CHURCH CHORAL MONOPOLY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume X, Issue 327, 8 December 1875, Page 2

CHURCH CHORAL MONOPOLY.

To the Editor ob> the 'EvßNiHa Mail, 1 Sift— The subject I have cho«an through the melium of your columns upon which to offer a few remarks is one which, I am fully persuated, will not accord with sacerdotal ieelings of many of the clergy, emanating as it dees from a lay source, and infringing as it is likely to be cons : dered to do upon the priestly prerogative. Notwithstanding these influences, tending to discourage the expression of earnest convictioiTof many upou this pouit, I Btilt venture to entSr a protetf. being actuated by tK-j desire to see to theujllijst exeunt the soul's best incense offered to *tne Creator, which with many others I conceive to consi-t in— as far as public services are coiuxrnel— tha whole congregatiou uniting in prayer to God. There is little doubt that this tencro ichment of choral service is the higharoad to Ritmlism, which as seen results in exiting th^jpriestly office, and lead-n? the peops to be satisfied with a pandering to the s nse| by the agency of the concord of sweet sounis, and imposing spectacles, on the part of thfise oliciating. It may be said, What hindlrs the congregations o( the Episcopalian ( hutches from taking part in the true wording? of God ? The answer ce^wiy presents it8 jP —^ 19 cvo * r « sn d the ignorance generally of those attending chur.h of the chants cnosen, aud its consequence prevailing silt nee a compulsory listening to not the most soul-iospiring rendering (too frequently obscuring) of the words. If it be considered to te the best plan and one doubtless calculated to give the more general satisfaction, the service miy be varied profitably by choral performance, but let the chants, &a, be well choßcn and p rfeetly known, and not too often changed. Variety is no doubt charming, but thtt .variety which consists In the introduction of imperfectly known music is least of all suited to please in any respect. Frayer is the soul'a sincere desire, and h->w far the monopoly of the responaep, &c, by the choir, viewed from such a stand point, may be regarded as prayer I will not presume to judges but of this fact none may remain in doubt? that gran ed the whole choir to consist of earnest devout Christians — not mere pro fessofs, as it only a moiety of the congregarioa/it shuts out rao-t from joining ia the (hirfksgiving, prajer, and praise, ignorance on -the part of the congregation of the music cbjbien preventing their taking part in the jervice, thus to a very great extent resulting "In prayerlessness. The service of the church being a set form in which both clergy and people are expected to take part, and until convinced that I cease to be individually responsible fpr my sbare in the worship of God. shall I be satisfied to del' gate that duty (o the minister an 1 choir? If we would as a church awake from the "clumber in sin," thea let out prayers, our responses, our praises be more general, more congregational. Those educated and nurtured in the Church of England, be they lay or clergy, rarely if ever pray extempore j they rely mainly ujooa what lias baw juifity

termed a moat beautiful and comprehensive l>turgy, it therefore behove? those who ha^ <harge of ohe ordering of our services to remember that an aitemptet choral grandeur rn\v result in a pmyer'ess and because prayerless a powerless church, and the con Unuei-'Mimberm sin" Ifc is possible, as shown by our Bishop that clergymen miy perform the routine of the eanctu.rv, and still know nothing of vital Chriatianity ; wherever this be the case we may expect indifference on the point . f congregational worship. If more practical argument and illustration are needed,- it in only necessary for anyone to try and cat«h the sense of words of the Psalms if any words at all are distinguishable —I am, &c, EVANGELTCUS.