■^>l>r^ 
 
 ^«i' 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^ferfe^;,*^ 
 
 «e 
 
 *i;^;»#;^), 
 
 •w-o^.-*-;: • . ^.^, ^ry , 
 
 
 
 
 ^fe 
 
 
 ,^^.6 
 
 
 
 
 Vr|i 
 
 M-f 
 
 2j 
 
 1 
 

 
 I 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THL 
 
 UN IVERSITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 THE RECENT DECISIONS 
 
 JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 
 
 THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 •' And lijre is to be noted, tliat iiicl; Ornaments of the Cliurch and of the Ministers thereof 
 ■• at all times of their ministration. di:ill he retained and be in use as were in thi. Church of 
 " Fiiglnjid by tlie Authority of Parliament, in the second year of the Reign of King FJ.-rnrJ the 
 " Sixth." — Onmmeiitj Ruhr'n: 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED, 
 
 FOR THE THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNION, 
 BY THE CHURCH PRINTING COMPANY, 
 
 I.^, BURLEIGII-STREET, StRAND, W.C, 
 1871. 
 
 Price Foiirpeiice,
 
 MARTIN V. MACKONOCHIE AND HEBBERT 
 V. PURCHAS. 
 
 " OMISSION " not " PROHIBITION." A LETTER to His Grace 
 the ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY. Being a Plea for the Continuance 
 of PRIMITIVE and CATHOLIC USAGES and PRIMITIVE and CA- 
 THOLIC ORNAMENTS. By the Rev. C. S. Grueber. Second Edition, 
 IS. 6if. (Parker, 377, Strand.) 
 
 Also, by the same Author, 
 A LETTER to His Grace the ARCHBISHOP of YORK, on the 
 PRINCIPLES and CONCLUSIONS of the JUDGMENT of the COURT 
 of APPEAL in the Case of MARTIN v. MACKONOCHIE. Second 
 Edition, with Appendix, 6(/. (Parker, 377, Strand.) 
 
 Also, 
 CORRESPONDENCE of the Rev. C. S. GRUEBER with the Right 
 Rev. the LORD BISHOP of BATH and WELLS and His Grace the 
 ARCHBISHOP of YORK. u. (Parker, 377, Strand.) 
 
 SHEPPARD V. BENNETT. 
 
 \ REPLY to the " REMARKS " of the Rev. C. A. HEURTLEY, D.D., 
 
 Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford. Being a DEFENCE of the DE- 
 CLARATION on the HOLY EUCHARIST signed by Twenty-one Priests, 
 and Presented to the ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY on May 30, 
 1867. By the Rev. C. S. Grueber. Second Edition, i^. 6d. (Parker, 377, 
 Strand.) 
 
 Nearly ready, 
 The JUDGMENT of the Rt. Hon. Sir R. PHILLIMORE, DEAN 
 of the COURT of ARCHES. Second Edition, is. (Rivingtons.)
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 THE RECENT DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL 
 COMMITTEE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRIVY COUNCIL.* 
 
 I. The Court of Appeal in its condemnation of many Usages 
 unquestionably Primitive and Catholic, as things forbidden under Append! 
 penalties, has contravened Tl fundamental principle of the Church 
 of England; whereby,- in the eyes of those external to her com- 
 munion, the character of the Church of England for truthful- 
 ness must needs be seriously impaired, and her very claim to 
 identity with the Primitive and Catholic Church questioned. 
 E.g.:- 
 
 The 30th Canon of a.d. 1603 says : — " So far was it from the 
 *' purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the 
 "Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like 
 " Churches, in all things which they held or practised, that, as 
 "the ' Apology of the Church of England' confesseth, it doth 
 " with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither en- 
 " damage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober 
 "men; and ONLY DEPARTED from them in those parti- 
 '' cular points wherein they M'ere fallen both from themselves 
 " in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches, 
 *' which were their first founders." 
 
 * These criticisms arc confined simply to a consideration of some of the 
 legal and historical difficulties of the judgment. 
 B 2
 
 4 
 
 To take one example — The Court has forbidden the Mixed 
 Chalice, of which it is observed in the Judgment itself, that its 
 use is of " great antiquity and has prevailed both in East and 
 *'West." 
 
 II. A construction has been put by the Court of Appeal 
 
 Appendix ^ ■' ^ -^ 
 
 B. in Hebbert v. Purchas upon the plain words of the Rubric on 
 the " Ortmmetits of the Church and the Mitiisters thereof' which 
 is a violation of its literal and grammatical sense and contradic- 
 tory of the established facts of history. The "Second year" 
 of King Edward the Sixth, when the Eucharistic Vestments 
 were enjoined, cannot be interpreted as laying down the same 
 rule as the Sixth year of King Edward the Sixth, when 
 they were abolished;* neither can the words "authority of 
 '' Parliament " be interpreted as equivalent to the Advertise- 
 ments of an Archbishop or the Canons of a Convocation. 
 We cannot conceive the possibility of the Statute naming a 
 date when the chasuble, &c., were worn by the Clergy in 
 the celebration of the Holy Eucharist if it intended to refer 
 to a subsequent period, when those Vestments were expressly 
 forbidden and a " surplice only" was substituted in their place. 
 The Revisers of the Liturgy had the free choice open to them 
 of the practice of any period between a.d. 1548 and a.d. 1 66 1, 
 and they advisedly, in the face of a strong opposition, adopted 
 the period named. 
 
 Appendix III. The Court urges that the tion-tiser of the chasuble 
 and p." 10 during 180 years is conclusive of its illegality, because we must 
 ^°'^- otherwise assume a systematic breach of the law not only on 
 the part of " all those who had declared their unfeigned assent 
 " and consent to all and everything contained in the Book of 
 " Common Prayer," but on the part of "the framers of the 
 *• rubrics themselves" also. 
 
 * />., for the short period of seven years, from a^d. 1554 to a.d. 1559. 
 
 UIUC
 
 Without dwelling on the obvious fact that this line of argu- 
 ment would make the revival of Daily Service illegal in parish 
 churches, it is enough to point out that the Court declares the 
 cope to be a legal Vestment for use in cathedrals, albeit its non- 
 user has been very nearly as continuous and universal as that of 
 the vestments now condemned. 
 
 It does not seem to have occurred to the Court that the 
 same argument of non-user which is employed for the prohi- 
 bition of Ornaments of the Minister would also prohibit Orna- 
 ments of the Church : e.g., the Altar-cloths varied according to 
 the seasons of the Church, which were declared legal by the 
 Court in Liddell v. Westerton, though they are not prescribed. 
 
 Further, the Court professes to find proof of dis-use, that is, 
 lawful abolition, of the Vestments, in the fact of their destruction. 
 This would prove too much. For the Edwardine Commissioners 
 made away with even the patens, chalices, and surplices in places 
 where there was little or no opposition, and left the chasubles, 
 crosses, and censers where the congregation was strong enough 
 to resist, thus showing that mere rapine, and not legality, was 
 their guide. And the Elizabethan Commissioners in 1 566, par- 
 tially following the same principles, frequently left copes in 
 parish churches, whereas the Court alleges that the Advertise- 
 ments of 1564 limit the cope to cathedrals. 
 
 The statement of the Court, that the Elizabethan Advertise- , ,. 
 ments, as well as, it may be added, the Canons of a.d. 1603, u. 
 enjoin the use of the "surplice only" is inaccurate. The 
 word " only " (which is essential to the argument) does not 
 occur in the Advertisements or in the 58th Canon, and has 
 been imported into them by the Court.* 
 
 * It is plain that the Advertisements, upon which the Canons with 
 regard to the cope and surplice were framed, did not prohibit the use of 
 the cope in parish churches. This is proved by ttie tact, that the Eliza- 
 bethan clommissioners, in acting as the Court alleges upou these Adver- 
 tisements, left the cope in some of them.
 
 IV. The Court of Appeal, in condemning the Mixed 
 Chalice, has reaffirmed the principle laid down in Mardn v. Mac- 
 konochie, in condemning the Eucharistic Lights, viz., that " Ji/ 
 " Ceremonies are abolished luhtch are not expresJj retained;' a prin- 
 ciple wholly unsound. E.g. : — 
 
 Robert Johnson, Chaplain to Lord Keeper Bacon, was tried, 
 A.D. 1573, before Sandys, Bishop of London, afterwards Arch- 
 bishop of York, the Dean of Westminster, the Lord Chief Justice, 
 and others, for not reciting the words of Consecration when 
 additional Bread and Wine were required. He pleaded in his 
 defence that the then Prayer Book contained no order that this 
 should be done, which was the fact. Nevertheless he was con- 
 demned and sent to prison. It would seem, however, if the 
 present ruling of the Judicial Committee be correct, that the 
 Bishop of London (who is quoted as an authority in the present 
 Judgment) was himself liable to imprisonment rather than Mr. 
 Johnson.* 
 
 Moreover, from a.d. 1552 to a.d. 166 1 no Manual Acts, i.e., 
 the "taking of the Bread into the hands " and the " taking 
 " of the Cup, &c.," were "retained " in the Rubric. Neverthe- 
 less, these Manual Acts (which are 'a part 'of " Christ's Ordi- 
 nance") were used, as we are told by Bishop Cosin, as "a general 
 custom" during that period. It follows, therefore, if the ruling 
 of the Court be adopted, that " a general custom " of conse- 
 crating the Holy Sacrament according to the Institution during a 
 period of One Hundred and Nine years ought to have rendered 
 a Priest liable to fine, deprivation, or imprisonment. (Seep. 20.) 
 
 It may be added that the Court itself in Hebbert v. Purchas 
 admits that the Manual Acts were in use during the period 
 named ; a fact itself singularly subversive of their own rule ot 
 interpretation. (See Appendix on " Before the Table," re 
 Udal, p. 25.) 
 
 * This Robert Johnson is also quoted in the Judgment.
 
 V. With regard to tlie Mixed Chalice itself it may be ob- Appendix 
 served, that it was ordered under the Book of a.d. 1549' with ^• 
 penalties of deprivation and imprisonment ; of which Book it is 
 
 said in the Act enforcing it that it was written " by the aid of the 
 ''Holy Ghost ^' and in the Act of a.d. 1 552 that it is a ''godly order," 
 setting forth a " rt'«6'//j-///^" of the Sacraments, and "agreeable 
 " to the Word of God'' and " the Primitive Church." 
 
 Now if, as the Court says, the Mixed Chalice, thus 
 ordered under the Book of a.d. 1549, with penalties of depriva- 
 tion and imprisonment, was forbidden with the same penalties 
 under the Books of a.d. 1552 and a.d. 1662, it may be well 
 asked, by whose "aid" were these Books written, according to 
 what " order " and " using" and agreeably to what *' Church" ? 
 
 If, indeed, the ruling of the Court be sound, the language 
 used in the Acts of a.d. 1549 and a.d. 1552 of the Book of a.d. 
 1549, would seem to border very closely upon impiety. 
 
 That the use of the Mixed Chalice has been retained and prac- 
 tised to a greater or less degree, and that by men of eminence, 
 since a.d. 1552 is matter of history and cannot be denied. 
 
 The statement of the Court, that the mixing of the 
 Chalice before the Service begins "has not prevailed at all" in the 
 East and "West is curiously contrary to fact. For throughout 
 the Eastern Church to the present day the Chalice is privately pre- 
 pared in the sacristy before the commencement of the " Liturgy," 
 and a similar usage prevailed in most parts of the Continent up 
 to the beginning of the eighteenth century. 
 
 VI. The Court, in discussing the Rubric of the Prayer of Appendix 
 Consecration, 'has decided that the term " standing before the ^' 
 "Table " is equivalent to standing-at any part of the Table. 
 
 The common-sense meaning of "before the Table" must be in
 
 8 
 
 front of the Table, as witnessed by the Rubric in the Marriage 
 Service, which says " the man and the woman kneehng before 
 '' the Lord's Table." 
 
 The application of this construction to the Rubrics of the 
 Coronation Service is conclusive. 
 
 ** The Queen, rising from Her devotions, goes before the 
 " Altar." 
 
 " The Archbishop, standing before the Altar, taketh the 
 " Crown into his hands and laying it again before him on the 
 ** Altar, saith " 
 
 Appendix '^^^ same Service throws light also upon the expression 
 "• " Siouth iide," 
 
 " The Queen goes to Her chair set for Her on the Soul/j side 
 " of the Altar, where She is to kneel at Her faldstool when the 
 " Litany begins." 
 
 " On the South side, E^isi of the Qj.ice7is chair, nearer the 
 " Altar, stand the Dean and the Prebendaries."* 
 
 " The Queen will then sit down in King Edward's chair, 
 " placed in the midst of the area over against the Altar with a 
 " faldstool before it, where she is anointed." 
 
 " The Archbishop, standing at the North side of the Altar, 
 " saith the prayer or blessing over Her.'' 
 
 Appendix VII. The Court has decided that in the Rubric on the bread 
 '• to be used in Holy Communion the word sujfice excludes the 
 use of Wafer Bread. 
 
 Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, taking precisely 
 the opposite view, writes toParkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, 14th 
 June, 1574, " And as for their contention for wafer bread and 
 
 * Note, that if "South side" meant "South end,''' the Dean and the 
 Prebendaries could not get riearer to the Altar by going East of the chair. 
 They would have to go North of it, i.e., between the Queen and the Altar.
 
 9 
 
 " loaf bread, I trust that you mean not universally in your 
 "diocese to command or wink at \hQ loaf bread, but for peace 
 " and quietness here and there to be contented therewith." 
 
 A construction of the Rubric of a.d. 1 559 cannot be otherwise 
 than applicable to the Rubric of a.d. 1662, the wording of the 
 two Rubrics being substantially the same. 
 
 VIII. It is an universal rule that "■in pienalibus causis beniginus 
 " interpretandum est" On the admission of the Court the matters 
 before them were both difficult and doubtful. Yet they not 
 only give judgment against the accused, but condemn him in 
 costs. 
 
 It is also to be remembered that the same Court which in 1871 
 punishes Mr. Purchas for wearing the Vestments, speaking iil 
 1857 of the four directions, as to Ornaments, in the Act of 
 Uniformity of Elizabeth, and the Prayer Books of a.d. 1559, 
 1603, 1662, declared that : — 
 
 " They all obviously mean the same thing, that the same Dresses 
 " and the same Utensils, or Articles, which ivere used under the First 
 " Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth, may still be used." 
 
 To SUM UP. The Court requires acceptance of a judgment 
 which (l) wholly ignores a fundamental principle of the Church; 
 which (2) construes a statute contrary to the recognized rules of 
 construction and its literal and grammatical meaning -, which (3) 
 makes supposed non-ustr override Statute Law ; which (4) lays 
 down a rule of rubrical interpretation repugnant to fact and his- 
 tory, aild one impossible to be applied \ which (5) sets Prayer 
 Book against Prayer Book and Act against Act * which (6) first 
 assumes what is not true and then founds its argument upon its 
 own assumption ; which (7) demands assent to a meaning put 
 upon words opposed to their common sense and their mean-
 
 io 
 
 log as used in other parts of the Prayer Book ; which (8) re- 
 verses a judgtneat of the same 'Court upon a subject virtually 
 before the Court; and, lastly, which (9) in a.d. 1871 con- 
 demns a priest in costs for the use of that which in a.d. 
 1857 he was told not only " may be used," but which the law 
 " enjoins."* 
 
 * It is thought worth while to append the following remarks upon the 
 subject of the Eucharistic Vestments. 
 
 The Canons, having regard to the " dignity of the Holy Sacrament,"' 
 order for the Holy Communion in cathedral churches a distinctive Vest- 
 ment, namely, a cope. The principle, then, being admitted of thus doing 
 honour to the Sacrament, why should the Court, the Canons not gain- 
 saying it, appear so adverse to its application to parish, as well as to cathe- 
 dral, churches? 
 
 The Court, as has been observed, in its argument against the legality 
 of the Vestments, lays stress upon the fact of their general non-user sub- 
 sequently to the revised Ornaments Rubric of 1662; but that this fact 
 need not prove that the Vestments were not intended to be prescribed by 
 that Rubric is clear from the circumstance that another very important 
 Rubric, which was restored in 1662 from Edward's First Book — viz., 
 " The Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine," 
 &c. — was all but universally disobeyed and ignored immediately and long 
 continuously after its enactment. Thus Dr. Hickes, Dean of Worcester, 
 nearly fifty years afterwards writes: — "This Rubric was restored in the 
 
 "office of the Holy Communion of our present Liturgy, established 
 
 "by the Act of Uniformity after the Restoration, but this 
 
 ' ' restored Rubric, to the great reproach of the clergy, was ahiost never 
 ' ' since observed m cathedral and parochial churches. I say almost never, 
 ' ' because I never \ix\t\v or heard but of two or three persons, which is 
 "a very small number, who observed it." (Two Treatises on the Christian 
 Priesthood, S^c; A Prefatory Discourse^ vol. i., pp. Ixiv., Ixv., 8vo., 1711). 
 At p. cclix. Dr. Hickes relates that a "dignified priest" had asserted that 
 the Rubric in question is a ";>««c///io," and "as such \s vacated by the 
 '' UNIVERSAL PRACTICE of the Church, even of the Bishops.'''
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Only Caaoii 30th is here referred to. But similar declarations 
 of adherence to what is Primitive and Catholic will be found to 
 pervade the entire Formularies of the Church, the Prayer Book, 
 the Articles, the Canons, and the Homilies, as well as Acts 
 of Parliament passed at the time of the Reformation and subse- 
 quently in relation to it, also Royal Proclamations and other 
 public documents. 
 
 Note, this Canon is not on Doctrine, but on Ritual; on the 
 use of the Sign of the Cross. 
 
 B. 
 
 Attention is called at page y to the following passage in Liddell 
 V. Westerton : — 
 
 Speaking of the four directions, as to Ornaments, in the Act 
 of Uniformity of Elizabeth, and the Prayer Books of a.d. 1 559, 
 1603, 1662, the Court then declared that, "T/jey a/l obviously mean 
 " the same thing, that the same Dresses and same Utensils, or Arti- 
 " cles, which luere used wider the First Prayer Booh of Edward the 
 " Sixth, ma^ still be t/sed." 
 
 The following is from the same judgment : — 
 
 "No difficulty will be found in discovering, amongst the Articles 
 
 " of which the use is there enjoined, Ornaments of the 
 
 " Minister. Beside the Vestments differing in the different services, 
 
 " the Rubric provides for the use of an English Bible, &c." 
 And further in other places the legality of the Vestments is 
 
 either asserted or assumed. 
 
 Moreover, the Court supported its interpretation of the rubric 
 by the following reference to the facts of history. It was the 
 desire, it observed, of Oueen Elizabeth that the First Book of 
 King Edward the Sixth should be altogether re-established, 
 but she was "obliged to give way, and a compromise was 
 " made, by which the Services were to be in conformity with 
 " the Second Prayer Book with certain alterations ; but the 
 "Ornaments of the Church, whether those worn, or those
 
 "otherwise used, by the Minister, were to be according to the 
 " First Book." (See Moore's Report, pp. 1 57, 158, 159.) 
 
 All this is now ignored by the Court ; a fact the more unac- 
 countable when it is remembered that the Archbishop of York, 
 being himself a prominent member of the Court, at the very 
 time that the draft of the present judgment^ was in hand, 
 wrote in reference to a dictum of the Court in Liddell v. 
 Westerton thus, "The decision of the point in Liddell v. 
 " Westerton, according to the usual practice of the Court of 
 " Appeal, was held binding upon those who decided the Mac- 
 " konochie case."* 
 
 In Martin v. Mackonochie the Court, adopting the decision in 
 Liddell v. Westerton, said : — 
 
 " The words ' authority of Parliament' in the Rubric refer to 
 "and mean the Act of Parliament 2 & 3 Edward VL, cap. i, 
 " giving Parliamentary effect to the First Prayer Book of Edivard 
 "W." 
 
 And again : — 
 
 " The Rubric, speaking in 1661 has, for reasons which it 
 
 " is not the province of a Judicial Tribunal to criticise, defined 
 " the class of Ornaments to be retained by a reference, not to 
 " what was in use de facto, or to what was lawful in 1 549, but 
 "to what was in the Church by authority of Parliament in that 
 " year." 
 
 The Court interprets the word " retained*^ in the Act of Eliza- 
 beth and in the Rubric of a.d. 1661 as referring to the Orna- 
 ments of the Church and Minister then in use, and not according 
 to its plain meaning. 
 
 Now, the Ornaments in use when Elizabeth's Act was passed, 
 A.D. 1559, "were those of Queen Mary ; in other words, the 
 Roman Ornaments. And the Ornaments in use when the 
 Rubric of our present Book was written, a.d. 1661, were those 
 of the Commonwealth ; in other words, it might almost be said, 
 Hone at all. 
 
 The word "retained" in the Rubric must evidently be con- 
 strued in reference to the words " tuere" 2.\\di "in use" — z.f ., were 
 in legal use. 
 
 * "Correspondence with the Rev. C. S. Grueber." Parker, Strand-
 
 The Court in its argument assumes that the Advertisements of 
 A.D. 1564, are to be construed as " other order" of the Act of 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 The following passage is evidence that the Advertisements 
 in question were not so regarded. 
 
 " Craving upon my knees pardon for my boldness, I beseech 
 
 "your most excellent Majesty to hear me a little 
 
 ' ' Tkc laivs expect a further Rejormation of the Church 
 
 " It is (l Eliz. c. 2) enacted, that all ornaments of the Church 
 "and Ministers thereof (such as surplice, copes, &c.), shall he 
 " retained and be in use as ivas appointed by King Edivard the 6, 
 "not for unchangeable continuance, but until other order nuere 
 ^' taken by your Majesty, and your Higlmess' Ecclesiastical Com- 
 " niissioners." 
 
 This was written after a.d. 1589, and consequently long after 
 the Advertisements. 
 
 The passage is extracted from ^ Petition directed io Her 
 1)1 jst excellent Majesty, ivhcreinis deliverecl a mean honv to compound 
 the civil dissension in the Church of England : a proof that they ivho 
 ivrite for Reformation do not offend against the Stat, of l^ Eliz. c. 
 and, therefore, till matters he compounded , deserve more favour, &c., 
 pp. 3-5, 4to., without printer's name or date.* 
 
 If " other order" had been duly taken by the issue of the 
 Advertisements, is it credible that the above petition would have 
 been addressed to Elizabeth in 1590, craving her to do lohat she 
 had done already in 1 564 ? f 
 
 Reasons are alleged by the Court to the effect that, it is 
 not to be supposed that the Reviewers in 1 66 1 could possibly 
 intend the Ornaments Rubric to contradict and abrogate the 
 58th Canon. 
 
 But by the rubric first inserted by them at the end of the Cate- 
 chism they do contradict and abrogate the very next Canon, viz., 
 the 59th. 
 
 The latter directs every parson, vicar, or curate upon every 
 Sunday or holyday, " before Evening Prayer, for half-an-hour or 
 
 * " Martin's Monethe's minde" is mentioned at p. 76, and as the tract 
 so named was printed in 1589, this work was issued later than that year. 
 
 t The Lord's Committee a.d. 1641 asserted respecting the Advertise- 
 ments that ihey '-arc not in force but by way of commentary and imposi- 
 tion." (Haxtei"s Life, p. 370, fol., 1696.)
 
 "more," diligently to instruct the youth, &c., in the Catechism, 
 whereas the former directs the " curate of every parish " to do 
 this '* upon Sundays and holydays, after the Second Lesson at 
 *' Evening Prayer" 
 
 The Court observes, in reference to the Ornaments Rubric — 
 " The learned judge, in the Court below, assumes (Appendix, 
 "p. 7^)) that the Puritan party at the Savoy Conference objected 
 " to this rubric -, whereas it was the rubric of James which they 
 " were discussing. Upon that the Puritans observed that, 
 '"Inasmuch as this rubric seemeth to bring back the cope, alb, 
 " and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book 
 ^' <, Sc 6 Edward VI., so for reasons alleged against ceremonies 
 " under our eighteenth general exception, we deem it may be 
 
 " wholly left out' The fact," adds the Court, "is clear 
 
 " that the Puritans objected to a rubric differing from this [_of 
 " 1662] ; and that after their objections, the rubric was recast 
 " and brought into its present form." 
 
 But the Court omits to add that "the rubric" even after 
 it had been " recast and brought into its present form," was equally 
 objected to by the Puritans (including one of their leaders at the 
 Savoy Conference, Richard Baxter) who " among the most 
 " necessary alterations of the Liturgy" (a.d. 1668) propose : 
 " The rubric for the old ornaments which were in use in the 
 '' second year of Edw. VI. [be] put out." ("Reliquiae Bax- 
 " terian^e, or Mr. Richard Baxter's Narrative of the most 
 memorable Events of his life and times, faithfully published from 
 his own original Manuscript by Matthew Sylvester." Part III., 
 p. 39,fol., 1696.) 
 
 The selection of the second year of King Edward VI. (Jan. 
 20, 1548, to Jan. 20, 1549) as the period whose statutory usage 
 should bind the Church of England, was not made at haphazard, 
 but in pursuance of a definite policy, that of retaining all customs 
 of the pre-Reformation Church which were not chargeable with 
 superstition or abuse, while abolishing such as could (in the 
 opinion of the authorities at the time) be reasonably so charged. 
 Thus, as we find by examining the various Injunctions and Visi- 
 tation Ar deles put out in 1547 and 1548, the Latin Service- 
 books, any such relics, shrines, paindngs, and images as had 
 been the subject of pilgrimages or of alleged miracles, rosary- 
 beads, processional candles and palms, were all prohibited, or 
 at the least discouraged. But, on the other hand, the altar-
 
 15 
 
 lights, the Eucharistic Vestments, incense, the mixed chalice, 
 and other kindred usages, were either expressly enjoined or 
 implicitly tolerated. To have fixed an earlier date than the 
 second year of Edward VI. would have legalized the entire 
 body of pre-Reformation customs and observances, and thus have 
 nullified the Reformation itself in every parish where the incum- 
 bent did not heartily support it. On the other hand, to have 
 fixed a later date would have been too destructive. Even the 
 third year of Edward VI. might have caused great inconvenience, 
 owing to the extreme meagreness of the Rubrics of the First 
 Prayer Book, which then came into use by the authority of Par- 
 liament ; whilst a reference to the fifth and sixth years, the date 
 of the Second Prayer Book, would have been equivalent to the 
 abolition of many primitive and seemly usages which were repug- 
 nant to the foreign reformers. Thus it is clear that the religious 
 meaning of the second year of Edward VI., as the date which 
 guides the Ornaments of the Church and the Ministers, is iden- 
 tical with that of the 30th Canon of 1603, already cited, "So 
 far was it," &c. 
 
 C. 
 
 The Court dwells at great length upon the argument of non- 
 user. But the same argument, as has been suggested, would tell 
 equally plainly against other Statutable directions. Injunctions, 
 &c,, as appears from the following citation from the Elizabethan 
 " Petition" before cited in Appendix A. : — 
 
 " Certain Articles, wherein is discovered the negligence of the 
 " bishops, their officials, favourers, and followers, in performance 
 "of sundry Ecclesiastical Statutes, Laws, and Ordinances Royal 
 " and Episcopal, published to the Government of the Church of 
 
 " England Out of the Book of Commoti Prayer authorized 
 
 ^' by Act of Parliament. It appeareth by the Calendar which 
 " assigneth four chapters to be read every day through the year, 
 "also by the preface and order of reading the Psalms, that the 
 " Morning and Evening Prayer should be read every day through 
 "the year,* either pubUc or private, except great business hinder; 
 "yet they be only read upon Sundays, Holydays, Wednesdays 
 "and Fridays, and Saints Eves The {Rubrics at Morning 
 
 * No direction can be more peremptory and explicit than our Church's 
 order " that the curate that ministereth in every parish church or chapel, 
 being at home, and not otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say daily the 
 Morning and Evening Prayer in the parish church or chapel where he
 
 ' Prayer, at the Cominuuion, and Comm'wation) people are to answer 
 ' the priest, to say Amefi, and such like ; yet this is permitted to 
 ' the clerk alone in most places, who after the Popish order must 
 ' supply the room of the unlearned, and say Amen, as the papists 
 ' do abuse the Scripture to that purpose. Where there is [liiibric 
 ' before Te Detim) singing, then the Lessons should be sung in a 
 ' plain tune,* and likewise the Gospel and Epistle-, yet I have not 
 
 'known this used in cathedral churches The [First 
 
 ' Rubric) minister should use the ornaments appointed by King 
 ' Edward,f yet not he alone, but the clerk also doth wear a sur- 
 ' plice in many churches In (Rubric next after the Com- 
 
 * nninion) cathedral and collegiate churches the Communion 
 ' should be ministered every Sunday at least. This is not prac- 
 
 ' tised Bishops are commanded to confirm children ; yet 
 
 'divers bishops do not use it,| albeit by [Rubric next folloivifig 
 '■ Corijirmation) law no man should receive the Communion till he 
 
 'were first confirmed Curates of every parish (Rubric 
 
 ' next folloiving (lonjlnnation and Queen s Injt/nctions, Art. ^-j.) 
 ' ought upon Sundays and Holydays, half an hour before Evcn- 
 ' song, openly instruct and examine children, servants, and 
 ' prentices in the Catechism. A profitable work seldom or never 
 
 ' used by the bishops' followers Banns should be asked 
 
 ' three several Sundays in the open church [Rubric before Mar- 
 ' riage) ; yet bishops dispense with asking banns, non obstante thh 
 ' Book, confirmed by Parliament, as if a bishop might dispense 
 ' with penal statutes. Out of the Book of ordering Deacons, &c. 
 ' The party presented to the bishop should wear a plain alb (by 
 'the Book of ordering ministers, p. 3, and 47) confirmed by 
 
 ' (8 Eliz. i.) Parliament ; yet the garment is not used 
 
 ' The deacon must read the Gospel in the day of his ordination 
 '(Book of Ord. Minist. p. 6c^), putting on a tunicle ; but this 
 ' vesture is scarcely known at this day All the bishops 
 
 * that be present at the Consecration of bishops should wear 
 
 ministereth;" yet so little has usage interpreted the law of the Church as 
 above laid down, that according to Canon Robertson " it is a mere imagi- 
 nation to suppose that Daily Service was ever general in England since the 
 Reformation," [Hoqv shall ive conform to the Liturgy ? p. 41, 8vo., 1844.) 
 
 * Until the last review of the Book of Common Prayer this rubric ran 
 thus: — " And (to the end that the people may the better hear) in such 
 places where they do smg, there shall the lessons be sung in a plain tune, 
 after the manner of distinct reading, and likewise the Epistle and Gospel." 
 
 t The writer evidently had no conception that the Advertisements ot 
 1564 had inhibited the Eucharistic Vestments. Compare his statements 
 respecting them in the above extract with what he says about the Orna- 
 ments Rubric in the quotation given in Appendix A. 
 
 % This example of noti'iiser is particularly remarkable-
 
 17 
 
 " {Book of Ord. Mimst. page 6^) copes and surplices, having their 
 " pastoral staves in their hands : they retain the surplice, seldom 
 
 " the copes, but the}^ never use their pastoral staves * Out 
 
 " of the Qiieeus Lijiiudio/is. By the Queen's Injunctions (which 
 " should be executed in {Preface to the Injunctions) all Her 
 '' Majesty's realms and dominions), all {Article 3) ecclesiastical 
 " persons having cure of souls ought to preach in their church, 
 " and every other cure they have, one sermon every month. And 
 " in their {Article 4) own person they should preach once every 
 
 ''quarter, or else read an Homily yet there be many 
 
 " hundred churches within these dominions, especially in Wales, 
 "Ireland, the northern and western parts, that have scarcely had 
 ''twelve sermons in twelve years; and there be many persons 
 '' that cry formality, that come not twice in a-year at their charge 
 
 " to benefit the people by any duty The Holydays should 
 
 " be {Injunct. Art. 20) spent in hearing God's Word, in private 
 " and public prayers, in reconciliation of enemies, receiving the 
 " Sacraments, and visiting the poor, using all soberness and goodly 
 " conversation ; yet the bishops themselves, and their priests 
 " (who should be samples to the flock), bestow these days 
 " profanely at bowls, hearing comedies and tragedies, &c., which 
 " be far from the duties both here and in the Scriptures commanded 
 
 " Where {Art. 49) music is used in churches, it should 
 
 " be in such a distinct and modest song, that the same might 
 " be plainly understood, as if it were read without singing. 
 " But the curiosity of cathedral churches doth disdain this sim- 
 
 " phcity Whensoever the {Art. 52) Name of Jesus is 
 
 " pronounced in sermon, lesson, or otherwise, all men should 
 ''uncover their heads and make a leg -, yet the bishops and their 
 "chaplains seldom use this, unless it be at reading the Gospel, 
 " as if the Gospel were more holy than the rest of the Scripture 
 
 " It were needless to recount all the cases wherein the 
 
 " bishops, their officers, their chaplains, and hangbies, do offend 
 " against our Synodal and Provincial Constitutions, against their 
 " own Books and Articles published in their Synods and Convo- 
 " cations." (" A Petition directed to Her most excellent Ma- 
 jesty," &c., pp. 60-71.) See p. 13. 
 
 * At p. 5 the v.-riter says: — " By the laws (^Book of Ord. Priests and 
 Bishops) of England, in the ordination of Bishops the Archbishop should 
 lay the Bible upon the Bishop's neck that is to be ordained, and put a 
 pastoral staff into his hand. If the Archbishops did not esteem these as 
 vain ceremonies, they should urge them with as great vehemence upon 
 Bishops, as they do surplices upon ministers."' Again, at p. 24 he writes: 
 
 — " The seekers of reformation see not why the Bishops should drive 
 
 them to wear a surplice, and yet neglect the use of pastoral staves, seeing 
 the laws tie the Bishops to the one as well as the ministers to the other." 
 C
 
 i8 
 
 D. 
 
 Referring to some published Visitation Articles of Bishop 
 Cosin, the Court observes : — " In the 6th Article Bishop Cosin 
 " inquires, * Have you a large and decent surplice (one or more) 
 " for the minister to wear at all times of his publick ministration 
 " in the church ?' (2 Ritual Commission, 601^,) This repetition 
 " of the words ' at all times of his ministration,' the exact words 
 '* of the rubric, is very significant as a contemporaneous expo- 
 " sition of it by one of its framers." 
 
 As bearing upon this remark, the following extract from Gosin's 
 "Third Series of Notes on the Book of Common Prayer " is 
 submitted for consideration : — 
 
 " In the end of the Book 2 Edward, after this discourse of 
 "ceremonies abolished and retained, are certain rules added 
 " concerning the ceremonies themselves: i.That the minister, 
 " at all times of his mhnstrntion, at Matins, Evensong, Baptisms, 
 " Burials, &c., shall wear a surplice in the parish church ; and 
 *' in cathedral and collegiate places, that they shall also wear 
 " their ornaments and ensigns of their several degrees and digni- 
 "ties. 2. That in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, the 
 " priest shall wear, besides his surplice or alb, a vestment or cope; 
 " and being a bishop he shall also have his pastoral staff, 3. In 
 " all other places it shall be at the minister's choice, whether he 
 " shall wear a surplice of no." (Works, vol. v., pp. 416, 417.) 
 
 This passage also contains a sufficient reply to the following 
 assertion of the Court, " If the minister is ordered to wear a 
 "surplice at all times of his ministration, he cannot wear an alb 
 "and tunicle when assisdng at the Holy Communion -, if he is to 
 "celebrate the Holy Communion in a chasuble, he cannot cele- 
 "brate in a surplice." 
 
 E. 
 
 In allusion to the posidon in question, i.e., that Omission is 
 Prohibition, laid down by the Court may be quoted the fol- 
 lowing passage which contains the reply of Cosin to a Puri- 
 tanical objecdon respecting the versicles, ''Lord, have luercy upon 
 ''lis. Christ, have mercy upon us," namely, "Whether it be war- 
 " ranted by I Eliz. cap. 2 that the clerks or people should say 
 " the second of these versicles (the minister for the time being 
 
 "silent) seeing by the Book the minister should read 
 
 "also." — Survey., p. 46. "This," remarks Cosin, "is in other 
 " letters to shew that, according to the ancient custom, the 
 " people used to answer the minister, as at the end of the
 
 19 
 
 " Litany. And it is to be noted, that the Book does not everyivhere 
 " enjoin and prescribe every little order,* n.vhat should be said or done, 
 " but take it for granted that people are acquainted with such common, 
 " and things always used already. Let the Puritans then here give 
 " over their endless cavils, and let ancient custom prevail, the 
 " thing ivhich our Church chiefly intended in the review of this Ser- 
 " vice." (Cosin's First Series of Notes on the Book of Common 
 Prayer. Works, vol, v., p. 6^.) 
 
 The case occurred a.d 1573. It was heard before Queen 
 Elizabeth's High Commissioners. The Commissioners were Dr. 
 Sandys, Bishop of London ; the Lord Chief Justice ; Gabriel 
 Goodman, Dean of Westminster ; and others. The party 
 accused was Robert Johnson, Chaplain to the Lord Keeper 
 Bacon. The charge laid against him was the omitting " to repeat 
 ^' the JVords of Institution'" when in the Administration of the 
 Sacrament more wine was required than had been previously 
 consecrated. (See " A Part of a Register," cir. a.d. 1590.) 
 
 Johnson's defence was as follows :— 
 
 " I answer under protestation, that at no time in the celebrating 
 *' of the Communion have I omitted any prayer or words of In- 
 " stitution which the order of the Book prescribeth, but have 
 " used them in as full and ample manner as they are appointed ; 
 " but sometimes upon occasion, when the wine failed, I sent for 
 " more, which I delivered to the people with the words appointed 
 " in the Book to be said at the delivery of the Sacrament, not 
 " again repeating the words of Institution, partly for that, it being 
 " one entire action and one Supper, the words of Institution 
 " spoken were sufficient, as I do take it ; and partly for that in 
 " the Book of Common Prayer there is no such order appointed, 
 " unto which in this case I do refer myself." 
 
 What follows is copied verbatim from Johnson's report of his 
 trial, the spelling only being modernized : — 
 
 " The Bishop of London : The Consecration of the Sacra- 
 " ment ; for, in that it had not the word, it was no Sacrament, 
 " and so the people were mocked. — Robert Johnson : My Lord, 
 
 * '' Nothing indeed can be more untenable than the notion that the 
 Prayer Book is a compk^c rule, which will not admit of any variation 
 either by exceeding or falling short of it." (Robertson's //oiu iball ive 
 conform to the Liturgy? p. 299.) 
 
 In illustration of this statement, see Onilsjion not Prohibition^ by the Rev. 
 C. S. Gruebcr. Second Edition. Parker, Strand.
 
 " I did not mock the people, for it was a Sacrament. — Dean of 
 "Westminster: Saint Augustine saith, ' Accedat verbum ad 
 " ' elementum, et lit Sacramentum.' Now you lacked the word, 
 " therefore it was no Sacrament. — Robert Johnson : I had the 
 " word. — Bishop of London : How had you the word, when 
 " you confess that you recited not the Institution ? — Robert 
 "Johnson: I had recited the Institution afore, and that was 
 "sufficient. — Dean of Westminster : Yea, for that bread and 
 " wine that was present, but when you did send for more bread 
 " and wine you should have again rehearsed the words of Insti- 
 " tion. — Robert Johnson : The Book appointed no such order* — 
 " Bishop of London : Yes, sir, the Book sayeth you shall have 
 " there sufficient bread and wine, and then the prayer of Institu- 
 " tion must be recited ; for as much as you had not sufficient, 
 "therefore you should have repeated the Institution. — Robert 
 " Johnson : There is no such caveat nor proviso appointed in the 
 '^ Book. — Bishop of London : But that is the meaning of the 
 ' ' Book. — Robert Johnson : Men may make what meaning they 
 " list, but I refer myself to the Booh, whether it be so appointed or no" 
 
 " Therefore he [Bucer] inislikes also the niaking of any Crosses 
 " (as the Book appointed) over the Bread and Wine ; or that the 
 " minister should take the Bread and Wine into his hands, when 
 " he read the v/ords of institution, because by this practice men 
 ' ' would think that he said these words to the Bread and Wine, 
 " and not to the communicants ; and it should seem that there- 
 " upon these directions in the margin for the priest's taking the 
 "Bread and Wine into his hands (when he says, ' took bread,' 
 "and 'took cup'), were afterwards left out; and yet the use 
 " could not for all that be left off, it hemg a general custom among 
 "us to do so still." (Cosin's Third Series of Notes on the Book 
 of Common Prayer. Works, vol. v., p. 478.) 
 
 F. 
 
 " Then shall the minister take so much Bread and Wine as shall 
 " suffice for the persons appointed to receive the Holy Com- 
 " munion, laying the bread upon the corporas or else in the paten 
 
 * It is to be noted that Convocation of a.d. 1603 supplying the " oi-der,' 
 enacts: — "Furthermore, no bread or wine newly brought shall be used, 
 but first the words of institution shall be rehearsed when the said bread 
 and wine be present upon the Communion Table." (Canon xxi.)
 
 " or in bome other comely thing, prepared for that purpose ; and 
 " puttuig the wuie into the chalice, or else ia some fair or con- 
 "venient cup, prepared for that use (if the chalice will not 
 " serve), putting thereto a little pure and clean water." (Rubric 
 in the Communion Service. Prayer Book of 1549.) The Court 
 objects to the mixed chalice on the ground that "Wine only is 
 named in our present Book. It may be replied that in this First 
 Book, after the mixture has been made, the Mixed Chalice is 
 simply called wine. 
 
 " Ceteris rebus ordine gestis, demum Episcopus ad sacram 
 ''Mensam redit (sacellanis utrisque ad aliquantulum recedentibus), 
 " lotisque manibus, pane fracto, vino in calicem effuso, et nqud 
 
 '' adinistd, stans ait Cum vinum, quod prius effuderat, non 
 
 " sufFecerit, Episcopus de novo in calicem ex poculo, quod in 
 " sacra Mensa stabat effundit, admistdque aqua, recitat clara verba 
 '' ilia consecratoria." (Rubric in the Form of Consecration of a 
 Church or Chapel framed by Bishop Andrewes. Sparrow's 
 *' Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer," 1 668.) 
 
 The order given for Prince Charles' Chapel at Madrid is as 
 follows : — ■ 
 
 *' That the Communion be celebrated in due form, with an 
 " oblation of every communicant, and admixing of water with 
 " the wine." (Collier's Eccl. History, vol. ii., p. 726.) 
 
 " The ancient Liturgies are all for vinum cum aqua inixtuin. 
 
 " Our Church forbids it not, for aught I know, and they 
 
 " that think fit may use it, as some most eminent among us do at 
 " this day." (Cosin's First Series of Notes on the Book of 
 Common Prayer. Works, vol. v., p. 154.) 
 
 " Laud, when Rector of All-Hallows, Barking, introduced 
 " the practice into the church of that parish, where it continued 
 "to be observed in the last century." (Brett on the Liturgies, 
 cd. 1838, p. 404. Robertson's, "How shall we Conform to 
 the Liturgy, &c. ?" p. 189, 8vo., 1844.) 
 
 " It must be confessed that the mixture has, in all ages, been 
 
 ''the general practice, and for that reason was enjoined 
 
 " to be continued in our own Church by the first Reformers. 
 " And though in the next review the order for it was omitted, 
 " yet the practice of it was continued in the King's Chapel Royal, 
 " all the time that Bishop Andrewes was Dean of it.' (Wheat- 
 ly's " Rational Illus-tration of the Book of Common Prayer,'' 
 &c., p. 290, 8vo., 1741.) 
 
 At Lambeth, in the Library, is a form of Consecration of a 
 Parish Church by Bishop Field, who was consecrated October 
 10, 1619; translated to S. David's 1627; to Hereford 1635,
 
 22 
 
 i 11 which are given a large number of traditional directions, and 
 among them that for the mixing of water with the wine. 
 
 The Court observes, " Christ Himself is beheved to have used 
 "the Mixed Chalice." It is true. Liturgiologists are agreed here. 
 It may be added that the expressions of Holy Scripture are very 
 significant. When the Evangelists speak of the Bread they call 
 it bread. When they speak of the Wine they call it " the cup ;" 
 so also S. Paul. 
 
 In the Eastern Church, in the Rite of Prothesis, the Priest and 
 Deacon go alone into the Sacristy to prepare the Bread and Wine 
 for the Liturgy. These are not seen at all by the people till they 
 are publicly carried out into the Church, and so to the Altar in the 
 Rite known as the Great Entrance. The Rubric for the mixture 
 in the Sacristy runs as follows : — The Deacon then pours wine 
 and water into the Holy Chalice, first saying to the Priest, " Sir, 
 " bless the Holy Union." And the Priest blesses them. 
 
 In the West a similar custom as to the Mixing of the Chalice 
 in the Sacristy obtained almost universally in France and in some 
 of the Churches of Germany, Italy, and Spain, until the extir- 
 pation of the National Uses in the beginning of the XVIIIth 
 Century. 
 
 G. 
 
 On the decision of the Court respecting the meaning of the 
 plain words " before the Table," it may suffice to ask what is 
 the contrary to them .? Is it not behind the Table .'' And what 
 is behind the Table as the Table is universally placed in our 
 churches .'' Most men would reply, the East wall of the church, 
 or the reredos if there be one. 
 
 Or to put the same in another form. If his Grace the Arch- 
 bishop of York were officiating at the North end and the Bishop 
 of London at the South end of the Table, their relative positions 
 would hardly, it is submitted, be described by the Court as the 
 one before and the other behind the Table. 
 
 The following remarks may, however, be made in addition to 
 what has been said : — 
 
 The Court binds the Priest to stand at the North " side" or 
 "end" of the Table; whereas the North "side" or "end "of 
 the Table is not once named after the Priest has left the Lord's 
 Table for the purpose of preaching the Sermon.
 
 23 
 
 After the Sermon the Priest is ordered simply to " return to 
 " the Lord's Table." At the Prayer for the Church Militant he 
 is directed to " place" the Elements " upon the Table ;" and, 
 " after which done," it is directed that he " shall say" the Prayer, 
 there being no direction whatsoever to go to the North " side" or 
 "end." The Prayer of Humble Access, which immediately pre- 
 cedes the Consecration Prayer, is to be said " at the Lord's Table." 
 
 If the assumption of the Court be true that by the term 
 " before the Table" no particular part or side of the Table is 
 intended, it may well be asked why the expression "«/" of the 
 Rubric of the last-named Prayer was not retained for the 
 Prayer of Consecration immediately following it, but was 
 advisedly changed to "before"?- 
 
 The Court forbids the Priest to stand " before," that is, /// 
 front o/'the Table, where, there being nothing between himself 
 and the sacred Vessels, he may with 'Uhe more readiness and 
 "decency" break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands. The 
 Court compels the Priest to stand at the North end of 
 the Table, where, there usually being between himself and the 
 sacred vessels a kneeling-stool, a cushion, or bookstand with the 
 Book, he must with unreadiness and somewhat aiukicard/y 
 "break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands." 
 
 The Court, in order to compass its end, virtually imports into 
 the Rubric words to the effect that the people may "see the 
 " Bread broken ;" whereas no words to this effect are to be 
 found in the Rubric. The Rubric simply says, " before the 
 " people-,'' which words, to say the least, are as honestly satis- 
 fied by the Priest's standing in front of the Table, as by the 
 Priest standing at the end of the Table. 
 
 It is to be noted here, that in arguing the words " before the 
 " people," Udal is cited by the Court to prove that the people 
 must see the Bread in the act of its being broken. 
 " We press," says he, "the action of breaking the Bread." 
 It could hardly be credited that the Court would have en- 
 listed into its -service not only the witness of a man who was, 
 according to its own rigid rule of interpretation, guilty of an 
 illegal act, but the testimony of the illegal act itself. The date 
 given by the Court is a.d, 164I, at which period the Manual 
 Acts not being "expressly retained" were, as the Court 
 would pronounce, "abolished." The testimony of Udal cannot, 
 therefore, be accepted. 
 
 Bishop Cosin, who, as shall presently be shown, wrote the 
 Rubric, does not here appear to be of the same mind with the 
 Court. Referring to the Book of a.d. 1552 he complains that
 
 there is no direction as in the Book of" a.d. 1549 for the priest 
 to "take the Bread and Cup into his hands, nor to break the 
 " Bread before the people T Now that Cosin could not possibly 
 mean to say that the people must necessarily see the Bread in the 
 act of its being broken is clear. For, it is to be observed, that 
 in the Book of a.d. 1549, the Priest is ordered to commence 
 "the Service, standing humbly afore the midst of the Altar," 
 and at the Prayer of Consecration to rehearse the words " turning 
 "still to the Altar.'' 
 
 Again, the Court admits, when considering the words of the 
 Rubric, " hath so ordered the Bread and Wine," that they " are 
 " intended to set the Minister free for the moment from the 
 " general direction to stand at the North side." But " free" to go 
 where ? Why plainly " before the Table" in the common-sense 
 meaning of the expression. Here then is an admission, inad- 
 vertent perhaps, of its own error.* 
 
 The history of the Rubric itself will at once make apparent 
 the meaning of the words in question, " before the Table :" — 
 
 In the Prayer Book previous to a.d. 1662 the Rubric stood 
 thus — " Then the Priest, standing up, shall say as followeth." 
 
 Here two things are to be noted — (i) the words "standing 
 " up" apply to the whole Prayer of Consecration -, (2) there were 
 in the Book at this time no directions for the Manual Acts in 
 the Consecration of the Holy Sacrament. 
 
 In 1662 the Rubric was altered as follows: — "When the 
 "Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered the Bread 
 " and Wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency 
 "break the Bread before the people and take the Cup into his 
 " hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration as followeth." 
 
 Here four things are to be noted — (l) the word " standing," 
 still retained, applies as before to the whole Prayer ; (2) the 
 words " before the Table" being subsdtuted for the word " up" 
 and forming one and the same clause with the word " standing," 
 are to be applied co-extensively with the word " standing •/' (3) the 
 Manual Acts in the Consecration were then re-introduced ; (4) 
 this re-introduction indicates why the Priest was to stand before 
 the Table — viz., that he may not only "order the Bread and 
 " Wine," but that he may with the " more readiness ajul decency'' 
 break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands. 
 
 * If in Martin t-. Mackonochie a momentary genuflection or a very low 
 bow was deemed to " violate"' the Rubric which orders the priest to 
 "stand," much more would the Rubric, one would think, be " violated" 
 by a priest walking about from end to " before'' and back again, and how 
 can such a practice be consonant with the dictum of the Court that " the 
 words ' standing before the Table ' apply to the whole sentence" ?
 
 25 
 
 Further light is thrown upon the words by ;i consideration of 
 the Rubric of the Scotch Book of a.d. 1637 — " Then the Pres- 
 " byter, standing up, shall say the Prayer of Consecration as 
 " followeth, but then during the time of Consecration, he shall 
 "stand at such a part of the Holy Table ivhere he may iv'ith the 
 " more ease and decency use both his hands J'* 
 
 The testimony of Archdeacon (afterwards Bishop) Cosin, in 
 his Visitation Articles, is cited by the Court in proof that the 
 Priest in consecrating must, according to the direction of the 
 Rubric of our present Book of a.d. 1662, stand at the north 
 *' side " or " end " of the Table. The date given is a.d. 1687. 
 Bishop Cosin was then dead : a.d. 1627 must be intended.f 
 Now Cosin was made Bishop in a.d. 1660, more than a year 
 previous to the present Prayer Book. The Archdeacon's Visita- 
 tion Articles therefore refer to the Book of a.d. 1552, and bear 
 date previous to the alteration of the Rubric. In other words, 
 the Court ventures to cite Cosin's testimony to the meaning of 
 
 * A Puritanical objector to the Scotch Prayer Book writes : — 
 
 " Our Book hath a second rubric enjoining expressly the Priest in the 
 
 " time of Consecration to stand at such a place ' where he may use 
 
 " 'both his hands with more ease and decency,' which is not possible but 
 " on the West side alone, for on the South side the commodity is just 
 " alike as in the North ; on the East none can stand, for the Table is joined 
 '• hard to the wall, and whosoever stands on the West side of the Altar, his 
 " back is directly to the people that are behind him." (The Canterburian s 
 SelfContuction, p. 105, 1641.) 
 
 Laud, who must at least be admitted to have understood the meaning ot 
 a rubric framed under his own responsibility, admits the above interpreta- 
 tion of it to be correct. It being objected that, as regards the use of both 
 the hands, •' that may be done at the North end of the Table and be better 
 " seen of the people," the Archbishop replies : — '• Surely these men con- 
 " secrate their elements in a very loose and mean way, if they can say truly 
 " ' that they have not use of both hands' in this work ; or that whatsoever 
 '• is done ' may as well be done at the North End of the Table,' which in 
 " most places is too narrow, and wants room to lay the Service Book open 
 " before him that officiates, and to place the Bread and Wine within his reach 
 "So that in that place 'tis hard for the Presbyter to avoid the unseemly 
 " disordering of something or other that is before him, perhaps the very ele- 
 " ments themselves, which may give scandal to them which come to com- 
 '■ municate, especially since in the margin of the Prayer of Consecration he 
 " is ordered to lay his hand upon the Bread and ^Vine which he consecrates. 
 " As for ' his being better seen of the people.' that varies according to the 
 " nature of the place and the position of the Table ; so that in some places 
 "he may be better seen, and in some not. Though I am not of opinion 
 " that it is any end of the administration of the Sacrament, ' to have the 
 " ' Priest better seen of the people.' '' (Troubles and Trial, Laud's ff'^or/ks, 
 vol. iii., p. 347, 8vo., 1853,) 
 
 t Sec Cosin's Correspondence. Part I., p. 118. Surtces Society. 
 J)
 
 26 
 
 the P-ubric more than thirty years before the Rubric itself was 
 written ! 
 
 [Is it so certain that these Visitation Articles were ever 
 issued ? Their editor, Mr. Ornsby, questions the fact. Cosin's 
 Articles printed in a.d. 1627 (see Works, vol. ii. p. 3) do not 
 contain the testimony cited by the Court.] 
 
 Cosin's own practice, some twelve years after, but previous 
 to our present Book, may be seen from the following charge 
 laid against him a.d. 1 640, and admitted by him. (See Bishop 
 Cosin's "Correspondence," Part I., Introduction, p. xxvii., Surtees 
 Society.) 
 
 '' When he administered the Communion he stood on the West 
 "side of the Table, v/ith his face towards the East, and back 
 " towards the people, which is a ceremony the Pope's Priests are 
 " enjoined to use at Mass.*" 
 
 The Court makes no allusion to the circumstance that 
 Cosin actually wrote the present Rubric with his own hand. 
 This is apparent from the original rough copy of it in his anno- 
 tated Prayer Book at Durham. 
 
 The reasons given above, it is believed, are valid for the deter- 
 mination of the meaning of the Rubric of the Prayer of Conse- 
 cration. But he who desires to know the real object of the 
 Revisers of the Liturgy in directing the priest to " stand before 
 " the Table" may read it in the following words of Bishop Jolly : 
 
 "When we inspect the names of the Episcopalian Commis- 
 " sioners, and find Sheldon, Cosin, and Sanderson amongst the 
 " Bishops, with Heylin, Gunning, Pearson, and Thorndike 
 " amongst the Priests, we may suppose that with regard to the 
 " Eucharistic Sacrifice in particular they inclined to reduce it to 
 " the Primitive standard, as nearly as the unhappy genius which 
 "then prevailed would admit." (See Bulley's "Variations in 
 the Communion Office.") 
 
 H. 
 
 On the terms " Side' and ^' End" it may be observed that they 
 were not always considered synonymous terms in Cosin's time. 
 
 For example, Peter Smart says : — " You [John Cosin, 
 " Francis Burgoine, &c.] have lately set it [the Table at Dur- 
 " ham Cathedral], that the Minister cannot possibly stand at the 
 " North side of the Table, there being neyther side standing 
 
 "■■•" A Catalogue of Superstitious Inno'vations, (Zi^V., brought into Durham 
 Cathedral by Bishop Neal and the Dean and Prebendaries of the said Church, 
 6cc., p. 26, 4to. ; 1642.
 
 ** northward." (Articles against Durham Innovators delivered to 
 Bishop Harsnett, before the Censure of Peter Smart, August J^, 1630. 
 Bp. Cosin's "Correspondence." Part I., p. 16 1, Siirtees Society.) 
 
 Bishop Williams, in a passage which almost immediately 
 follows that cited by the Court in proof " that whichever way 
 
 "the Table was to stand the position of the Minister was 
 
 " on the North side," writes thus — " The Minister appointed 
 " to read the Communion is directed to read the Commandments, 
 " not at the end, but at the North side of the Table, which im- 
 " plies the end to be phiced towards the East great window." 
 ("Holy Table," p. 71.) 
 
 In regard to Williams it may be further observed that the Court 
 when citing Heylin's words, " I presume that no man of reason 
 " can deny but that the northern end or side, call it which you 
 " will, is pars septentrionalis, the northern part," omits to cite 
 IVilUanu reply — viz., ''When you officiate at the t'W of the Table, 
 
 " you may officiate at a part but you cannot officiate at that 
 
 '' part of the Table to which by the Rubric confirmed by Act of 
 " Parliament you are literally directed and appointed." (" Holy 
 Table," p. 57.) 
 
 I. 
 
 " And to take away the superstition which any person hath, or 
 " might have, in the bread and wine, it shall suffice that there be 
 " such as is usual to be eaten at the table with other meats, but 
 " the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be 
 '' gotten" (Rubric a.d. 1552). 
 
 " And to take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, 
 " which any person hath or might have concerning the bread and 
 " wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual to be 
 " eaten •, but the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently 
 " may be gotten'' (Rubric a.d. 1662). 
 
 " And to take away the superstition, which any person hath or 
 " might have in the bread and wine [though it be laivful to have 
 " lucfer-bread) it shall suffice that the bread be such as is usual, 
 ''yet the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be 
 " gotten" (Scotch Prayer Book, Rubric a.d. 1637). 
 
 The Court observes : — 
 
 " From a large collection of Visitation Articles, from the time 
 " of Charles II., it is clear that the best and purest wheat bread 
 "was to be provided for the Holy Communion, and no other 
 
 "kind of bread The words of the 20th Canon, to which 
 
 " the Visitation Articles refer, point the same way. The Church-
 
 " wardens are bound to supply ' wheaten bread,' and this alone 
 " is mentioned. If wafer-bread is equally permitted, or the 
 " special cakes of Edward VI.'s First Book and of the Injunc- 
 " tions, it is hard to see why the parish is to supply wheaten 
 " bread in cases where wafers are to be supplied by the Minister 
 " or from some other source." 
 
 But the Prayer Books of 1559, 1 604, 1 662, and the Scotch 
 Prayer Book of 1637 direct that ''the bread and wine for the 
 " Communion shall be provided by the Curate and the Church- 
 " wardens, at the charges of the Parish.'' 
 
 Note that the Scotch Prayer Book of 1637 asserts the 
 lawfulness of wafer bread in conjunction with the direction that 
 the bread and wine shall be provided by the Curate and Church- 
 wardens, as stated above. 
 
 Note also that this direction, being in Elizabeth's Prayer Book, 
 that of 1559, was the law at the time when Archbishop Parker, 
 in 1569, enquired: — "And whether they do use to minister the 
 *' Holy Communion in wafer-bread, according to the Queen 
 " Majesty's Injunctions ?" (Visitation Articles, Cardwell's "Docu- 
 mentary Annals," p. 321); when, in 1570, he declared: — "I 
 " say and hold that the Injunction hath authority by proviso of the 
 ''statute'' (Strype's "Life of Parker," p. 310, foL, 1711) ; and 
 when in his last letter to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh (I575) 
 he wrote : — " Does your lordship think that I care either for 
 " cap, tippet, surplice, or wafer bread, or any such .'' But for the 
 " laws so established, I esteem them." (Strype's " Life of Parker," 
 Appendix, No. xcix.) 
 
 Referring to the Injunctions it is to be noted that the Court 
 alleges their authority and that of the Advertisements as regards 
 the abolition of Vestments, but rejects that of the former in 
 regard to wafer bread.* 
 
 * In a letter of George Withers to the Prince Elector Palatine, the 
 writer observes that " the second form of prayers, which Edward 
 "left behind him at his death, Avas [at Elizabeth's accession] res- 
 
 "tored to the Church. But the ceremonies, which, 
 
 "were retained in the Church at the first refonnation of Edward, are 
 " restored under the same name. Power, moreover, was given to the Queen 
 "and the Archbishop to introduce whatever additional ceremonies they 
 " might think proper; and they immediately afterwards both discontinued 
 " the ordinary bread heretofore used in the administration of the Lord's 
 " Supper, and for the sake of a newer reformation adopted the round 
 " wafer, after the pattern of that used by the Papists." (Zurich Letters, 
 Second Series, pp. 161. Parker Society )
 
 tmc 
 
 i"^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ''l^ 
 
 ^ //, i 
 
 -ir 
 
 MJ 
 
 TrS.'-^" '-tB^'" ■■"V <Hi^ 
 
 *icr