Armin de Bonneheur to the Editor of The Nation (1898)

To the Editor of The Nation:

Sir: While at the Moravian boarding-school at Gnadenburg, in Silesia, my brother attended the University of Berlin for a winter. Then he spent two years at Heidelberg before I met him again. It was amusing to me to hear him speak German, as he had entirely changed his intonation and expression. It proved conclusively that there is a vast difference between Badenese and Prussian German, and that even foreigners are influenced by it. So it is with the German spoken in Pennsylvania, which, although now intermixed with English, can at once be recognized as originating in the Palatinate, whence the first settlers emigrated. My friend, Senator William Beidleman, who has made a study of Pennsylvania German (erroneously but generally called “Dutch”), tells me that when listening to men or women in the streets of Heidelberg, Worms, and Speier talking to each other, he could imagine himself among his farmer friends in Northampton County or anywhere in this neighborhood. The most successful writer in Pennsylvania “Dutch” at this time is Edward Ebermann, whose “Danny Kratzer” annual Christmas letters in the Bethlehem (Pa.) Bulletin retain the patois in its pristine purity. Mr. Ebermann also understands how to enter thoroughly into the spirit and mode of expression natural to those of our people who keep up the Pennsylvania “Dutch.” For the student of philology his letters are very interesting and amusing.

ARMIN DE BONNEHEUR. Bethlehem, Pa., December 16, 1898

Advertisement

Six Generations of Roseto Trigianis

A New Episcopal Church: Services in English and Italian at St. Michael’s (1886)

An Episcopal church and parish has for the first time been established in the Fourteenth Ward. The edifice, which has been named St. Michael’s, is situated on North Fifth street, between Bedford avenue and Driggs street. The building was, until within the past few months, occupied by the First United Presbyterian congregation which now worships in a structure purchased from St. Paul’s German Lutheran Society, at the corner of South First and Rodney streets. The structure was purchased from the United Presbyterians by the energetic rector of Christ’s Church in Bedford avenue, opposite Morton street, the Rev. Dr. James H. Darlington, for $7,500, and it was put in thorough repair.

The edifice is of wood and is surmounted by a large cross. The exterior has been painted and the interior generally renovated and the pews repaired. It is free and clear of debt of any kind and will be opened to-morrow as an Episcopal mission church. The Rev. Dr. Darlington will have charge of it until it becomes self supporting, which he expects it will be in a couple of years. Services will be conducted in the forenoon by Mr. Robert W. Cochrane, of Christ Church, in the afternoon a Sabbath school will be organized, and instructions given by the members of Christ Church, and in the evening services will be conducted in Italian by the Rev. Albert Pace for the benefit of his fellow countrymen. Mr. Pace has charge of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Cross in South Brooklyn, and he was appointed by Bishop Littlejohn to conduct services Sunday evenings at St. Michael’s.

To-morrow evening Dr. Darlington will formally open the mission and will preach. A sewing school will meet Saturdays between 10 A.M. and 12 M. The ladies of Christ Church take a deep interest in the new parish and have been working hard for the past week. An EAGLE reporter had a conversation with Dr. Darlington about the new church.

“We have long felt the want of an Episcopal Church in the Fourteenth Ward,” said the doctor, “where a good many poor English Episcopalians live who do not like to come so far to St. Mark’s, Grace or Christ Church. Christ Church took the initiative in the missionary work and opened one in the small building on North Third street, but the trustees who control the structure not being Episcopalians thought it would be best to have ministers in charge of it who did not wear surplices or conduct High Church services, so we left. I saw that the Italians were being neglected by the churches, as no temple was opened for them in which the Word would be expounded for them in their native tongue, so I concluded to do what I could to bring them under Christian influence.”
—The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 19, 1886

St. Michael’s Church: The New Episcopal Mission for the Benefit of Italians (1886)

St. Michael’s Episcopal Church, on North Fifth street, near Bedford avenue, an account of which was published in yesterday’s EAGLE, was formally opened for public worship yesterday morning, when services were conducted in Italian by the Rev. Alberto Pace, of Holy Cross Church, in South Brooklyn. The cosy little wooden edifice was filled with sons and daughters of Italy from all parts of the city. Some of them were military men with high sounding titles, and others represented Masonic bodies. The newly painted walls and the cushioned seats gave to the place an attractive appearance. The arrangement of the altar and the railing inclosing it resembled very closely that used in the Roman Catholic churches; in fact, the difference was very little. The services, too, were as closely similar in form as they could well be under a High Church ritual to those of the Catholic Church. The minister wore a surplice and was attended by eleven surpliced acolytes at the lighted high altar. There was a procession during the services.
The Rev. Mr. Pace in his sermon referred to the fact that this was the second mission church started by the Episcopalians for the benefit of Italians. He attributed the establishment of the present one to the energetic and able rector of Christ Church, on Bedford avenue, opposite Morton street, the Rev. Dr. Darlington. In closing he said that he was making a strenuous effort to bring his country people in that section of the city under the church’s influence. Dr. Darlington assisted at the services.
The evening services were in English and the church was filled by members of Christ Church mostly. Dr. Darlington, the Rev. Dr. C. Ellis Stevens and the Rev. Lorenzo S. Russell officiated.
Dr. Darlington preached from St. Matthew vii:7, “Ask and you shall receive.” “This Mission Church, said the preacher, came in answer to prayer. I had long contemplating opening a mission station in the Fourteenth Ward, where there was no Episcopal temple of worship. A few years ago Christ Church people, for I shall not arrogate the credit to myself, opened one in North Third street, near Bedford avenue, and the Rev. Mr. Cooper was placed in charge of it. After the death of the lamented clergyman we left the building, as the trustees probably thought it best to have other forms of service conducted there. My people asked me what we would do next. I told them to pray to God to open a place of worship to us in the ward. We were almost without hope at the time. One day not many months ago, a stranger to me, wrote me a letter offering to deed us lots in the Fourteenth ward on which to erect a church structure. When I met her later I asked her how it was that the idea occurred to her at that particular time, and she said that she had been reading missionary papers, and while making inquiries as to how she could best aid the church in the ward, and she was informed of my efforts. I accepted her offer. While looking around I heard that the present building, which then belonged to the United Presbyterian Society, was for sale, and the lady and her brother, who reside in Long Island, purchased it for $7,500 and paid $500 additional for renovating it. They are so modest that they would not give me permission even to mention their names. They said that the temple was given for the service of the Lord and not for self glorification. Such was the power of prayer in this instance. At some future day I expect, and have been given so to understand, that this parish will be endowed, should it not in the meantime be self-sustaining, as I believe it will be.
The Rev. Dr. Stevens, who is organizing secretary of the Missionary Committee of this diocese, expressed the hope that this was the first of a number of new Episcopal churches in Brooklyn, and said the Missionary Committee of the diocese was property, and to the activity of Dr. Darlington and of the parishioners of Christ Church in the work. Addressing especially the members of the new congregation of St. Michael’s, he said he hoped they would make the church their home—the threshold of the eternal home.
After the services the congregation, at Dr. Darlington’s invitation, inspected the Sunday school hall in the basement, which is a neatly fitted up apartment.
—The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, December 20, 1886, p. 2.

A Church Squabble: Bad Blood between Rival Italian Congregations (1886)

Champions of Two Societies Come to Blows—The Fight the Result of a Feud Between the Catholic and the Episcopal Churches of South Brooklyn.

That portion of South Brooklyn known as the Italian quarter is at the present time in a ferment of excitement over a fracas which occurred on Sunday last, in front of the Italian Episcopal Church, No. 20 Union street, between Franscisco Corrao, No. 11 Conover street, and Signor Giuseppe Cacace, of 20 Union street. The quarrel between the two men was the outcome of a bitter feud, which for some time past has existed between the church previously named and the Italian Roman Catholic Church at No. 32 President street. Signor Cacace possesses considerable means and belongs to the elite of the Italian society in this city, while his assailant is a working-man. The Italian Episcopal Church was started by Bishop Littlejohn, and is under the pastorship of the Rev. Alberto Pace, a talented and educated gentleman. While the Italians who attend this church are what in this country might be termed “blue blood,” they are not as a rule blessed with an over-abundance of wealth, and are few in number. On the other hand the congregation of the Italian Roman Catholic Church, of which the Rev. Pasquale Danisco is pastor, while laying no pretentions to aristocracy, are very numerous and very liberal in the support of their church. The feeling which exists between the two congregations is easily understood. Those belonging to the President street church believe that all Italians should be Roman Catholics, while those belonging to the Union street congregation consider that every individual has a right to his own opinions, and is at perfect liberty to affiliate with the denomination which is in accordance with his way of thinking. This state of affairs led to a serious breach between the two factions, and for some time past it has been feared that it would end in an outbreak. The good sense of both parties has prevailed, however, and until Sunday last no overt demonstration of the bitter feeling which existed between the two congregations was shown. There had been no previous acquaintance between the combatants, and the occasion of the rather one-sided quarrel, as near as can be ascertained, was nothing more nor less than the feeling of sect. The quarrel might have ended in a bloody riot had it not been for the interference of friends of both parties. Signor Cacace swore out a warrant for the arrest of his assailant, and the Rev. Dr. Alberto Pace engaged the services of Counselor George F. Elliott to prosecute Corrao, in order that an example may be made of him, and so deter others from pursuing a similar course in interfering with the worship of the Italian Episcopalians. Corrao was arraigned before Justice Massey on Friday, and was remanded for examination. When the case comes up for trial it will be a decidedly interesting one, as both plaintiff and defendant are backed by their respective congregations.
—The Brooklyn Union-Sun, July 11, 1886

Morgets und Owets, by Emanuel Rondthaler (1849)

The following elegiac idyl, in Pennsylvania German, is the creation of the late Rev. Emanuel Rondthaler, tutor in the Hall between 1832 and 1839; and we believe one of the first attempts to render that mongrel dialect the vehicle of poetic thought and diction. It is admitted into this repository for a consideration else than its literary merit; the language in which its sentiments are conveyed being that of the neighborhood of Nazareth in part, with whose population students at the Hall in all times were brought into frequent contact. Mr. Rondthaler’s lyric is worded in the vernacular of these once so called “Bushwhackers,” between whom and the “Hallers” petty warfare has been waged from time immemorial. Of the origin of the long-cherished difference, history and tradition are silent. Perhaps it was a war of races, accountable only on the assumption of an instinctive antagonism. Perhaps the contest was provoked, for although the “Bushwhackers” were stigmatized as a semi-ferine race, they were a harmless, hard-working people, who gave generously of their orchards and rural stores until the “Hallers” aggravated them beyond endurance by persistent depredations on their choice apples and reserved chestnuts.
The touching appeal which the little poem makes to the finer feelings of our nature, through the medium of external objects most familiar and suggestive to the rustic, loses none of its power, although conveyed in the rude language of his every-day life; while the spirit of Christian faith and hope with which it is imbued reminds us forcibly of what we are apt to forget—that the diviner impulses of our spiritual being are shared alike by all classes of the human family.

MORGETS UND OWETS

MORGETS scheint die Sunn so schö,
Owets geht der gehl Mond uf,
Morgetsleit der Dau im Glä,
Owets drett mer drucke druf.

Morgets singe all die Feggle,
Owets greyscht der Lawb-krott arg,
Morgets gloppt mer mit der Fleggle,
Owets leit mer sho im Sarg.

Alles dut sich ennere do,
Ņix bleibt immer so wie nau;
Wos’ em Fräd macht, bleibt nett so,
Werd gar arg bald harrt un rau—

Drowe werd es anners sein,
Dart wo nau so blo aussickt;
Dart is Morgets alles fein,
Dart is Owets alles Lickt.

Morgets is dart Fräd die Fill,
Owets is eso noch so;
Morgets is ems Herz so still;
Owets is mer o noch fro.

Ach! wie dut mer doch gelischte,
Nach der blo’e Woning dart ;
Dart mit alle gute Ghrishte
Fräd zu have—Roo als fort.

Wann sie mich ins Grab nei drage,
Greint nett—denn ich habs so schö,
Wann sie—“Ess is Owet!”-sage
Denkt—bei ihm is sell, “all one.”

TRANSLATION.

In the morning the sun shines cheerful and bright,
In the evening the yellow moon’s splendor is shed ;
In the morning the clover’s with dew all bedight,
In the evening its blossoms are dry to the tread.

In the morning the birds sing in unison sweet,
In the evening the frog cries prophetic and loud;
In the morning we toil to the flail’s dull beat,
In the evening we lie in our coffin and shroud.

Here on earth there is nothing exempt from rude change—
Nought abiding, continuing always the same;
What pleases is passing.—is past! oh how strange!
And the joy that so mocked us is followed by pain.

But above ’twill be different, I very well know—
Up yonder, where all is so calm and so blue!
In the morning there objects will be all a glow—
In the evening aglow, too, with heaven’s own hue.

In the morning up yonder our cup will be filled,
In the evening its draught will not yet have been drain’d;
In the morning our hearts will divinely be stilled,
In the evening, ecstatic with bliss here unnamed.

And oh how I long, how I yearn to be there,
Up yonder, where all is so calm and so blue!
With the spirits of perfected just ones to share
Through eternity’s ages joy and peace ever new .

And when to my grave I shall slowly be borne,
Oh weep and lament not, for I am so blest!
And when “it is evening” you’ll say—or, “’tis morn”—
Remember, for me there is nothing but rest

—William Cornelius Reichel, Historical Sketch of Nazareth Hall from 1755 to 1869: With an Account of the Reunions of Former Pupils and of the Inauguration of a Monument at Nazareth on the 11th of June, 1868, Erected in Memory of Alumni Who Fell in the Late Rebellion (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1869)

Five generations of Roseto Cistones

Five generations of Roseto Carrescia descendants

Compiled by Richard Mammana, 1998-2022; please email with corrections or additions.

Preface to “The Original Services for the State Holidays,” by A. P. Perceval (1838)

The circumstance of the fifth of November in last year (1837) falling upon a Sunday, brought to light a remarkable difference of opinion and practice existing among the Clergy, in regard to the proper service to be used upon that day; which has since been the subject of lengthened discussion in two Ecclesiastical Periodicals, the British Magazine and the Church of England Gazette, involving, as it obviously does, questions of considerable importance; as, for instance, the authority of Convocation, and the extent of the royal prerogative, in regulating Divine Offices. There appear to have been no less than three distinct varieties of opinion upon the subject, producing corresponding difference of conduct. 1. There were some who held the authority of the Book of Common Prayer to be so paramount and exclusive as to oblige them to use only the ordinary service prescribed by it. 2. There were others who considered the particular service as printed now at the end of the Prayer Book to have “every possible authority,” and therefore felt themselves bound to use it. 3. Others, again, considered the particular service now existing to be destitute of due authority, but readily conceded that authority to the particular service of 1662, and accordingly used such parts of that service as were left untouched in the subsequent alterations of it.

With the first the authority of the Civil Legislature, viz. of the Parliament and the Crown; with the second the authority of the Crown alone; with the last the authority of the Ecclesiastical Legislature, i.e. of the Convocations and the Crown, seemed most to be regarded in the celebration of Divine Offices. But, probably, the circumstances connected with the day set people upon the alert to scrutinize the authority of the special services appointed to be used on it with a strictness which they would hardly otherwise have thought it necessary to use. To a considerable portion of the Queen’s subjects, those who adhere to the Church of Rome, the observation of the day is on every account galling and offensive. The original purpose for which it was set apart, namely, that of celebrating the discovery and defeat of the Gunpowder Plot, serves to keep alive in men’s minds a transaction so foul and disgraceful on the part of some members of their Church, as can hardly fail to implicate, in some degree, the community to which they belonged, and in the behalf of which it was undertaken. But the additional parts of the service, in commemoration of the triumphs of William the Third, must sound to the Irish adherents of Rome as a thanksgiving for their especial overthrow, as offensive as “Boyne Water.” To another, not very numerous, but highly respectable body, the Episcopalians of Scotland, those additional parts of the service appear like thanksgivings for the overthrow of their Church, which fell under the civil power of William the Third, when their Bishops refused to transfer to a foreigner the allegiance they were under oath to pay to their native King, and to his heirs. Those, again, in England who revere the memory of the seven Bishops, (five of whom were confessors for the truth under both reigns, committed to the Tower by the Papal King for not betraying their Church, and deprived of their bishopricks by the Presbyterian for not betraying their Sovereign,) and who think that foreign invasion, and royal parricide, to name no other marks by which the æra of 1688 may be noted, call rather for national humiliation than national thanksgiving, are naturally disinclined to the additions to the service which seem to involve all who use them in an approval of the questionable courses which were then taken in hand. [The seven Bishops committed to the Tower by James II. were Sancroft, Canterbury; Ken, Bath and Wells; Turner, Ely; Lake, Chichester; Lloyd, St. Asaph; White, Peterborough; and Trelawny, Bristol. Of these all, save Trelawny and Lloyd, were deprived by William III., and, in addition to these, Lloyd of Norwich, and Frampton of Gloucester.] But whatever might be the grounds of the differences of opinion, those differences, as above stated, both existed and were acted upon. It is very possible that documents relating to this subject may be in existence which may oblige us to qualify or alter the views which these here collected are calculated to convey. But since “de non existentibus et de non apparentibus eadem est ratio,” I hope I shall not be deemed worthy of blame, if, after a fruitless search after others, I make the best use I can of these here presented to the reader. If others should hereafter be produced, I shall hold myself as free to alter my view according to them, as I do now to maintain the conclusion I have drawn from these.

In order to understand the subject, some distinctions must be attended to, which in many instances have been overlooked. 1. First it must be noted that the “particular services” do not, and never did, form part of “the Book of Common Prayer.” II. The observance of the three days, (8th November, 30th January, 20th May.) and the services appointed for them, must be distinguished from the observance of the day of the Sovereign’s Accession, and the service provided for it; for these rest on different authorities. III. The observance of the three days must be distinguished from the use of the services appointed for them; for these also rest on different authorities. IV. The old “particular services,” provided in 1662, must be distinguished from those now appended to the Prayer Book; for these again rest on different authorities. First, The “particular services” do not, and never did, form part of “the Book of Common Prayer.” The Book of Common Prayer was completed in 1661, by the Convocation, with the King’s authority, thus obtaining the force of Ecclesiastical law; and was in the same year ratified and confirmed by the Parliament and the Crown, thus receiving the force of statute law also. The particular services for the three days, were provided by Convocation with the Crown in 1662, and thus have the force of ecclesiastical law; but these were never submitted to Parliament. They were published, and ordered to be annexed to the Common Prayer, by Royal Proclamation.

II. It appears that for the Sovereign’s Accession there is no Act of Parliament, even indirectly recognizing any particular service, nor any Act of Parliament enjoining the observance of any day in any manner. There is a Canon of Convocation, 1640, expressly enjoining the observance of the day, and recognising, as of authority, a particular form of service then in existence, which the reader will find below. But there is also an Act of Charles II., 1661, (13 Car. II. c. 12,) forbidding the enforcement of any Canon passed in 1640: hence those Canons cannot (according to the Act of Submission) be regarded as forming any part of our Ecclesiastical law. So that for the observance of the day of the Sovereign’s Accession, and for the use of the particular service (which, moreover, is not the same as that of 1640), usually bound up with our Prayer Books, there is no law whatever, neither civil nor ecclesiastical. The observance of the day and the use of the service rest only on a Royal Proclamation; and if a clergyman were to be indicted in the Court of King’s Bench, or in the Ecclesiastical Courts, for using the special service on that day, authorized by Royal Proclamation, in lieu of the ordinary service, enjoined by the Act of Uniformity, and to which he is bound by his subscription to the second article in the thirty-sixth Canon, it may admit of a doubt what the decision of the Courts would be. In respect, then, of the day of the Sovereign’s Accession, and of the service provided for it, it would seem that they who hold the exclusive authority of the Common Prayer Book, can make out a fair case to vindicate themselves from using the particular service. But, as was before observed, the case of the three other days and their services is somewhat different; different, and (as it should seem) better authority being to be adduced in their behalf. III. Let us distinguish between the days and the servicesappointed for them. For the celebration and observance of the days, that is to say, of the 5th of November, of the 30th of January, and of the 29th of May, there are, in the first place, three several Acts of Parliament, which will be found below; 3 Jac. I. c. 1; 12 Car. II. c. 30; and 12 Car. II. c. 14. But none of these Acts speak of any particular service being provided; all that they enjoin is, that people shall go to Church on those days; that the souk of January shall be observed with fasting and that, on the two other days, the Minister shall give public thanks, but they leave the form of his so doing to his own discretion; and the injunctions of the Acts would be fully complied with by his mere insertion of a clause in the general thanksgiving.

There is however another Act, 24 Geo. II. c. 28, confirming the celebration of the days, and giving a sanction, at least indirect, to certain particular services provided for them. This Act is that establishing the alteration of style, and ordering the alteration of the times of observing the festivals accordingly, and for this purpose a new calendar was appended to it, and received, together with it, the force of an Act of Parliament. In this calendar these three days are mentioned as “certain days for which particular services are appointed.” So that the question, as concerns those who have urged the exclusive authority of the Common Prayer, in vindication of their total omission of the particular service on the 5th of November, turns upon this, namely, whether the indirect sanction to the particular services afforded by this Act would avail to warrant them in departing from the Act of Uniformity, by using them. It should seem, that in the Court of King’s Bench it probably would be held permissive, and that therefore the Clergy are at liberty, as far as the Act of Parliament is concerned, to use the particular service, should they think fit. That they are also at liberty, as regards Ecclesiastical law, is still more easily demonstrable; as it was the Ecclesiastical Legislature which provided a special service, and the article in the 36th Canon, by which every clergyman binds himself to use the Book of Common Prayer, and none other, must be regarded as an acknowledgment of the authority of Convocation in respect to the Liturgy, and, therefore, as virtually binding men to observe all alterations put forth by the same authority, where not contrary to the law of the land, but none other. Hence it should seem, that if the obstacle which the letter of the Act of Uniformity presents, may be considered removed by the statute of 24 Geo. II. indirectly sanctioning the special services for the three days, the Clergy would be under obligation, by the Rules of their Church, to make use of the special services.

IV. The “particular services” of 1662 are to be distinguished from the particular services now appended to the Common Prayer. The reader will see below that they are, different, and the authority is likewise different which can be adduced in respect of them. The particular services of 1662 were prepared and passed by Convocation with the authority and ratification of the Crown, and therefore, unless there be any law of the land opposed to them, the rubrics enjoining them are as much and as truly Ecclesiastical law, as any which has ever been so considered. In respect to the service for the 5th of November, it has been supposed by some that the service, as it now stands, was revised in Convocation in 1689. But from the detailed account given by Wilkins, in his Concilia, iv. 619-621, of the proceedings of that Convocation, de die in diem, in which no mention whatever is made of such a transaction, it does not appear that such was the case. It should seem, rather, that William III. so far trode in his predecessor’s footsteps as to dispense with the laws in this instance; and to set up a Royal Proclamation against and above an Act of the Ecclesiastical Legislature. The first question, then, between the advocates of the service of 1063, and the advocates of the present services (who both argue on the supposition that there is no hindrance on account of the Act of

Uniformity) is this:—Has the Crown the power, by itself, to set aside what has been agreed to by Convocation and Crown together? If it has, then the existing services, if not, then the services of 1662, have the prior claim upon our observance. Is then the Crown absolute in the Church? I can only say I know no ground upon which such an assertion can be maintained. The Clergy acknowledge the Crown to be supreme as well in all Ecclesiastical matters and causes as temporal (Canon 36); which seems to mean equally supreme, not more so: and therefore as it is certain that the Crown is not absolute in temporal causes, so it seems necessarily to follow, that neither is it absolute in Ecclesiastical: and accordingly, though we find many and repeated decisions of what are called the Superior Courts affirming the power of Convocation and the Crown to make Ecclesiastical law, I have met with none, and have in vain asked those who differ in opinion with me to produce any, affirming the power of the Crown alone to make Ecclesiastical law. But if the Crown has no power to make Ecclesiastical law, then it follows that the rubrics enjoining the use of the existing services for the 5th of November, 30th of January, and 29th of May, have not the force of law, nor can be enforced in any Court, Temporal or Ecclesiastical. While on the other hand, if Convocation and the Crown have power to make Ecclesiastical law, then it follows that the rubrics enjoining the use of the old services, which, together with the services, were passed by Convocation and ratified by the Crown, have the force of Ecclesiastical law, being unrepealed, and may be enforced in the Ecclesiastical Courts, with aid, if need be, from the Temporal Courts also.

But this is not the only question between the advocates of the old special services and the advocates of the new. The last confidently appealed to the statute of George the Second, of which mention has been made above, and affirmed that by it the new services received the force of an Act of Parliament. 

But since it appears that there is no allusion whatever to the services in the body of the Act, and that in the Calendar appended to and confirmed by the Act, the only mention is of “Certain days for which particular services are appointed,” it should seem, as was before observed, that the utmost effect of the Act, in regard to the services, is permissive; that is to say, it probably would avail to screen a Clergyman using them from any penalty arising from the Act of Uniformity, with which, for these days, it may be deemed to dispense; but can hardly be construed compulsorily, so that a Clergyman who failed to use the services could be indicted under it. But, certainly, permissive sanction seems to be given by this Act to certain special services; and the question is, to which set of special services the permission applies; whether to those of 1662, or to those which are appended now to the Prayer Books, as altered by James the Second, and William the Third? As these alterations were in existence before the passing of this Act, we might not unreasonably imagine, if we decided without looking at the Act, that whatever sanction it afforded would be in favour of the altered services. But when we come to examine it, we find reason to alter that opinion. In the first place, it is worthy of observation, that neither the body of the Act, nor the Calendar, take any notice whatever of any day to be observed in celebration of the Sovereign’s Accession, nor of any particular service appointed for it, though a particular service for that purpose was in existence and in use at the time; and enjoined by all the authority that a Royal Proclamation can convey. In the next place, the body of the Act only speaks of those days already enjoined by Act of Parliament; which are the same for which services had been provided by Convocation in 1662. In like manner the Calendar at the end of the Act (the same Calendar, with the exception of the alteration as to style, as provided by Convocation in 1661-2, which now, for the first time, was confirmed by Civil Statute), speaks only of those “Certain days for which particular services had been appointed” by Convocation. If we further observe how the days are described, we shall be struck with the same impression: they are spoken of as days “kept in memory” of those events for which they had been enjoined to be kept by the several Acts relating to them respectively, and for which services had been provided by Convocation. Thus 12 Car. II, c. 14. had enjoined the 29th of May to be kept in memory of the birth and return of the King, Charles II. And the Convocation had provided a service accordingly; but James II., dispensing with the laws of Church and State, by way of diminution, ordered it to be observed in memory of the Restoration of the Royal Family, altered the service, and omitted all mention of the King’s birth. The Act of Geo. II. takes no notice of any thing of this, but speaks of it still as the day kept in memory of the birth and return of King Charles II., to which the Convocation service is applicable, but the Crown service is not. In like manner the Act 3 Jac. I. c. 1. had enjoined the 5th of November to be kept in memory of the Gunpowder Treason, or Papists’ Conspiracy; and the Convocation had provided a service accordingly, celebrating this event only. But William III., like his predecessor, dispensing with the laws of Church and State, by way of addition, ordered it to be observed also in memory of his landing, and altered the service accordingly. The Act of Geo. II. takes no notice of any thing of this: the only event, in memory of which it speaks of the 5th of November as being kept, is the Papists’ Conspiracy, to which the Convocation service is applicable, which it is not to the two-fold purpose of William III.

If this was done through inattention, it will not alter the force of the Act; littera scripta manet: but if (as has been urged by some persons), it was duly and maturely weighed and considered, it is still more worthy of remark; amounting, as in that case it virtually does, to a deliberate refusal of the Parliament to sanction by an ex post facto Act the infringements of the temporal and ecclesiastical laws which James II. and William III. had both alike taken in hand in this matter.

The different footing on which the observance of the three days and their services rests from that on which the observance of the Sovereign’s Accession and its service is grounded, has been noticed above, section 2. It is worthy of record that this distinction was observed in the Royal Proclamations until the end of the reign of George II. Up to that time there were two Proclamations, one enjoining the three services to be appended to the Book of Common Prayer: this Proclamation having been first made by Charles II. on account of the Convocation services of 1662; and another ordering the service for the Sovereign’s Accession to be printed and published, but containing no direction that it should be appended to the Book of Common Prayer. At the accession of George III., for the first time, there was one Proclamation enjoining all four services to be appended to the Prayer Book; and then first the Calendar, provided by Convocation, and confirmed by Act of Parliament, was interpolated, without warrant from either, as it now stands to this day; four days being enumerated instead of the original three. 

From the foregoing statements, the accuracy of which the following documents will establish, the conclusion seems unavoidable; namely, that the particular services for the three days provided by Convocation in 1662, have the express force of Ecclesiastical law, and the, at least indirect, sanction of statute: and that the observance of them may therefore be enforced in the proper courts; but that the four services at present appended to the Prayer Book cannot be enforced, no authority being to be adduced in their behalf which would be deemed valid and sufficient in any court in the kingdom. A further question may be raised, namely, whether the printers to the Crown and to the Universities are not liable to be called to account for appending the four services last mentioned to the Common Prayer, instead of the three more duly authorised ones; and for interpolating the calendar established and confirmed by 24 Geo. II.

If this state of things is inconvenient, the remedy is simple, and at hand; namely, by the assembling of Convocation: with whose advice and consent Her Majesty may set forth, in a legitimate manner, proper services for all four days; and may afterwards, if she think fit, recommend to Parliament to confirm by civil sanction the decree of the assemblies of the Church.

Zara plot at St. Luke’s, Germantown

In this small plot at St. Luke’s, Germantown are contained the graves of an important epicenter of Italian-American Episcopal Church life. The stones, unrecorded on the Find a Grave inventory until March 2022, are for members of this family:

Michele Zara was an Italian Roman Catholic priest born in 1844 in Lecce, Apulia, and convicted of theft in an Italian court before his arrival in the United States via Liverpool in 1872. Zara lived in Galena, Illinois from 1872 to 1879 and became a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Chicago in 1882, the same year the Diocese of Pennsylvania began serious missionary activities among Italian immigrants to the city. Zara founded the Church of L’Emmanuello in 1882 to offer worship in the Italian language, night school, English lessons, sewing classes, food and clothing distribution, and assistance with local social agencies for the vast population of Italian speakers who were not always served adequately by the Roman Catholic Church. Between 1891 and 1904, he oversaw the construction of a church building and parish house at 1020-24 Christian Street in Philadelphia. In 1903, Zara translated the Book of Common Prayer into Italian under the auspices of the Bishop White Prayer Book Society, a major Philadelphia charity of the time. Zara retired in 1908 on account of ill health, and died at 81 on September 5, 1925 in the Episcopal Hospital of Philadelphia of bronchopneumonia and carcinoma of the stomach. He was buried at St. Luke’s on September 8.

Mary Cameron Zara (née Adams) of New York City (1865-1955) and Michele Zara married in Philadelphia in 1886, cementing Zara’s identity as a new American and as a married Protestant clergyman. Twenty-one years younger than her husband, she survived him by 30 years, also dying in Philadelphia, and was buried at St. Luke’s on January 24, 1955. Mrs. Zara is buried with her mother, Eliza Adams (née Cameron) (1830-1919), a North Carolina-born woman whose parents were from Scotland and Virginia. Mrs. Adams had already been widowed by her husband John Adams when their daughter Mary was 15 in the 1880 U.S. Federal Census.

The Zaras are buried with two of their daughters. Caterina Cameron Zara (1887-1973), who never married, taught music in Chestnut Hill, and cared for both of her parents until their deaths. And Marie Christine (Zara) Randall (1895-1975), who was married to widower Alexander Burton Randall at St. Luke’s, Germantown on June 27, 1925. Marie was a popular Philadelphia soprano active in Gilbert and Sullivan productions and a regular performer with the Philadelphia Grand Opera Company. Mr. Randall predeceased Marie by 30 years and is buried at Woodlands Cemetery.

The Zaras also had two Philadelphia-born sons: Luigi (Louis Washington) Zara (1892-1975) and Francesco Augusto (Frank August) Zara (1889-1987). Luigi served as a first lieutenant in the First World War and is buried at Long Island National Cemetery. Francesco married twice, and is buried at Southampton in Suffolk County, Long Island.