ARCHES.]

Address of Bishop of Chester, quoted in 4th ed. |
Pamphlet on Vestments by the Rev. John Deck:
London, 1866;

Address: Bishop of Cork, 5th ed. 1866;
Liturgies of Edward VI., 76;

[ARCHES.

Doc. Annals, 76;

Holcraft's case, Dyer, 203a 203b;

1 Card. 77;

Directorium Anglicanum, 83, 189;

6 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 83, art. 10-12; Ridley's works, p. 121, Parker ed.;

1 Card. 74, art. 1, 2, and note;

Remains and Letter, Archbishop Cranmer, Parker ed. 159;

and the phrase "commonly used" substituted for "by the authority of Parliament." In Westerton v. Liddell, the Privy Council decided that the words "by authority of Parliament in the second Edward VI." refer exclusively to Edward's first book. I shall defer the discussion as to the effect of this proviso till I come to the rubric relating to the ornaments of the church and the ministers.

The Magistrates of Dunbar v. Duchess of Roxburgh,

3 Cl. & Fin. 354;

Gorham v. The Bishop of Exeter, 15 Q. B. 73;
Westerton v. Liddell, Moo. 65.

The next point I shall call the attention of the court to is the destruction of all ancient service books:

Order of P. C. Dec. 25, 1549, 1 Card. 85;

3 & 4 Edw. 6, c. 10, Steph. Eccl. Stat. 329 330;

6 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 83;

1 Card. 299;

book of Edward VI. respecting the ornaments of the church and the ministers, were repealed, therefore whatsoever authority the canon law may have had up to this time, the statute would operate to repeal these canons and deprive them of all authority so far as they related to the performancs of Divine worship. As to the contemporaneous exposition,

1 Card. 316, and 99th Canon, 1603;

Archbishop Parker's Correspondence, 224-6;

1 Card. 356;

Remains of Archbishop Grindal, Parker ed., 123-4 Canons of 1604;

Bancroft's Articles;

2 Card. 104.

81, 92, 9, 61, 39, 67, 69, 151, 150, 158, 57;

3 Jac. 1, c. 5, s. 25;

Grindal's Remains, 135:

18 Eliz. 2. Card. 30;

5 Laud's Works, 414, Anglo-Catholic ed., as to 1628
and 1637; Visitation of 1628. Art. 27;
Articles for Peculiar of Canterbury, same vol. 448;
Directorium Anglicanum, Preface, ed. by Dr. Lee,
6, 7, 19, 21, 22, 36, 38, 272;

As to the differences between the present Prayerbook and the 1 & 2 Edw. 6:

1 Steph. Common Prayer, 169. Now, as to the inventory of church goods made under commissioners and the assignments, the assignments being those which were left to them, the assignments of copes and vestments for use in Divine service had regard to the first Book of Edward VI, and not to the second, in 1552 and 1553, the King's Council considered chalices, surplices, and communion cloths for the communion-table the only necessary ornaments of the church:

Commission to Sir R. Cotton and others, 16 Jac.
1552, p. 357;

The English Church Union case, Opinions of Counsel,
published by Rivington, p. 47;
Stephens on the Prayer-book, 351, 359, 356;
1 Card, 112;
Inventory of Stroud, English Church Union case, 48,
52, 49;

Mr. Walter Lyne's Pamphlet in the Church Review, 5 Church Review, 1865, p. 1077. I now come to the reign of Mary; the statute 1 Mary, sess. 2, c. 2, repealed every single thing so far as regarded the Prayer-book that had been in use, and everything was thrown back to what was the state of things in the last year of Henry VIII. I now come to the Statute of Uniformity in Elizabeth's reign, by which the statute of Mary is repealed; in the 25th section it is provided, "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 the reign of King Edward VI., until other order shall be therein taken by the

ing in sect. 27 of the Act of Elizabeth; this section is to apply to this Act the provisions of 1 Eliz. c. 2, ss. 4-9, prohibiting the use of any other rite or ceremony, and also prohibiting any person from procuring any other minister to use any other rites than those proposed in the Prayer-book. In 1662 the statute of 3 & 4 Edw. 6, c. 10 was in force, having been revived by the statute 1 Jac. 1, c. 2, s. 48 Now, I ask your Lordship with the deepest submission and humility, is it reasonable to suppose that the Legislature intended to restore the ornaments of the Church, and the ministers thereof, and at the same time destroyed all the books containing the information how such ornaments were to be used respecting which there are no directions in this Statute of Uniformity? The mere fact of an ornament having existed, or the mere fact of an ornament being in the first book of Edward VI, does not warrant the ceremony, because, my Lord, that would be arguing from the accident to the substance, instead of from the substance to the accifirst book of Edward VI.; unless there is an authority dent. I care not what ornaments may be in the to use those ornaments, those ornaments are perfectly useless. That I lay down as a proposition of law arising from the authorities. I wish to call again the attention of the court to the fact that I do not put this case forward as one of ornaments, but as one of rites and ceremonies, this even applies to candlesticks, which, whether legal or not as ornaments, the moment you light the candles become ceremonies. You cannot compel churchwardens to supply candlesticks, and whatever churchwardens are not compelled to supply are not legal ornaments. Now I care not what ornaments are mentioned in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI., unless there be express directions to use ceremonies for the use of such ornaments. Now as to contemporaneous usage, temp. Car. 2,

in

Cosin's Visitation Articles, 4 Cosin, 510;
Sheldon's Letter, 2 Card, 321.

the performance of divine service no omission and

ARCHES.]

[ARCHES.

Newberry v. Grodwin, 1 Phill. 282;
Westerton v. Liddell, 6 Moo. 187;
Faulkner v. Lichfield.

I now proceed to the rubric immediately preceding the Order of Morning Prayer. I submit, as a proposition of law, that the true sense of the rubric under consideration is to define the ornaments to be used in lawful ceremonies, and not per se to make a ceremony lawful in opposition to clauses of the Act of which it forms a part, the whole must be read together: (Liturgies of Edward VI., p. 19.) That the order and form of prayer should not be left to the caprice of any person, I refer to the preface of present Prayer-book. Your Lordship will also be good enough to take a note that I have referred you (at this stage of the argument), because it will save your Lordship's time, to the 3 & 4 of Edw. 6, c. 10, s. 1, and likewise to the stat. of 3 Jac. 1, c. 5, s. 25. If I understand right the case stands thus, certain ancient ceremonies and ornaments were used in the performance of Divine service anterior to the Acts of Uniformity. The elaborate directions as to these ceremonies and ornaments in the previous service books were altogether omitted in the books of Common Prayer that were issued in the reign of Edward VI., of Elizabeth, and of Charles II., and the preface on ceremonies explained that some ceremonies were abolished, and some were retained. Every rite and ceremony was abolished except those rites and ceremonies that are expressly mentioned in the Acts of Uniformity. How then can it be for one moment contended that any of the ancient ceremonies and ornaments can now be used so long as it is conceded that the laws of this country are to be derived exclusively from Parliament? The | words by authority of Parliament are nothing more than the old way of citing a statute. Now, my Lord, the services and ornaments in use previously to the establishment of Edward VI.'s first book are nowhere spoken of as being by authority of Parliament, and that, I think, is a very important proposition. Then if they are not spoken of as being by authority of Parliament," those statutes to which I have directed your attention have swept away all customs, and usages, and canons, and old service books:

66

1 Mary, sess. 2, cc. 2 and 3;

5 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 170;

1 Card. 43.

As to the meaning of ornaments in the rubric:
Westerton v. Liddell, 6 Moo. 156;

1st Book of Edward VI., pp. 112, 139;
Liturgies of Edward VI.

The rubric under consideration must be construed
consistently with the other parts of our present
Prayer-book and the Thirty-nine Articles. If a case
be within the literal meaning of the words of a
statute, but not within the object which the Legis-
lature had in view, the literal meaning must not be
acted, but the object of the statute carried out.
King v. Hall, i B. & C. 136 ;

Simpson v. Unwin, 3 B. & Ad. 117;

Salkeld v. Johnson, 1 Hare 207.

Now, I submit to your Lordship that the rubric as to ornaments is a general clause, and the rubrics giving detailed directions as to the particular services are special provisions, and if they conflict the latter must prevail. I also submit to you as a proposition of law that when the general words which appear to conflict with the particular clause of the same statute are words of reference to a previous statute, as in the rubric under discussion, and acquire their conflicting force from what is found, not in the statute in which they occur, but in the statute incorporated by reference, it is peculiarly true that they must be restrained by reason and

King v. The Poor Law Commissioners, 6 Ad. & El. 7; Brett v. Butt, 3 Adams, 216. Therefore, on these authorities, I think I am clear in the proposition with which I started, that, in construing this rubric, now the subject under discussion, even assuming that there were literal words in it opposed to the letter and spirit of the Acts of Uniformity, the Acts of Uniformity would govern and overrule that rubric, and that your lordship, in dealing with that rubric, will have to take the Acts of Uniformity as a whole, and not to look at that rubric as a detached part. I think I cannot put the case clearer than this, that that rubric is in point of fact nothing more, nothing less than a mere section of the Acts of Uniformity. On this point I have argued upon the assumption that the rubric on the ornaments included all the ornaments either expressly mentioned in Edward VI., first book, or required for the performance of the services directed by that book. But the sounder and more reasonable construction of the rubric is that it only refers to the ornaments expressly mentioned in Edward VI.'s first book. I now proceed to consider the question of elevation. The elevation of the elements is a ceremony not appointed by the Acts of Uniformity, and consequently illegal. It is a matter of no importance what precise object Mr. Mackonochie had in view when he elevated the elements. Now, your Lordship will bear in mind that throughout the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. there is only one ceremony expressly prohibited. It is in the Communion Service where rubrical direction is annexed to the prayer of consecration of the elements. It is as follows: "These words before rehearsed are to be said, turning still to the altar, without any elevation, or showing the sacrament to the people." The reason of this exception is obvious. The repudiation of the doctrine of transubstantiation was the cardinal point of the Reformation so far as doctrine was concerned. What is the object of the elevation above the head? It is, in point of fact, for the congregation to adore them.

Lyndwood, p. 231, Notes of Peckham's Canons, 3rd book, 23rd title, note upon the word "Elevation";

Rock's Hierurgia 100;

Lee's Directorium Anglicanum 59, 60, 61;
Littledale's The Elevation.

I have directed attention to the rubric in the Liturgies of Edward VI. in the Communion office, dated 1549, where the elevation is forbidden. After the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. it was not deemed requisite to insert this particular provision in the subsequent Prayer-books, but as no directions were given the minister to perform this ceremony, he could not do so without the introduction of a ceremony not directed by the Acts of Uniformity. The prohibition was omitted in Edward VI.'s book, merely because every one understood that ceremonies not mentioned in the Prayer-book were prohibited:

Articles of Religion, 28 & 25;
1 Card. Synodalia, 29.

Elevation is a ceremony, and no clergyman has a right to use any ceremony not appointed by the Book of Common Prayer. It is a counterfeit of

ARCHES.]

Grindal's Remains, 72, 73;
The Ritual Reason Why, 160;
Hall's Fragmenta Liturgica, vol. 5, end of preface;
Hymnal Notes, pub. by Palmer.

It appears from the evidence that kneeling took place after the elements had been consecrated. Now that was an additional ceremony not contained in the Book of Common Prayer. The directions in it are obligatory. The rubric before the consecration prayer is this, "When the priest standing before the table hath so ordered the bread and wine," it appears from this that he is to stand before the table, and there is no subsequent direction in that consecration prayer for his kneeling down. There being none such, he has no option, and his kneeling is contrary o the rubric:

Works of Archbp. Cranmer on the Lord's Supper,
Parker ed.

now come to the question of lights. My first proposition is that lighted candles on the holy table during divine service, when not required for the purpose of giving light, are illegal, and have not been authorised by the Acts of Uniformity, but are intimately connected with the rites of the Roman Catholic Church. Before the Reformation there were two sets of lights, one burnt before the images, and the other before the holy elements; the lights required at mass were enjoined in the Sarum Missal, like the lights at baptism; and when the Sarum Missal was superseded by the Prayerbook, which omitted any direction as to tapers and taper-bearers; these ceremonies became illegal; but the lights referred to in King Edward's injunctions were lights burnt before the reserved sacrament, and the object of these was to prohibit all other lights before the sacrament except the two lights before the reserved sacrament. If the injunctions of 1547 referred to the lights at mass it would have been a complete alteration of the existing practice of having lights held by acolytes-a practice enjoined by the Sarum Missal-what would have been the result of it? It would have been a prohibition of the use of lights. I will now come to the injunctions of 1547. When Edward VI. came to the throne on the 28th Jan. 1547 (and the first Book of Common Prayer was not agreed upon until Jan. 1549), in the first year of his reign, certain ecclesiastical ordinances or injunctions were issued, by which, inter alia, it was directed as follows. I must now refer your Lordship to the first volume of Cardwell's Documentary Annals, pages 5 and 7. At page 5, paragraph 1, your Lordship will find "that all deans, archdeacons, parsons, vicars, and other ecclesiastical persons, shall faithfully keep and observe," &c. Then I go on to the 3rd article of these injunctions, page 7: "And shall suffer from henceforth no torches or candles, tapers or images of wax, to be set afore any image or picture, but only two lights upon the high altar before the sacrament." Your Lordship will, perhaps, bear in mind those words, "two lights upon the high altar before the sacrament;" that is the condition. There are two conditions for these lights: First, they must be upon the high altar; and then, secondly, they must be before the sacrament, that is, before the reserved sacrament, "which, for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still." Now, my Lord, I may say parenthetically that this language corresponds substantially with the 7th injunction of 1538. What does this injunction do? I submit that upon the pure language of the injunction it allows only two lights upon the altar before the sacrament, that is, two lights with the condition that they shall be before the sacrament-i.e., before the reserved sacrament. In order to carry out the language of this injunction, the lights depended

[ARCHES.

upon the existence of the altar, and the presence of the sacrament. Those are the two conditions. There must, first, be the altar; and there must, secondly, be the presence of the sacrament; and they depended upon reservation. So when altars were abolished, and when reservation was abolished, and the sacrament consequently was not present, what was the result? Why that the lights were ipso facto abolished. That, as I respectfully contend before your Lordship, is the legal and logical result of that language. Now, that "before the sacrament" in these injunctions of 1547 means the reserved sacrament appears from comparing their language with that of the injunctions issued in the reign of Henry VIII. My Lord, in 1 Card. Doc. Annals, 5, the King says: "That part of them were given unto them heretofore by authority of his most truly beloved father King Henry VIII. of famous memory." Now, what does that paragraph allude to? That paragraph alludes to Cromwell's injunction of 1536 and 1538, and it may not be unimportant cursorily to consider their general object and effect. The directions in these injunctions of 1547, respecting the two lights, were taken from the injunctions of Cromwell; in fact, the greatest part of the injunctions of 1547 were only a repetition of the injunctions that had been issued in the reign of Henry VIII., when Cromwell was vicegerent of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. At the time when Cromwell's injunctions were issued, namely, in 1536 and 1538, the doctrine of the Church was defined by the articles set out by Convocation, and published by the King's authority in 1536. The Formularies of Faith, at page 11 (I am quoting from the Oxford edition of 1825), will establish that. What did they do? They enunciated the doctrine of the corporal presence. The two sets of injunctions issued by Cromwell in 1536 and 1638 are likewise to be found in 5 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 165 and 168, edit. 1838. With regard to the injunctions of 1547, the first nineteen of them are substantially repetitions of the injunctions of 1536 and 1538. The 3rd injunction of 1547 substantially corresponds with that 7th injunction of 1538 respecting lights. In 5 Foxe's Acts and Monuments, 69, the fourth paragraph in the page, your Lordship will find this: "Shall suffer from henceforth no candles, tapers, or images of wax to be set before any images or pictures, but only the light that commonly goeth about the cross of the church by the rood-loft, and the light before the sacrament of the altar" (the very words of the injunction of 1547), "and the light above the sepulchre." Your Lordship sees those words, "the light before the sacrament of the altar;" now can anything be more clear as to that language? [The DEAN OF THE ARCHES.-It goes on, "which, for the adorning of the church and divine service, ye shall suffer to remain."] I only stopped there, because I was merely discussing what was the meaning of the altar," and the meaning of the two lights. Now this language in the injunctions of 1547 is to be found in the injunctions in the reign of Henry VIII. At the time when the corporal presence was held these lights were connected with that doctrine. I submit that the lights before the sacrament correspond to the lights "before the sacrament of the altar" in the injunctions of Cromwell. This has been denied in Chambers's Lights before the Altar. These injunctions of Cromwell only allowed one light before the sacrament; but the light does not necessarily mean a single candle or lamp; and in fact the light which is mentioned in these injunctions, the light of the cross or rood-loft and the light of the sepulchre, did not consist each of a single candle or lamp. The injunctions of Edward VI. in 1547 were in some respects more Popish in character than those of 1538:

ARCHES.]

Moore, 166;

[ARCHES.

Card. Doc. Annals, 91;

34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 1, s. 2;

31 Hen. 8, c. 14;

Statutes of Realm, 740;

Formularies of Faith, Oxford ed. 262.

When the injunctions of 1547 were issued, "the necessary doctrine and erudition of a Christian man" was in force by authority of Parliament. Transubstantion was at this time the doctrine of the Church; consequently Edward VI. could not, by the exercise of his prerogative, have prohibited the placing of lights before the sacrament. The use of these two lights was a mode of showing adoration to the sacrament. The reserved sacrament was at this time hung usually over the altar: Cranmer, vol. i., p. 18, Jenkins' ed.; Cranmer, p. 52, Parker ed.

It is only in looking at the language of these injunctions, and looking likewise at the injunctions passed in the reign of Henry VIII., coupled with the Act of the Six Articles,-it is only in that way that the lights with the sacrament upon the altar and in front of the sacrament there had a signification assigned to them. The signification depends upon the connection; and if the connection be wanting, the signification fails. In Stephens' Ecclesiastical Statutes, p. 348, the meaning of the words "before the sacrament" may be further illustrated by recurring to the statute of the 1st of Mary, sess. 2, c. 3, s. 4. Now, the Visitation Articles that were issued immediately after the first Act of Uniformity are very important in their character respecting the use of lights. The legality of such were never recognised after the enactment of the first Book of Common Prayer by the bishops when exercising judicial or episcopal functions; the same remark applies to all visitation articles after Mary. The injunctions of 1547 never had statutable authority, and the provisions of the first Book of Common Prayer precluded their fulfilment : Injunctions of 1549;

1 Card. Doc. Annals, 74;

Johnson's MSS. in Bentham's Hist. of Reform.; Ridley, Vis. Art., 1 Card. 93;

Bp. Hooper, 197;

1 Card. Doc. Annals, sec. 35, p. 20;

1 Card. Doc. Annals, p. 48.

Now, the reservation of the sacrament was virtually prohibited in the Liturgies of Edward VI., p. 141 (Ed. First book), read with p. 85. At this time the Protestant Reformers certainly objected to lighted

candles:

guised papists. It was considered by the Council of Trent that there was no better way to demolish the "Church of Heresy" than by "mixture of doctrines," and by adding ceremonies more than at present permitted:

Bishop Burnett's Sermon to House of Commons,
1688;

Rome's Tactics, by Dr. Goode, 1867;
Zurich Letters, 63, Parker ed.;
Froude's Hist. Eng. 145;

1 Strype's Annals of Reformation, 297;
Second Book of Homilies, 241, 269, 286;
Bishop Jewell, Defence and Apology, 176;
Gorham's Reformation Gleanings, 434.

The distinction between Edward's lights (the lights under the injunction of 1547) and Elizabeth's lights is clear. Edward's lights were in honour of the corporal presence. Elizabeth's simply in honour of of the crucifix. There is no connection between these lights and the Communion; they were burnt like the lights in the Lutheran churches, at other services besides the Communion service. Now the Puritans never raised any objection as to lighted candles, but only to unlighted ones; this clearly proves that there could not have been lighted ones. History of Troubles at Frankfort in 1554, pp. 51, 54 and Letters relative to English Reformation, 2nd part, 757;

Gorham's Ref. Gleanings, 347;

2 Hickergill, 107-405, 441; 3rd vol., 156-187, ed. 1716;

Bishop Andrewes' Minor Works, 97, 98;

Bishop Andrewes' Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, 370, 372;

Andrewes' Minor Works, 33;

Rome's Tactics, 33;

Hierurgia Anglicana, 14, 16, 21, 22, 45;

Wheatley on Common Prayer, 92;

5 Cosin, 140, 231, 440 ;

4 Cosin, 390, 394;

Butt v. Brett, 3 Adams, 217;

3 Leighton's Works, Sermon 4.

I submit that there is no warrant in the authorities I have cited for saying that lighted candles were used for symbolical purposes after the passing of the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. And I wish to urge upon your Lordship that the very moment that the statute 30 Eliz. passed, the injunctions of 1547, so far as they related to lights before the sacrament, were abolished by operation of that Act; and that lighted candles, when not used for the purpose of giving light, are ceremonies, and not merely ornaments or decorations. As to the distinction between the cross and the altar lights, and between the credence table and the lights: (Westerton v. Liddell, 6 Moo. 175–187, 70, 156-157.) With respect to incense, I submit as a proposition of law, that any use of incense as part of the services of the Church, is an addition to the mode of performing the service of the Church prescribed in the Acts of Uniformity. It is an additional ceremony not prescribed and not warranted by these Acts. Nothing whatsoever in the statute, and I believe also in the canon law, can be found to warrant the use of incense. Edward VI.'s first

in them:

1 Card. Doc. Annals, 221; Articles of Visitation, 242;

Grindal's Remains, 159, 173.

use.

The Prayer-books of Edward VI., Elizabeth, and Charles II. did not contain any direction, either express or implied, for the use of incense. The Sarum missal (Walker's Liturgy of the Church of Sarum, 42) contains several directions for the use of incense; this was while Popery was in full