Replies.
WRITTEN SERMONS.
(Vol. iii., pp. 478, 526.)
Perhaps the publication of the following document may lead to a solution of the question sent by M.C.L. (Vol. iii., p. 478.). It is a copy of a letter from the Duke of Monmouth, as Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, intimating to the clergy the displeasure of Charles II. at their use of periwigs, and their practice of reading sermons. His Majesty, it will be found, thought both customs equally important and equally unbecoming. Of the latter, it is stated that it "took beginning with the disorders of the late times, and that the way of preaching without book was most agreeable to the use of the foreign churches, to the custom of the University heretofore, and to the nature and intendment of that holy exercise." It will surprise many of your readers to find that the reading of sermons was considered to be a mere puritanical innovation.
"The Duke of Monmouth, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, to the Vice-Chancellor and University.
"Mr. Vice-Chancellor and Gentlemen,
"His Majesty having taken notice of the liberty which several persons in holy orders have taken to wear their hair and periwigs of an unusual and unbecoming length, hath commanded me to let you know, that he is much displeased therewith, and strictly injoins that all such persons as profess or intend the study of divinity, do for the future wear their hair in a manner more suitable to the gravity and sobriety of their profession, and that distinction which was always maintained between the habit of men devoted to the ministry and other persons.
"And whereas, his Majesty is informed that the practice of reading sermons is generally taken up by the preachers before the University, and there for some time continued, even before himself, his Majesty hath commanded me to signify to you his pleasure, that the said practice, which took beginning with the disorders of the late times, be wholly laid aside; and that the foresaid preachers deliver their sermons, both in Latin and English, by memory, or without book, as being a way of preaching which his Majesty judges most agreeable to the use of the foreign churches, and to the custom of the University heretofore, and to the nature and intendment of that holy exercise.
"And that his Majesty's commands in the premisses may be duly regarded and observed, his Majesty's farther pleasure is, that the names of all such ecclesiastical persons as shall wear their hair as heretofore in an unfitting imitation of the fashion of laymen, or that shall continue in the present slothfull way of preaching, be from time to time signified unto me by the Vice-Chancellor for the time being, upon pain of his Majesty's displeasure.
"Having in obedience to his Majesty's will signified thus much unto you, I shall not doubt of that your ready compliance; and the rather because his Majesty intends to send the same injunctions very speedily to the University of Oxford, whom I am assured you will equal in all other excellencies, and so in obedience to the king; especially when his commands are so much to the honour and esteem of that renowned University, whose welfare is so heartily desired, and shall ever be endeavoured by, Mr. Vice-Chancellor,
"Your loving friend and Chancellor,
"MONMOUTH."
I believe this letter, or something like it, was published by Peck in his Desiderata Curiosa, and also by Mr. Roberts in his Life of Monmouth. The transcript I send you was made from a copy in the handwriting of Dr. Birch in the Additional MS. 4162., fo. 230.
JOHN BRUCE.
The following passage occurs in Rutt's Diary of Thomas Burton, 4 vols.: Colburn, 1828. I have not the work at hand, but from a MS. extract from the same, believe it may be found as a note by the editor in vol. i. p. 359.
"Burnet was always an extempore preacher. He says that reading is peculiar to this nation, and cannot be induced in any other. The only discourse he ever wrote beforehand was a thanksgiving sermon before the queen in 1705. He never before was at a pause in preaching. It is contrary to a university statute, obsolete, though unrepealed."
C. H. P.
Brighton, June 27.
LORD MAYOR NOT A PRIVY COUNCILLOR.
(Vol. iii., p. 496.)
This Query, and your answer, involve one or two important questions, which are worth a fuller solution than you have given.
The Lord Mayor is no more a Privy Councillor than he is Archbishop of Canterbury. The title of "Right Honourable," which has given rise to that vulgar error, is in itself a mere courtesy appended to the title of "Lord;" which is also, popularly, though not legally, given him: for in all his own acts, he is designated officially as "Mayor" only. The courtesy-title of Lord he shares with the Mayors of Dublin and York, the Lord-Advocate of Scotland, the younger sons of Dukes and Marquises, &c. &c., and all such Lords are styled by courtesy "Right Honourable;" and this style of Right Honourable is also given to Privy Councillors in virtue of their proper official title of "Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council." So, the "Right Honourable the Lords of the Treasury and Admiralty." So much for the title. The fact stated in the Editor's answer, of the admission of the Lord Mayor to the Council Chamber after some clamour, on the accession of William IV., is a mistake arising out of the following circumstances. On the demise of the crown, a London Gazette Extraordinary is immediately published, with a proclamation announcing the death of one sovereign and the accession of the other. This proclamation styles itself to be that of the—
"Peers Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm, assisted by those of the late Privy Council, with numbers of others, Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London."
The proclamation is that of the Peers alone, but assisted by the others. The cause of this form is, that the demise of the crown dissolves the Privy Council, and used (till modern times) to dissolve parliaments, and abrogate the commissions of the Judges, and all other public officers; so that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal were the only subsisting authority. Hence they, of necessity, undertook the duty of proclaiming the new king, but they fortified themselves "with the assistance of the principal gentlemen of quality, and of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens." This paper is first signed by the Peers, and then by all who happen to be present, promiscuously. At the accession of William IV., there were about 180 names, of which "J. Crowder, Mayor," stands the 106th. At the accession of Queen Victoria, there were about 160 names, of which "Thomas Kelly, Mayor," is the 111th. And in both cases we find the names of the Aldermen, Sheriffs, Town Clerk, City Remembrancer, and several others,—private citizens, and many altogether private persons, who happened to come to the palace at that time.
It is obvious that all this has nothing to do with the Privy Council, for, in fact, at that moment, no Privy Council exists. But while these things are going on in an outward room of the palace, where everybody is admitted, the new sovereign commands the attendance of the late Privy Council in the council chamber, where the old Privy Councillors are generally (I suppose always) re-sworn of the new council; and then and there are prepared and promulgated several acts of the new sovereign, to which are prefixed the names of the Privy Councillors present. Now, to this council chamber the Lord Mayor is no more admitted than the Town Clerk would be, and to these acts of the council his name has never appeared.
All these facts appear in the London Gazettes for the 27th June, 1830, and the 30th June, 1837; and similar proceedings took place in Dublin; though since the Union the practice is at least superfluous.
This establishes the rationale of the case, but there is a precedent that concludes it:—
"On the 27th May, 1768, Mr. Thomas Harley, then Lord Mayor of London, was sworn of his Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council!"
—an honour never since conferred on any Mayor or Alderman, and which could not have been conferred on him if he had already been of that body.
C.
DR. ELRINGTON'S EDITIONS OF USSHER'S WORKS.
(Vol. iii., p. 496.)
In reply to your correspondent C. PAINE, JUN. I beg to say that this University has recently requested me to undertake the completion of Ussher's works. Dr. Elrington has left about half the fourteenth volume printed off: but I have found considerable difficulty in ascertaining what he intended to print, or what ought to be printed, in the remaining half. The printed portion contains the archbishop's Theological Lectures, in reply to Bellarmine, never before published.[2] I have found amongst Dr. Elrington's papers a volume of sermons (a MS. of the latter half of the seventeenth century), which are attributed, in the MS. itself, to Ussher; but the authenticity of these sermons is, it appears to me, very doubtful. I therefore hesitate to print them.
[2] Elrington's Life of Ussher, p. 26.
I am anxious to find a treatise on the Seventy Weeks, by Ussher, which I have some reason to think once existed in MS. This tract, with another on the question of the Millennium, from Rev. xx. 4., formed the exercises which he performed for the degree of D.D., at the commencement of the University in 1612: and I remember Dr. Elrington telling me (if I did not mistake his meaning), that he intended to print them in the fourteenth volume. My difficulty is, that I cannot find them amongst Ussher's MSS., and I do not know where they are to be had. Some imperfect fragments on the Seventy Weeks are preserved in MS. in Trinity College Library, in Ussher's autograph; but they are far too crude and unfinished for publication.
The Bibliotheca Theologica, a work on the same plan as Cave's Scriptores Ecclesiastici, exists in MS. in the Bodleian Library, and a copy from the Bodleian MS. is in Dublin. This work has not been included in Dr. Elrington's edition; and I remember his discussing the subject with me, and deciding not to print it. His reasons were these:—1. It is an unfinished work, which the archbishop did not live to complete. 2. It is full of errors, which our present increased materials and knowledge of the subject would easily enable us to correct; but the correction of them would swell the work to a considerable extent. 3. The work was used, and is frequently quoted by Cave, who seems to have published the most valuable parts of it. Its publication, therefore, would not add anything to our knowledge, whilst it would probably detract, however unfairly, from the archbishop's reputation: for the public seldom make allowances for an unfinished work. 4. It would probably make three, if not four volumes; and Dr. Elrington did not think its publication of sufficient importance to warrant so great an addition to the cost and bulk of the Works.
The System of Theology having been disclaimed by Ussher himself (although it is quoted as his by the Committee of the Privy Council in their decision of the "Gorham Case"), has not been included by Dr. Elrington in the collection of Ussher's works.
I shall be much obliged to MR. PAYNE, or to any other of your correspondents, if he will give me any information respecting the treatises on the Seventy Weeks and on the Millennium, or any other advice which may assist me in the completion of the fourteenth volume.
I may add, that it is my intention, with the able assistance of my learned friend Dr. Reeves, of Ballymena, to print a complete index to Ussher's Works, which will be compiled by Dr. Reeves, and is now in active preparation. The references to the more important works, such as the Primordia, and Annals, will be so contrived as to be applicable to the old editions, as well as to Dr. Elrington's edition. This Index will form the seventeenth volume of the Works.
JAMES H. TODD.
Trinity Coll., Dublin, June 21. 1851.