Page images


priest's orders either a nomination to a curacy or a presentation to a living (9). Masters of Arts of five years' standing living at the University at their own charges are not now considered to have a title (K).

The necessity for obtaining a title is supposed to prevent the clergy from becoming too numerous. But it does not really have this effect, as it is open to any incumbent to

employ a succession of deacons as curates. The real remedy 3 for overcrowding lies with the bishops. (See Orders.)

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

TOLLS on turnpike roads are not payable by any rector, vicar, or curate going to or returning from visiting any sick parishioner or on other his parochial duty within his parish (i); and if, on such an occasion, he rides in a carriage, he is not disentitled to the exemption by reason of his having other persons in the carriage with him (k). A clergyman going to render temporary assistance to a neighbouring clergyman is not entitled to the exemption (1), but he is if appointed temporarily the curate of a neighbouring parish, even if his appointment is informal; and, in such case, the exemption extends to a turnpike outside the parish to which he is going on parochial duty (m).

Also, tolls are not payable by persons on their way to or from their usual place of religious worship tolerated by law on Sunday or on any day on which Divine service is, by authority, ordered to be celebrated (i). The section, probably, would not apply where a person went to different places of worship as a mere matter of choice. Where, however, a dissenting minister in pursuance of the directions of his superior spiritual authority has to preach sometimes at one place and sometimes at another in fixed order and at fixed times, each of such places is his “usual place of worship” (n). Funerals and persons attending them are exempt from tolls (o).


Can. 33.

Cripps, p. 9. (i) 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, 8. 32; 4 Geo. 4, c. 95.

(k) Layard v. Orey (1868), L. R.

3 Q. B. 415.

(1) Brunskill v. Watson, ibid., p. 418.

(mn) Temple v. Dickinson (1858), 28 L. J. M. C. 10.

Toll gates are now rapidly disappearing under the provisions of recent statutes (p).


TRANSUBSTANTIATION, as to the doctrine of, PRESENCE.

This doctrine was renounced by the Church of England at the Reformation, together with the Invocation of Saints and the Sacrifice of the Mass as practised in the Church of Rome. Up to the year 1867 a declaration against these doctrines had to be taken in order to enjoy certain civil offices. This has now been done away with, but the Act does not enable Roman Catholics to hold offices other than those to which they were then entitled (9).

TRUSTEES. In parochial charities, the minister and churchwardens are usually ex officio trustees, but, in any case, it appears to be their duty to see that the funds are properly administered. The trustees of a Church of England school ought to be members of the Church, but it is not a sine quâ non (1).

By the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Act, 1868, a body of trustees called “church trustees” may be appointed in any parish for the purpose of accepting and holding any property which may be given to them for ecclesiastical purposes in the parish. The trustees are to be the incumbent (who is to be chairman), and two householders or owners or occupiers of land in the parish, one to be chosen by the patron, and the other by the bishop. They are a body corporate. They may, from time to time, pay any funds in their hands to the churchwardens to be applied for general or special ecclesiastical purposes in the parish ; but due regard must be had

(n) Smith v. Barnett (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 34.

(0) 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81, 8. 14.
(p) See 3 Ste. Com. 151.

(9) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 62.

(r) See Tudor, p. 193, and cases there referred to.


to the directions of the donors of funds contributed for any special ecclesiastical purposes. They are empowered to invest in government or real securities, and accumulate income, or otherwise deal with the funds as they may think expedient, subject to the provisions of the Act. They must once at the least in every year lay before the vestry accounts of their receipts and expenditure (-).

The Trustees Appointment Acts, 1850, 1869, and 1890 (8), also deal with the mode in which property may be held by trustees for religious societies. By the Act of 1890 these Acts are extended so as to apply to land when such land is held in trust for a place for religious worship, or for the expenses connected therewith, or for a burial ground, minister's house, or for other buildings for religious or educational purposes as mentioned in the Act (t). Any statutory power for the appointment of new trustees (e.g., under the Conveyancing Act, 1881) for the time being in force is to apply; provided that where there is a qualification for the office of trustee only qualified persons can be appointed, and where there is a power under some instrument the statutory power shall not be exercised for twelve months. The Act also contains provisions as to evidence of due appointment of trustees and as to vesting (u).

VAULT, a burial place or tomb (v). A vault in a church may be prescribed for, and generally the same rules apply to vaults as to pews (q. v.): thus the right to separate burial in a particular vault may be attached to a house (.r). The Privy Council has stated that only very exceptional circumstances can now justify the grant of a faculty for interments in chancels or the body of churches (y). In a case where there was no churchyard a faculty was granted to the lay impro

(r) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 109, s. 9. See Advowson.

(8) 13 & 14 Vict. c. 28; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 26; 53 & 54 Vict. c. 19.

(1) 53 & 54 Vict. c. 19, s. 2.
(u) Ibid. ss. 3–7; as to trustees

generally, see Lewin on Trusts.


(3) Bryan v. Whistler, cited under Pews (q. v.).

(v) Rugg v. Kingsmill (1868), L. R. 2 P. C. 69.


priator to construct a vault under the chancel accessible from the exterior only, on condition of his consenting to allow a sufficient piece of ground near the aperture to the vault to be first duly consecrated for the sole and special purpose of burials in this vault (2).

When burial places are closed by authority the rights of private individuals are usually preserved. The closing Acts do not apply to St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey.

VESTMENTS. It seems certain that the early Christian ministers wore no distinctive vestments in which to minister. There is no allusion to the subject in the New Testament. But subsequently vestments of white came into use, this being a very usual colour for the priestly garb in all religious bodies, pagan and Christian. The wearing of coloured vestments arose later, when the Church began to vie with the pagans in the matter of gorgeous ceremonies (a). In the pre-Reformation Church of England the vestments were those of the Romish Church. The six garments worn by priests being named amesse, alba (9.v.), cingulum, stola (q.v.), manipulus, and planeta (b).

The vestments in general use in the reformed Church of England are the surplice (q. v.), black stole (q. v.), hood (7.v.), and black gown. The cope (q. v.) may also be used in cathedrals and collegiate churches at Holy Communion. The use of the surplice is enjoined by both statute and canon law, the use of the hood by canon law only (e). The black stole and black gown (for sermon (d)) are firmly established by ancient custom.

The chasuble, alb, tunicle (e), biretta, girdle, and coloured


(z) Rugg v. Kingsmill, ubi sup.

(d) See Re Robinson, (1892) 1 Ch. (a) See PUBLIC WORSHIP, Ritual. 95. The use of the black gown,

(6) Cowel, cit. Wharton. As to however, cannot be said to be vestments generally, Rock's general” now: it has for some Hierurgia and Smith's Dict.

years been gradually going out of (c) Can. 58.


(e) Ridsdale v. Clifton, ubi inf.

stole (1) are all illegal. They have no ancient custom of the post-Reformation Church to sanction them.

The following is shortly the history of the vestment question :-As before stated the pre-Reformation vestments of the English Church were those in general use in the Romish Church. The first Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1549) contains a rubric at the beginning of the Communion office by which the vestment (i.e., chasuble) or cope, alb, and tunicle were ordered. These vestments were abolished and the surplice substituted by the second Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1552) (9). They were provisionally restored by the 1 Eliz. c. 2, s. 25 (1559), until other order should be taken therein by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of certain commissioners. The Act of Elizabeth did not “schedule” a new Prayer Book, but a revised book was issued, not by authority of Parliament, in which the ornaments rubrio was altered to agree with the statute. This rubric, therefore, was of no authority, except in so far as it agreed with the statute. In 1566 (if not before) the Queen did take other order by her Advertisements, which thereupon, so far as they relate to vestments, became part of the 25th section of 1 Eliz. c. 2; and omitting all reference to hoods, the statute law from the year 1566 to 1662 was as follows: “The surplice shall be used by the ministers of the church at all times of their public ministrations, and the alb, vestment, or tunicle shall not be used, nor shall a cope be used, except at the administration of the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches(h). That these orders were carried into effect and enforced as law there is complete proof (i), and from this time the alb, chasuble, and tunicle disappeared. The canons of 1603-4 and 1640 also accord with this view

[ocr errors]

(f) Enraght and De la Bere cases, 7 App. Cas. 240; 6 P. D. 157 ; Green's case (1882), 8 P. D.79.

(9) Tbis Prayer Book was of statutory force, forming part of 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 1.

(1) Ridsdale v. Clifton (1877), L. R. 2 P. D. 321. And see MINISTRATION.

(i) See the visitation articles of the bishops, including Andrewes, Overall, and Wren, cited in Ridsdale v. Clifton, ubi sup.

« PreviousContinue »