Notes and Queries, Number 231, April 1, 1854: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.Various
History
Notes and Queries, Number 231, April 1, 1854: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.
Various
Questions and answers -- Periodicals
There is little doubt that priests in olden times were fond of hot dinners,
and the bell at the conclusion of the service must have been intended as a
warning to their cooks (and many others) to make ready the repast. This is
merely a supposition; but I shall cherish the idea in the want of a better
explanation. The custom has been, until very lately, observed in our little
country church. There are other customs which are still kept up, namely,
that of tolling the church bell at eight o'clock on Sunday morning, and
again at nine, as well as that of ringing a small bell when the clergyman
enters the reading-desk.
E. W. J.
Crawley, Winchester.
I believe that the custom of tolling the bell when the congregation is
leaving the church, is to notify that there will be another service in the
day. This is certainly the reason in this parish (in Leicestershire); for
after the second service the bell is not tolled, nor if, on any account,
there is no afternoon service.
S. S. S.
When I was Lecturer of St. Andrew's, Enfield, the bells rang out a short
peculiar peal immediately after Sunday Morning Prayer. I always thought it
was probably designed to give notice to approaching funeral processions
that the church service was over, as in the country burials--usually there
always on Sundays--immediately follow the celebration of morning service.
MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A.
I beg to inform your correspondent J. H. M. that this is often done at
Bray, near Maidenhead.
NEWBURIENSIS.
The custom observed at Olney Church after the morning service, I have
heard, is to apprize the congregation of a vesper service to follow.
W. P. STORER.
Olney, Bucks.
_Archpriest in the Diocese of Exeter_ (Vol. ix., p. 185.).--Besides the
archpriest of Haccombe, there were others in the same diocese; but, to
quote the words of Dr. Oliver, in his _Monasticon, Dioc. Exon._, p. 287.,
"He would claim no peculiar exemption from the jurisdiction of his
ordinary, nor of his archdeacon; he was precisely on the same footing
as the superiors of the archpresbyteries at Penkivell, Beerferris, and
Whitchurch, which were instituted in this diocese in the early part of
the fourteenth century. The foundation deed of the last was the model
in founding that of Haccombe."
In the same work copies of the foundation deeds of the archipresbytery of
Haccombe and Beer are printed.
One would suppose that wherever there was a collegiate body of clergymen
established for the purposes of the daily and nightly offices of the
church, as chantry priests, that one of them would be considered the
superior, or archipresbyter.
Godolphin, in _Rep. Can._, 56., says that by the canon law, he that is
archipresbyter is also called _dean_. Query, Would he then be other than
"Primus inter pares?"
Prince, in his _Worthies_, calls the Rector of Haccombe "a kind of
chorepiscopus;" and in a note refers to Dr. Field _Of the Church_, lib. v.
c. 37.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account