108

CHRIST'S COLLEGE AND COLLEGIATE CHURCH, MANCHESTER. cryed out against certain malignants*-as they termed them-who had infused into the people, that they meant to abolish all Church government, and leave every man to his own fancy for the service and worship of God; absolving them of that obedience, which they owe under God, unto his majesty; acknowledging him to be intrusted with the ecclesiastical law, as well as with the temporal, to regulate all the members of the Church of England, by such rules of order and discipline as are established by Parliament. And in the same remonstrance declared, “that it was far from their purpose or desire to let loose the golden reins of discipline and government in the Church, and leave private persons, or particular congregations, to take up what form of divine service they pleased; holding it requisite that there should be, through the whole realm, a conformity to that order which the law enjoins."+

But to the end they might bring the work to pass by others, in which they did not then think fit to shew themselves openly as their brethren of Scotland had done, the tumultuous rabble of sectarians were by their contrivance brought-Dec. 28th-to Westminster, and there violently assaulted the great Church, threatening to pull down the organs, and popish relics; for so they called those stately monuments of the kings and others.

And, after his majesty was driven from London, and that they had got his navy, forts, magazines, &c., into their hands; ordered-1642 April 9th —that an "assembly of divines should meet, with whom they might consult, for settling of the Church Government and Liturgy." Shortly after which a petition, pretended to have been brought brought from Cornwall, was read -April 22nd-in the House of Commons; amongst other things desiring that the ceremonies and service of the Church might be abolished.

But, notwithstanding all this, lest any jealousy of their intentions should so far prevail, as to stagger the people, whom they had hitherto deluded with their specious pretences, especially being then about to raise their rebellious forces; they declared,-July 26th," That their preparation of arms was for security of religion, the safety of his Majesty's person," &c.

(To be continued.)

R. A. H.

CHRIST'S COLLEGE, THE COLLEGIATE CHURCH, AND FUTURE CATHEDRAL, OF MANCHESTER.

THIS ancient and religious foundation derives a special interest, at this time, from the intended erection of an additional Bishop's See, of which this will be the cathedral. The diocese will consist of the county of Lancaster, (with the exception of the deanery of " Furness and Cartmel") which at present forms part of the extensive diocese of Chester.

It was founded by Thomas Delawar, who succeeded his brother in the Barony of Manchester, about 1398, being at the time in holy orders, and Rector of Manchester. The Delawar family, from which the present Earl Delawar is descended, had succeeded, in the reign of Edward II., to the family of Gresley, one of the followers of William the Conqueror. The aforesaid Thomas, on payment of 200 marks into the Exchequer, obtained of * Loyal Churchmen were called malignants, and so were loyal Chapters and Psalms. + Exact, Col. p. 19. Exact, Col. p. 135. R. A. H.

CHRIST'S COLLEGE AND COLLEGIATE CHURCH, MANCHESTER.

109

Henry V. 1422, licence to found a Collegiate Church, which he himself endowed. Fuller, in his Worthies, states that "the endowment of this Collegiate and Parochial Church were the glebe and tythes of the parsonage, which glebe was computed to be abont 800 acres of this county measure, (about half as many more of the statute measure, besides a considerable part of the town, commonly called Dean's-gate (a corruption of St. Dionys-gate, to whom, and to the Virgin Mary, the church was formerly dedicated), now situate on the site of the glebe belonging to the church; and the tythes of the parish arose from the 32 townships or hamlets into which it is divided." Among the the lands which were probably the private property of Thomas, and which were conveyed by the Bishop of Durham, and other persons ap.. pointed in the licence of foundation, to the first warden of the college, there were five messuages and ten acres of land, parcels of the manor of Manchester, and others in different localities; and among them one acre and 24 perches, called Baron's-hull, and Baron's-yard. On this plot the founder is said to have erected the present edifice, now called Chetham College, for the residence of the Collegiate body; on which he expended 3,000l. He provided that the Collegiate body should consist of a master, keeper, a warden, eight fellows, of whom two were to be parish priests, two canons, four deacons, and four choristers. The first warden, John Huntingdon, presided over the College, from 1422 to 1459, and during his presidency, the greater part of the church was erected. As might be expected, the architecture is of that style, appropriately called perpendicular, which prevailed from 1380, to Henry VIII.'s reign; so termed from the running up of the mullions of windows and ornamental pannellings, in straight lines, and not branching out into flowing tracery, as in the preceding decorated style..

The College was dissolved, with many other similar bodies, in 1547, and the Collegiate house of residence, and part of the lands were sold to the Earl of Derby, who maintained clergy to officiate in the church. In the reign of Queen Mary it was restored, and regained its possessions, with the exception of the Collegiate House, and a small portion of the lands, which continued in the possession of the Earl of Derby, until the house was purchased by the feoffees of Humphrey Chetham.

Queen Elizabeth refounded it by the name of Christ's College, which it still retains. But some complaints against the warden caused a temporary dissolution in the reign of Charles I., who restored it by charter, Oct. 2, 1636. By this charter, the College consists of a warden, four fellows, two chaplains, two clerks, one in holy orders, four singing men, and four singing boys. The Bishop of Chester is visitor; the appointment of warden in the crown, the other offices filled up by the Warden and Fellows.

During the great rebellion, the members of the College were ejected by the Parliament, and in 1649, all the deeds and writings were ransacked by the soldiery under Col. Thomas Birch, taken to London, and perished in the fire of 1666. In 1642, during the siege of Manchester by the Earl of Derby, the church was used as a storehouse for the troops in the town.

Bishop Booth, of Exeter, had been the second warden; and Bishop Stanley of Ely, Bishop Wolton of Exeter, Bishops Chadderton, Stratford, and Peploe, of Chester, were also raised from this wardenship, to the bench. Hereafter, the warden and fellows will be termed the dean and The Archdeaconry of Manchester is already founded. Ere long we trust, a bishop will be placed in the new diocese, and the requisite paro

canons.

chial arrangement of Manchester be effected. The church has a small choir. in which daily cathedral service has long been performed; but on Sundays the service is in the nave, which forms a large parochial church, holding 3,000 persons in pews and galleries.

SERVICE FOR NOVEMBER 5, AND OTHER STATE SERVICES

AND PRAYERS.

Jan. 2, 1844.

REVEREND SIR,—In consequence of some remarks in the sermon for the 5th November, in this month's Magazine, I have copied the following from the Englishman's and Christian Magazine:-"The service (for the 5th of November) is not properly in the Prayer-book; that is to say, has no right to be there. It has never passed convocation, without which no one has any right to insert a service such as this in the Prayer-book. It is true that William, Prince of Orange, when he expelled James from the throne of England, whether right or wrong I will not here say; but when he did this, he found an old service for the 5th of November, which had passed convocation, and which, therefore, was rightly in the Prayer-book, the purport of which was to thank Almighty God for His great services in delivering this nation from the Gunpowder Plot, a thanksgiving which will surely be made by all faithful members of our church. This service William, when he was proclaimed king, would not leave as he had found it; he set to work and altered it very materially, and inserted several sentences in which he would have the people express their thankfulness to God that he had come over from Holland, and turned out from the throne his father-in-law. Now the Archbishop of Canterbury, with several bishops aud priests, said that William had no right to do what he did; they considered that James was still the lawful King of England, and rather than swear allegiance to William, they resigned their sees and livings. They, at all events, would not express thanks that William came to England." Thinking these remarks pertinent, I have sent them to you, as a different opinion is expressed by your reverened correspondent. I remain yours, &c.,

J. M.

We now take the opportunity to print the above letter, and to offer a few remarks thereon, at somewhat greater length than we had space to print last

month.

The Service in question never was part of the Prayer Book, nor are any of the other three State Services; they are not referred to in the Act of Uniformity, and are not contained in the authorized copies, called the sealed books. We are not aware that any Accession Service ever passed Convocation: and though Convocation, at the Restoration, revised or adopted forms for the other three occasions, they all underwent subsequent alterations: those for Jan. 30, and May 29, in the time of James II. ; and that for Nov. 5, in the reign of King William. They have all been ordered to be "printed, published, and annexed to the Prayer Book: never by any authority of Convocation, or Parliament, nor with any reference thereto, but solely by the writs of each successive sovereign: and if our present Queen had not promulgated such an order, dated June 21, 1837, they would have ceased to have any authority whatever, on the demise of William IV.

Such an authority has been customarily exercised ever since the Reformation; at first even with reference to what is properly the Prayer

Book, with regard to that, as now finally settled by joint authority of Church and State, through Convocation and Parliament, the Act of Uniformity (1662) only provides for "altering and changing" the royal names from time to time. No other alteration can, or at least ought to be made in the ordinary Liturgy, as contained in the sealed books, until Convocation and the State agree upon such alteration. But both before and after that Act, the supreme Governor always had and exercised the authority to call for special prayers and thanksgivings, fast days and festivals, on all matters of public interest, viz., fast days in war; thanksgivings for victories in war, and for peace; prayers for the sovereign in sickness, and for times of pestilence; and thanksgivings for the return of health, abundant harvests, deliverance of the sovereign from conspiracies and dangers, &c. &c. But such forms of devotion are always prepared by the church, not by the state. It is not true that King William altered the 5th of Nov. service, though he might with the advice of his Privy Council, request and direct it; and so it became also the only accession service for that reign. The excellent Bishop Patrick was he who composed the additional prayers, and was principally concerned in its revision, which took place in the year 1690; so that it has now had the general assent of five generations of the bishops and clergy, during 153 years. Persons may now object, as they did then, to the Revolution itself; but to the authority of the service for Nov. 5, they cannot object, without assailing also the autdority of the other three. If so, no provision is left for many other important occasions, for which the Archbishop of Canterbury is from time to time requested, by supreme authority, to prepare suitable formularies, which are used on a general fast or thanksgiving day, or for a single Sunday, or for a longer specified time; or in case of the long affliction of the sovereign, as in several recent cases, to the end of that reign.

The proper course for the objectors would be, to address her Majesty to recal her sanction from one, or all, thoses ervices; or to command their revisal by the heads of the church, as in former precedents, for the removal of any expressions which may be deemed objectionable, or out of date. If convocation were to meet, "for the dispatch of business," the revisal would doubtless be best conducted under their authority, by a committee for the purpose. But even if such permanent services could be revised by Convocation, again restored to its regular functions, would the objectors make no provision for the additional prayers evidently required on numerous contingent occasions? Only a standing committee, always continued during the prorogations of Convocation, would meet the call, unless it be left as it now is, to the Primate, and whom he shall employ, when requested by the sovereign in council.

With reference to other letters received on this subject, we would say, that we consider ourselves bound by our promise to "conform to the Liturgy as now established." It includes in all fair and reasonable construction, these particular services, though not with the same stringency as the ordinary Liturgy, solemnly settled by the Act of Uniformity. There may be some expressions which we would not ourselves employ, or which might now be better softened or omitted. Perhaps we should prefer a single Collect for use on each day; as we assuredly do wish that we had a larger collection of occasional prayers and thanksgivings, which would often, though not always, preclude the necessity for the especial and, in several respects, inconvenient preparation of new ones, which is at present more frequent than it ought to be. But first, as to the authority of such services, our conformity to the Liturgy as it is, and to no other, according to the Act of Uniformity, and our declaration, is no more violated by the use of these additional services, and the changes they direct, than by the use of the coronation service, the service for the consecration of churches, or that for the enthroning of a bishop, or those for commemoration days in colleges, or those for laying the first stone of churches and schools, none of which are provided for by the Liturgy in the sealed books. A settled form for ordinary mattins and evensong, the administration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies, we have, and would adhere to it as strictly, as we value it highly. But

unless we can have another ritual for all other conceivable occasions, issued on the same authority, we see no difficulty in accepting and using those, which, on occasions otherwise unprovided for, are furnished on the fullest authority which the case admits under present circumstances, which has such numerous and ancient precedents, and to rebel against which in one case would be of such extensively inconvenient operation.

Again, we would apply to these public formularies, whether sanctioned by royal or episcopal authority, by ancient custom or collegiate statute, or by Presbyteral diligence at parochial ceremonies, the principle laid down in the Preface to the book of Common-prayer: and perhaps they require it in a greater degree. We think that there is little or nothing "which a godly man may not with a good conscience use and submit to, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same; if it shall be allowed such just and favourable construction as in common equity be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the very best translations of Holy Scripture itself."

As to the Revolution itself, commemorated on Nov. 5, we know that our civil liberties, and our reformed religion, were attacked and endangered by James II. What would have been the consequence if the great body of the nation had not requested the intervention of William, we know not. What settlement might have been made by William's intervention, if James had not hastily fled from the country, we know not. The result of what took place delivered us from "Popery and arbitrary power;" and for this we are bound to be thankful. It was indeed a trying crisis. Notwithstanding James's tyrannical and unconstitutional proceedings, and his interpreted abdication, there was just ground for seruple in the minds of those who abstained, conscientiously, from taking the oath of allegiance to William and Mary, while James and his son were living. But all such scruples are now at an end, by the extinction of the Stuart family. Now, surely it is ultra-non-juring scrupulosity, to refrain from thanking God for the events which providence has so mercifully overruled for the good of the nation.—(ED.)

A FEW REMARKS ON THE WRITINGS OF MRS. ELLIS. THE popularity which Mrs. Ellis enjoys as a writer, in her many books upon women, may seem a strong argument against passing what we are about to do, a vote of censure on the whole of them. We can, however, only wonder that many voices, and many pens have not long ago been raised and employed for this purpose. Had these books been only of a literary character, we should never have made a remark upon them; but as their subject is the moral training and influence of one half of the English nation, we cannot help entering our protest against them. It is easy to see from the beginning, that Mrs. Ellis is a firm believer in a certain fashionable theory, which supposes that there is a kind of perfectibility in human nature, to be derived from the moral faculties, quite independent of the influence of divine grace on the heart. It is true she talks about religion, tolerates it, as it were; but a little attention will show, that it is only in subordination to the moral powers, which are to be cultivated over and above, and independent of it; and are to attain a force (according to her) which is to carry the possessor through temptations, from without and from within, and in short, to produce the fruit of real spiritual christianity, without the vital principle. That such opinions can only do harm, as they are so entirely false, there can be no doubt; and to prove that we have good ground for what we say, we have selected "the Women of England," which is considered, we believe,