the amen ?" does not by any means embrace the whole question of the distinction between the Roman and Italic characters in the printing of the word "amen" in our Liturgy. Whilst the explanation which Wheatley gives on the point is not only imperfect, but erroneous; as he states, that wherever a prayer is directed to be read by the clergyman alone, the amen is always printed in Italic characters. This is evidently not the fact, as there are several instances in the prayerbook where the amen is printed in Roman characters, after a formulary directed to be read by the minister alone, as well as after those which are to be read by minister and people together. The principle of this distinction in the printing lies deeper and as the subject is of some interest, both as involving a general principle now almost entirely lost sight of, and as shewing the accurate thought of the compilers of our Liturgy in following out that principle themselves, I will humbly venture, with your permission, to offer an explanation of it.

The principle of the distinction is this, that wherever the amen is a response, to be uttered by the people in answer to something which has been said in their names by the minister, it is printed in Italic characters, in the same way in which the answers of the people are always indicated, (except when the word "Answer" is prefixed, in which case the suffrage is printed in Roman letters ;) but whenever the amen is not a response, it is printed in the same character as the words which precede it, indicating that it is to be pronounced, not by others, but by the same person or persons who pronounced the formulary itself, whether the minister and people together, or the people alone, or the minister alone, or neither minister nor people, but some particular individual. Instances of all these four cases are to be found in the Liturgy, and the least reflection will shew that in all of them the same principle prevails,—namely, that the amen in those situations is not a response. I will therefore proceed to state them.

The instances of the first kind are the Lord's prayer, the creeds, and confessions, which are directed to be said by the minister and people together; that is, by every person in the church. It is obvious, therefore, that the amen at the end of these forms cannot be a response, because there is no one to respond; and it follows, that the amen should be said by each person who has said the previous form, and consequently by the clergyman as well as by the people. And this elucidates the often disputed question, whether the Lord's prayer at the commencement of the communion service should be said audibly by the people or not. It is strange that there should ever have been a difference of opinion about it—and still more strange that the general practice should be on the wrong side; because, besides the explicit rubric at the commencement of Morning Prayer, that the Lord's prayer is to be repeated by the people wherever it occurs, the printing shews that the amen is not a response, and consequently that the people, who are to say it with the minister, have also said with him the prayer itself. Had it been intended that the prayer should be read by the clergyman alone, and responded to by the people, the amen would have been in Italic characters.

An instance of the second kind occurs in the last verse of the

Gloria Patri: here the whole verse is the response, to be said by the people alone, and therefore it is obvious that the amen at the end is not a response of itself, but a constituent part of one. It is consequently most correctly printed in Roman characters, to shew that it is to be said by the same people who have pronounced the verse. this case the general practice is right,—and, indeed, from its nature it could not well get wrong; but I cite it to shew how thoughtfully the principle has been observed in the printing.

In

In the instances of the third kind, however, I fear that the practice is very generally erroneous; I mean in the cases where the formulary is pronounced by the clergyman alone, and where he alone, and not the people, ought to pronounce the amen. An important instance of this kind occurs in the Office of Baptism, where, after the words of administration, "I baptize thee," &c., and "We receive this child," &c., the amen in both cases is printed in Roman characters. Nothing can be more correct, because these words are not said by the clergyman, like a prayer, in the name and on the behalf of the people, but in virtue of his own office; and the amen is not a response, but the minister's own attestation of his own ministerial act. It is, therefore, highly erroneous, and most injurious to the true character of the administration of the sacrament, for the people or clerk to pronounce the amen, as they usually do. It implies that the clegyman is acting as their organ, and that the baptism is administered in their name. In these cases, therefore, the clergy should always pronounce the amen themselves, and instruct their clerks to be silent.

A similar instance occurs in the Office of Matrimony, where the clergyman announces to the people the solemnization of the marriage. Here also the amen is his own attestation of the act which he has performed, and as he does not make the declaration in the name of the people, but to them, the amen is not a response, as the printing indicates. The people, therefore, should be silent, and the clergyman alone should pronounce it. There is another instance, also, in which the same principle is obvious,-in the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick.

There is still another case of the same kind in the Office of Confirmation: after the words of confirmation, which are pronounced by the bishop alone, and that not in the name of the people, but in virtue of his own office, the amen is printed in Roman letters, to shew that it is not a response to be said by the people, but that it is to be pronounced by the bishop himself, as his own assurance of the benediction which he conveys. I have, however, attended confirmations where this distinction has not been observed.

An instance of the fourth kind remains to be considered. It occurs also in the Office of Matrimony, where the bridegroom makes the declaration, "With this ring," &c.; here the amen is clearly not a response, because the man makes the declaration on his own part, not on the part of others, and it is quite unmeaning for the people to respond to it; but the universal impression seems to be, that wherever an amen occurs in the prayer-book, no matter how printed, or in what sense used, the clerk is to pronounce it as a response. In this case,

therefore, the clergyman should direct the bridegroom to say the amen, and the clerk and people should be silent.

Thus, in all these different cases, the principle of the distinction between the Roman and Italic printing of the amen is found to be the same. The careful manner in which the distinction is maintained shews, as I before observed, the accurate thought of the compilers of the liturgy, and it is much to be regretted that their thoughtfulness should be rendered useless by the almost universal disregard of their directions. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES LACY.

THE PASTORAL AID SOCIETY, AND THE ADDITIONAL
CURATES' FUND.

SIR, From several circumstances connected with the Pastoral Aid Society, it seems to me highly desirable that the attention of your readers should be awakened to the necessity of giving greater assistance and exertion to support the fund for providing additional curates in populous places. The distinction between the two is, that the Fund for Additional Curates is unanimously supported by the bishops, while the Pastoral Aid Society is not. The latter also, in its employment of lay readers, opens the door, in the opinion of many, to the introduction of persons and sentiments likely to derogate from the authority of the priesthood of the church.

But independently of this, there are symptoms of a proselytizing spirit, which should be watched. It professes to pay curates to be chosen by the incumbent; but when the incumbent does choose, and is satisfied, and the regular testimonials are sent in, the society, or some of its agents, make pricate inquiries of its own; by whom directed, and to whom the result is submitted, does not appear. But the consequence of these inquiries is, that a curate, to whom there is no open objection, and with whom the incumbent is satisfied, is rejected by the society, without knowing upon what evidence, or by whom, he is condemned. He merely learns that he is not considered one likely to preach the gospel effectually.

Now, Sir, the effect of such a system may be to exclude men who do not (in the estimation of the committee, or some undefined tribunal) preach the gospel. But we know that "preach the gospel" means, according to some, an exclusive, or at least very disproportionate, preaching of certain peculiarities, termed "Evangelical." Therefore this system may be made, I am not prepared to say it actually is made, an instrument for proselyting.

I am the more induced to call your attention to this, because I find it is a rule with the " Pastoral Aid Society" to require those who take curates from them to have a charity sermon preached once a year in their church, on behalf of the society. This alone is taking much upon itself, out of the hands of the episcopacy. But it is more to be condemned when the incumbent conscientiously disapproves of the lay readers or assistants; for he cannot identify himself in the pulpit with

preaching for the support of a part of the society. If he preaches for it at all, he recommends it to the countenance and aid of his parishioners as a whole.

In answer to this, it may be said, "He need not apply to the society for a curate." But then the necessity of his parish is great; and where is he to apply? This is the point to which I wish to bring the matter. The answer to the above question should be, "Let him apply to The Additional Curates' Fund." But this fund is not supported as it should be, and as the church ought to support it. They have not a fourth part of the means. Let churchmen, therefore, come forward and support this unobjectionable society, with half the zeal that appears in the other more questionable one, and an escape will be offered to many clergy who are now driven to become not only dependents, but advocates of a society, of which they must consider some proceedings dangerous and sectarian, and others derogatory to the ministerial character.

I am, Sir, &c.,

SPECTATOR.

AFTERNOON SERMON.

REV. SIR,-Among the many important questions which have lately been discussed by the able correspondents of your Magazine, respecting the communion service, it has been forcibly urged, and it appears moreover to be generally allowed, that the sermon is not a service of itself, but that it forms merely a part of the Office of the Holy Communion. This, I maintain, is an important point to be gained; and should at all times be kept in view, by such at least as desire to see uniformity of discipline, and regard with deference the pious intentions of those who framed our Liturgy; because the all but universally prevailing practice would naturally engender the idea, that the sermon is of itself an entirely distinct service, having no connexion with the ordinary services and offices of the Book of Common Prayer. And yet the point is incontrovertible, if the rubric is to be our guide. But then what is to become of the afternoon sermon, or lecture, as it is sometimes called, being usually delivered after the evening service; although upon what authority I find not; only that it appears to be a prevailing unauthorized custom? One of your correspondents has very reasonably put forth this question:-"What is the proper place for the sermon, if one be preached in the afternoon or evening?"The proper place is undoubtedly where the rubric enjoins it, and not otherwise; but the rubric enjoins it in no other place than in the communion service, after the Nicene creed. There is, therefore, no authorized place for a sermon in the afternoon or evening, when the communion service is not said; and a sermon on such occasions is plainly an innovation, unauthorized by the rubric, and uncontemplated by the venerable compilers of the Liturgy. And yet the Charge of the Bishop of London, delivered at his triennial visitation in the year 1838, contains the following very remarkable passage:- "By the Acts of Uniformity, two daily services are required in every church and chapel

in the kingdom, the service for the holy communion, including a sermon; by the new Act [not a new Act of Uniformity], the bishop may require a SERMON or LECTURE in the afternoon also.' Without in the

least questioning the bishop's power to require a sermon or lecture in the afternoon also, is it not fit that some authorized directions should accompany this innovation, either enjoining the communion service to be said in the afternoon, so that the sermon may take its proper and legitimate position, or otherwise dispensing with the communion service, and stating what substitution is to be made in its stead?

It is idle to allege that such interference on the part of our ecclesiastical rulers is unnecessary, inasmuch as the practice is now of long standing, and quite well understood. If the rubric is to be of any value, let it be made efficient; if it is to be our guide at all, let it be our guide altogether; and let not such as desire to maintain uniformity have to ask, when their spiritual superior requires a sermon or lecture in the afternoon also, what is the proper place for the sermon, if one be preached in the afternoon?

T. H. C.

MR. HALLAM AND THE EDINBURGH REVIEW ON THE
COUNCIL OF TRENT.

SIR,-As the respectable name of Mr. Hallam may perhaps give a certain degree of currency to the sentiments contained in the following passage from his History of Literature, which has been quoted in the last October number of the Edinburgh Review, it may be useful to call attention to them :

"A strange notion has been stated of late years in England, that the Council of Trent made important innovations in the previously established doctrines of the western church-an bypothesis so paradoxical in respect to public opinion, and, it must be added, so prodigiously at variance with the known facts of ecclesiastical bistory, that we cannot but admire the facility with which it has been taken up. It will appear, by reading the accounts of the sessions of the council either in Father Paul, or in any more favourable historian, that even in certain points, such as justification, which had not been clearly laid down before, the Tridentine decrees were most conformable with the sense of the majority of those doctors who had obtained the highest reputation, and that upon what are more usually reckoned the distinctive characteristics of the church of Rome-namely, transubstantiation, purgatory, and invocation of the saints and the virgin, they assert nothing but what had been so engrafted into the faith of this part of Europe, as to bave been rejected by no one without suspicion or imputation of heresy. No general council ever contained so many persons of eminent learning and ability as that of Trent; nor is there ground for believing that any other ever investigated the questions before it with so much patience, acuteness, temper, and desire of truth. The early councils, unless they are greatly belied, would not bear comparison in these characteristics. Impartiality, and freedom from prejudice, no Protestant will attribute to the Fathers of Trent; but where will be produce these qualities in an ecclesiastical synod? But it may be said that they bad only one leading prejudice, that of determining theological faith according to the tradition of the Catholic church, as handed down to their own age. The one point of authority conceded, I am not aware that they can be proved to have decided wrong, or at least against all reasonable evidence. Let those who have imbibed a different opinion ask themselves whether they have read Sarpi through with any attention, especially as to those sessions of the Tridentine council which preceded its suspension in 1547."

VOL. XIX-Jan. 1841.

H