the country. 1t might, or If you choose,
did. hepInto show itselfan this dioceae-not Ia
introdncIng what ~"Chrfchmann calls "choris-
Ter boya.n for living men remember them in
old St. Philips church; stherefore, the late de-
parture from the usagep 81 not having them, is
rather a return to the older usage of having
them, which may be some comfort to ''Church-
man. but 10 the fact that everywhere Inquiry
wa abroad and the chntch was ronsing herself
TO new activity, and looking to what she had
TO do. and how to doElts Now, the bishop
knew tnat> usage may Change, and may differ
in Inherent dloceses, while use cannot chGnge
except by change Of organic law. Therefore,
lt was ht that It shoultfte fixed and setlled
what might be the usages.ia hls' diocese. Thus
gent under control. If2hny there be who fear
ritualism, they should reflect that they are
safa from It under law which says authorita-
lively to change 'thqssfar, bnt no farther
NOT that ritualism is nov. driven out, for tits
not. and has not, been here; But If any be
haunted BY q vlsionao of 1t, their fears should
subside because 1t is lorestalled.
onIy psrmisslye, not mandatory; except in
Prescribing limits. Itfiueenes what may be
dome "buf' leaves to all perfect freedom Of
choice within certain bounds.
The considerations We have:suggested, with
ont, celebrating them. are sufficient to meet
'.Chnrchman'% rnbricai argument. Ills con-
Guiding paragraphs must now be briefly
noticed. He had at thss outset: OF his paper,
thought it ft to remind bile readers OF the uni.
formIty which had reIgne5 during the episco-
nate OF our late loved and lamented chief
nasto.. Also, he told.them thai; certain Of the
Clergy, ssfrom respect TO the late bishops
Views and in difference to his Office, did not
seek to carry out plsusF'whlch they 1cherist-
ed" &c.
This last fact We were :ignosantet. We
thank "Churchman" fol; the lnfernbatfoh. It
addst TO a feeling, already strong In our hearts,
of love and respect for 9 body Of clergy-Rho,
while Jealous Ia doingthelr heavenly. Masters
work. yet never forgot that flowing detefelee
without complaint or questioning, 10 thdse
whom He had put over heMshere on earth,
was their duty in2thetnhnreh, and that Ito
obey Ia better than saefHce! oTheir exam
pie deserves to be commended TO all on This
o similar occasion.
The uniformity, then, which prevailedrnder
the last eplscopate was the only one truly val
liable, that which Springs not from compul.
sIon. or from unsuccessful Resistance, but
from q Geuse of duty inspired mainly by the
arst of the fruits OF the Spirit love.
"~Churchmsn's" concluding paragraphs seem
to forsshndow q dlferenk atate Of things: We
trust In this too he wtu be mistaken. flrst,
upon Bishop Howe's words, ''Ifthe choral ser
vice should be pronounced unlawful, 1t must
be laid aside for the present, until sanctioned
by the General Convention" he POUNDS the
or rather series OF assumptions,
that .tifthe bishop, with the standing commit
tee, had decided q service, principally choral,
not 10 be contemplated by the American
prayer book, they who felt with the bishop
would have desired the General Conven-
ton 10 distinctly sanction it, Next, 1t
Ia assumed that, If the choral service was
for the present to be laid aaide, and the day
was looked to when the General Convention
should sancllonit, (all this, he says, being quite
natural to Infer ''then," continues "Cnurcn-
man, 1--WE suppose that al! due and proper
effort would have been made hy Inc DlsIop
aud delegates who attended Inc Generai Ooh-
vention and were In favor Oh a oho ,,a service van
to Induce that body to authorize q mnslcsi ZEN
derIng of the service" &C., &c. Now all this
ia mere card-house building, and overthrow
by a single word, as such building Is by q
breath-iI is wholly gratuitous. Bishop Howe's
words simply convey this ana no more, VIZ:
ii you cannot do as you wish you must De sal,
Is6ed while things remain as they are. Ana
though n.Churchman" found q mares nest 10
the bishops words, we wonder upon what
.0ronnd he,ncluded as accessories to the deep
laid pIau .tthe Delegates We are notaware
nj their having said d word. In flct, however,
their silence il Just as good foundation for the
assumption as the bishops words. This Is
another Instance, like his rnbrlcal %interpreta.
lions, of the facility with which "Churchman"
reaches conclusions, by his W mode Of rea-
soning.
But as we read on 1t becomes quite plain
why It was e1pedient to build up oil these
card-h0uses. The opponents Of choral service
will be only turning upon the other side their
own guns when they (the opponents) ''make
such effort through the next General Conven-
lion, and BY their " influence therein, as
prevent q changes" that Is, o change ex-
pressly allowing choral service. Now it seems
Unnecessary that tChurchman" should have
sought justification for this by assuming what
others would have done. The French proverb
saws: sWho excuses himself accuses himself"
We think, however, we may undertake to cay
TO "Churchman,n that the threatened effort Ia
one direction will be as useless as that which
he assumes would have been made by the
bishop and deputies 10 another, would have
been unnecessary. "Churchmanp takes for
Granted That the General Convention will
apree with him that change OF law will be
necessary to render lawful, choral service.
But the General Convention, as q body, enter
taIns no doubt of the lawfulness Of choral
services. Here is the proof. We know not of
its being objected to In any diocese, except,
perhaps, Virginia, and 1t is practlced
in MANY. In none of the canons or resolu-
lions proposed 10 the last General Convention,
for the suppression of rlLualism, was any allu-
sion To choral service, because not regarded as
among srilualistIc' practices, symbolizlng false
doctrine. The canon adopted by the House
of Bishops and lost by only one vote in the
House OF Deputies, (ont not on account of
The section about to be quoted,) declared
THAT In all questions arising concerning rlt-
nal observance, the administration Of the law
OF ritual OF this church, whether for enforce
,. .1akrfotlnn pnn0rf0lno ~ tho nf1-