PART I. CHAP. III, as is mentioned in the same book, and none other or otherwise." But the said book does not direct that candles shall be placed SECT. V. on the table, and, therefore, the Act of Uniformity forbids the lights upon the Lord's board "at any time." Ridley, in his visitation injunctions in 1550, also forbids the "setting of any light upon the Lord's board."* In 1552, altars were rejected as well as lights, and, henceforward, there was neither “high altar," nor altar at all, in the Church of England. The Judi SECT. V.-FURNITURE OF THE TABLE. The rubric before the Communion service, directs "that the table, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church, or chancel." The 82nd Canon orders the table "To be covered, in time of Divine service, with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff, thought meet by the Ordinary of the place, if any question be made of it, and with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration, as becometh that table." Power is vested in the Bishop to decide as to the propriety of the covering. There are two questions; the one as to the covering of the table in service-time, the other as to the covering in Communion-time. As to the former, it has been ruled that the case is in the hands of the Bishop. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council say: "Whether the cloths so used are suitable or not, is a matter to be left to the discretion of the Ordinary."+ As to the latter, it appears that the Bishop has no discrecial judg- tion. The Judicial Committee gave judgment as follows: ment. "The last question is, with respect to the embroidered linen and lace used on the Communion table, at the time of the ministration of the holy Communion. The rubric and the canon prescribe the use of a fair white linen cloth, and both the learned Judges, in the Court below, have been of opinion that embroidery and lace are not consistent with the meaning of that expression, having regard to the nature of the table upon which the cloth is to be used. Although their Lordships are not disposed, in any case, to restrict within narrower limits than the law has imposed, the discretion which, within those limits, is justly allowed to congregations by the rules both of the Ecclesiastical and the Common Law Courts, the directions of the rubric must be complied with; and, upon the whole, their Lordships do not dissent from the construction of the rubric adopted * P. 41. Judgment in the case of Liddel, March, 1857. by the present decree upon this point; and they must, therefore, advise Her THE Majesty to affirm it."* TABLE The decision of the Court of Arches, thus affirmed by the TURE. Privy Council, is as follows: "And, first, I will consider the covering of the table at the time of the celebration of the Communion. The law upon the point, I apprehend, is to be found in the rubric prefixed to the Communion service, in the book of Common Prayer. It is in these words:-The table, at the Communion time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the church or in the chancel, where Morning and Evening prayer are appointed to be said.' The directions of the 82nd Canon are to the very same effect:- The table is to be covered with a fair linen cloth at the time of ministration.' These directicns seem to be sufficiently plain and explicit. It is to be a fair linen cloth,' and nothing whatever is ordered or even suggested, as to the addition of lace, embroidery, or any other ornament; nor have I been able to discover any authority for such addition, or that any such usage has prevailed in the Church of England since the Reformation. Of course, I do not mean to assert positively that no such instance has ever occurred, but merely that it never came within my cognizance. I do not wish it to be understood that I consider it to be of very grave importance in this case; but supposing the law, as cited, to have left the matter unsettled, and that it is diversely taken by the parties, resort must be had to the Ordinary, as directed in the instructions prefixed to the Prayer-book; and that is the course which has been pursued, for the decision of the Judge, sitting in the Consistorial Court of the Ordinary, has been obtained, and I see no reason for departing from that decision."+ The Bishops have power to decide the question as to what The Bishop's cloths shall be used at non-communion times, and the following powers. observations of Dr. Lushington are well worthy of their Lordships' attention :— "The fact is, that embroidered and ornamental cloths of different colours are used to cover the Communion table, in precise accordance with the usages of the Roman Catholic Church, the colours being emblematic of particular periods. What warrant is there for engrafting into our churches this ceremonial of Rome? I am not aware of any. It is not even pretended (though the argument would not avail) that this custom prevailed in earlier and purer times. What good reason can be assigned for this innovation? I have heard none. Then the plain truth is, that without authority, without reason, this practice of the Roman Catholic Church has been introduced into a place of Protestant worship. What is this but a servile imitation of the Church of Rome? And what is a servile imitation of that Church but a direct violation of all the principles, and * Ibid. f Judgment, 1857. PART I. SECT. V. CHAP. III. all the rules established for the regulation of the ceremonies and ornaments of the Church of England. A decorous simplicity is the characteristic of the Church of England. What is lace and embroidery but a meretricious display of fantastic and unnecessary ornaments? But look at its accompaniments,-more especially with respect to St. Barnabas,— a metal cross, ornamented with jewels,‚—a rood screen, and brazen gates. Is it to be supposed that all this has no meaning? But I need not speak of that. I am of opinion that, if I am to decide this as a question of law, this practice is not justified by the Statute, the Rubric, or the Canon. If it be a question to be governed by the discretion of the Court, I entertain no doubt whatever that it is my duty to prohibit the use of these cloths in the manner in which it is admitted they have been used; and, moreover, I declare that I consider it to be my duty to prevent the introduction of all novelties, and more especially of such as have no other recommendation than the approbation and custom of the Church of Rome, If it be objected to this my judgment, that the Court would leave the House of God barren, and desolate, I answer, that no such consequence would ensue. Chastity and simplicity are not at variance with grandeur and beauty; but they are not reconcileable with jewels, lace, variegated cloths, and embroidery, which are better fitted for the gorgeous pageantry of the Church of Rome, than the pure and severe dignity of the Church of England."* SUMMARY. SECT. IV.-FURNITURE OF THE TABLE. There are two questions, one as to the covering of the table in service, and the other in communion time. It has been ruled by the Privy Council that the power is vested in the Bishop of deciding whether the table cloth is suitable. As to the latter, it has been ruled by the same Court that embroidery and lace on the cloth are not consistent. * Judgment, edited by Bayford, p. 59, ut supra. CHAP. III.-(continued.) THE ORNAMENTS OF THE CHURCH AND MINISTER. PART II.-ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. SECT. I. THE VESTMENTS IN MINISTRATION. VEST THE first Prayer Book of Edward VI. retained some of the POPISH Roman vestments. The second book of Edward VI. laid them aside. Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer were opposed to the vestments, as is evident from the rubric which they enacted. Ridley alludes to them in his "Piteous Lamentation," where, referring to the restoration of Popery, he says: "Thou must be a contributor to the charges of all the disguised apparel that the Popish sacrificing priest, like unto Aaron, must play his part in."* When undergoing the process of degradation, the surplice, "with all the trinkets appertaining to the Mass," being put upon him, it is recorded that 66 Dr. Ridley did vehemently inveigh against the Romish Bishop, and all that foolish apparel, calling him Antichrist, and the apparel foolish and abominable, yea, too fond for a vice in a play."† Elizabeth, on her accession to the throne, was favourable to the adoption of the first book, but the Reformers unanimously chose the second book, which was accordingly recognised by Act of Parliament. There were a few particulars, however, in which some changes were in accordance with the royal will. One was the substitution of the following rubric for that which had been in the second book, quoted above : MENTS RE- "And here it is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the com- The Elizabethan Ru munion, and at all other times in his ministration shall use such orna- bric. The rubric of Elizabeth thus refers to the Act of Uniformity for the terms on which this rubric was to be observed. The clause of the act to which reference is made is as follows: : * Works, p. 67. P. S. † Ibid. p. 289. See p. 52, note. CHAP. III. PART II. SECT. I. The other order. "Provided always, and be it enacted that such ornaments of the Church and of the minister thereof shall be retained, and be in use, as were in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners, appointed and authorized under the great seal of England for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this realm.”* The case therefore is clear; the ornaments of the first book were restored, but with an important proviso-" until Conflict of other order, &c." This is indicative of a struggle between the opinion. convictions of the Queen, and those of the Reformers. The latter, acting as the Queen's Commissioners, were unanimous in favour of the vestmental directions of the second book. Guest, Bishop of Rochester, one of the Commissioners, presented a paper to Cecil, the Queen's Secretary, explanatory of the principles which had guided them, containing the following paragraph: Immediate relief to the Reformers. "Of Vestments. Because it is thought sufficient to use but a surplice in baptizing, reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is enough also for the celebrating of the Communion."† It is evident from this that the Commissioners were opposed to the introduction of the vestment or the cope, considering the surplice sufficient. The Queen was favourable to a gorgeous ceremonial, and the rubric of Elizabeth is an evidence of the conflicting opinions of the Queen and the Commissioners. The vestments were to be retained until other order, and we shall see that the order, when it was made, set aside the Popish vestments, and restored mainly the practice of the second book. The order was not made until 1565, but, meanwhile, steps were taken to calm the feelings of the Reformers, who utterly detested the Popish vestments, and some of whom disliked even the surplice, though not Popish. The Royal injunctions contained the following important item : "30. Item. Her Majesty being desirous to have the prelacy and clergy of this realm to be had as well in outward reverence, as otherwise regarded for the worthiness of their ministries, and thinking it necessary to have them known to the people in all places and assemblies, both in the * Strype's Annals, p. 122, vol. i. † Card. Conf. p. 50. when he alludes to the Oxf. 1841. Guest refers to the practice of cathedrals, use of the surplice in preaching. |