Martin v. "before their lordships as a corollary to their principal deMackonochie. cision on the Knightsbridge Church cases. It was contended that the monition of the court with respect to St. Barnabas Church had not been obeyed as to the holy table or as to the cross. St. Barnabas case cited. "The act on petition alleged, that the monition was still in part uncomplied with in the following particulars:First, that the metal cross which was standing in the church or chapel, on or attached to the super-altar, on the stone altar, which formerly stood therein prior to the delivery of the judgment of the Judicial Committee on the 21st of March, 1857, was then placed on the sill of the great eastern window of the church or chapel of ease of Saint Barnabas, above the table then used as a communion table in the church or chapel. Second, that the table which had been substituted in the church or chapel for the stone altar which formerly stood therein was not a flat table, but had an elevation or structure placed thereon, so as to resemble what is generally known and described as a super-altar in Roman Catholic churches or chapels. the "The answer on behalf of the Hon. and Rev. Robert Liddell and the then chapel wardens to this act on petition, denied that the monition was in any part uncomplied with, and pleaded; first, that the metal cross which was on "27th of March, 1857, standing in the church or chapel of Saint Barnabas (attached to the ledge of wood at the back of the stone altar, which then stood in the chancel of the church or chapel) was at the present time placed on the sill of the centre compartment of the eastern window of the chancel of the church or chapel, five feet ten inches above the surface of the communion table standing there, and wholly disconnected therewith; secondly, that the table which had been substituted in the church or chapel for the stone altar which formerly stood therein was a flat moveable table of wood; and that the elevation or structure alleged in the second article of the act on petition as placed thereon was simply a moveable ledge of wood placed in order that two candlesticks might stand thereon at the back of the table, and that the ledge was always raised up before the celebration of the Lord's Supper, in order that the decree of the court might be complied with, namely, that a fine linen cloth should cover the communion table at the time of the ministration of the Lord's Supper, and that the cross was in the church or chapel at the time of the consecration thereof, and then formed one of the ornaments of the church or chapel. "Their Lordships were of opinion, that no disobedience, no impropriety, no irregularity, has been established; and ' that the present application, therefore, failed'" (z). SECT. 3.-Ornaments and Vestments of Bishops (a) and Ministers. In the case of Mr. Purchas (6), I held on this subject Case of Mr. as follows: Purchas. "The rubric (for I shall use this expression for the Rubric. sake of clearness), which it is admitted contains the law as to the vestments of the bishop, priest, and deacon, is as follows: "And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth:'' "The rubrics in regard of vestments in the first Prayer Prayer Book of Edward VI., to which I am referred by the Book of present rubric, were as follows: "(1.) At the beginning of the Communion Service"The priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a white albe, plain, with a vestment or cope. And where there be many priests or deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the priest in the ministration as shall be requisite, and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes, with tunicles.' "(2.) At the end of the Communion Service "And though there be none to communicate with the priest, yet these days (after the liturgy ended) the priest shall put upon him a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at the altar (appointed to be said at the (2) Liddell v. Beal, 14 Moo. P. C. 1, 16; see too Breeks v. Woolfrey, 1 Curt. Rep. 880; supra, P. 886; Gathercole v. Wade, Consistory of London. (a) As to Bishops, see above, p. 57, and notes thereto. (b) Elphinstone v. Purchas, 3 L. R., Adm. & Eccl. 66. 2 Edw. VI. Case of Mr. Praver Book Elizabethan Act of Uniformity. "celebration of the Lord's Supper) until after the offertory.' (3.) At the end of the Book of Common Prayer, after the exposition of ceremonies:' "In the saying or singing of matins and evensong, baptizing, and burying, the minister, in parish churches or chapels annexed to the same, shall use a surplice; and in all cathedral churches and colleges, the archdeacons, deans, provosts, masters, prebendaries, and fellows, being graduates, may use in the choir, besides their surplices, such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees which they have taken in any university within this realm; but in all other places every minister shall be at liberty to use any surplice or no. It is also seemly that graduates when they do preach should use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees. And whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, beside his rochette, a surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment; and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.' "These rubrics were abolished by the second Prayer Book of Edward VI., which substituted the following:"The minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; but being archbishop or bishop he shall have and wear a rochet, and being a priest or deacon shall have and wear a surplice only.' "All these rubrics, and the services to which they belong, were repealed in the reign of Queen Mary (b). By the next Act of Uniformity (c) it was enacted 666 That such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use as was in this Church of England by authority of parliament in the second year of King Edward VI., until other order shall be taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her commissioners appointed and authorized under the Great Seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm.' "Annexed to this statute by sect. 2, was the Queen's Prayer Book, the rubric to which was as follows: "And here it is to be noted that the minister, at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by authority of parliament in the second year (b) 1 Mar. sess. 2, c. 2. (c) 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 13. of the reign of King Edward VI., according to the act of parliament set in the beginning of this book." "It will be observed that the words 'retained and' which do occur in the act, were omitted in this rubric; and they do not appear in the rubric of the Prayer Book of King James, which is identical with that of Elizabeth. "It is admitted that on the passing of this statute the As to any vestments prescribed by the first Prayer Book came into "other order." legal use; but it has been contended that Queen Eliza beth exercised the power given her by the statute, and 'took other order.' "If any such further order were taken in compliance with the statute, it must be in one of four ways: "(1.) Either by the Injunctions of 1559, or (2) the Advertisements of 1564-5, or (3) the Canons of 1603-4, or (4) the Canons of 1640. Of these four the Advertisements were principally relied upon as the execution of the further order, though the Canons of 1603-4 were also prayed in aid. Before, however, I consider these two modes of execution, I will say a word as to the Injunctions and the Canons of 1640. The Injunctions, which I think must upon the whole be considered as having been issued by the royal authority alone, and as not having statutory authority, do not contain any express order with regard to the vestments; but the archbishop and certain bishops afterwards drew up Interpretations and further Considerations of these Injunctions for the better direction of the clergy;' among which is to be found the following:"Concerning the Book of Service.' "First. That there be used only but one apparel; as the cope in the ministration of the Lord's Supper, and the surplice in all other ministrations' (d). "With respect to the Canons of 1640, they contain no provision as to the subject of vestments. I come therefore to a consideration of the Advertisements. Those which The Adverrefer to the present question are as follows: tisements of "Item. In ministration of the holy communion in the 1564-5. cathedral and collegiate churches, the principal minister shall use a cope, with gospeller and epistoler agreeably; and at all others prayers to be sayde at the communion table, to use no copes but surplesses.' "Item. That the deane and prebendaries weare a surplesse with a silke hoode in the quyer; and when they preache in the cathedrall or collegiate churche to weare their hoode.' (d) 1 Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 238. Case of Mr. The Adver tisements of 1564-5. "Item. That every minister sayinge any publique prayers, or ministringe of the sacramentes, or other rites of the churche, shall weare a comely surples, with sleeves, to bee provided at the charges of the parishe' (d). "The authority usually referred to with respect to these Advertisements is Strype's 'Life of Parker' (e). Cardwell in his Documentary Annals,' and Hallam in his Constitutional History' (ƒ), and Collier in his Ecclesiastical History,' dealing with this question of the Advertisements, refer as to their principal authority to Strype, in the Annals (g), and in his Life of Parker.' And, though by no means always an accurate transcriber, his notes appear to be the fountain from which the history of this matter has been principally derived. Burnet, for instance, relies exclusively upon this authority (h). The history of these Advertisements seems to reflect the doubtful state of all church authority at the time when they were issued. The puritan party were freely condemning and disregarding the rites and ceremonies of the restored church, and by the influence of their patron, the Earl of Leicester, in the Privy Council, were continually thwarting the various orders put forth by the queen and by the prelates for the purpose of enforcing the uniformity of a decent ritual. The queen, exasperated by the conduct of the puritans in 1564, ordered the archbishop, with the aid of certain other bishops, members of the ecclesiastical commission, to draw up certain Articles or Ordinances, the object of which was to secure as great an amount of decent ritual as the circumstances of the time would permit. Archbishop Parker and some of the bishops drew up the articles required; but, says Strype, because the book wanted the queen's authority, they thought fit not to term the contents thereof, Articles or Ordinances, by which names they at first went, but by a modest denomination, viz., Advertisements.' The queen, it is probable from conflicting motives, partly from the influence of Leicester, and partly from an apprehension of weakening the rubric which referred to the second year of Edward VI., refused her official sanction to these Advertisements, and as I think Dr. Cardwell correctly states, "Left them to be enforced by the several bishops on the canonical obedience imposed upon the clergy, and the (d) 1 Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 326. Vol. i. chap. 20. & Vol. p. 173, 6th ed. (g) Vol. i. p. 419, fol. (h) Hist. of the Reformation, vol. iii. p. 588. |