A. H. has forwarded the following query::-" In chancel-arches of early date, we occasionally find that there is an arched recess in the east face of each respond. I should be glad to learn the use of this. Possibly the seat for the priest might have been placed in it, as I have not met with sedilia in the same churches." A. Z. should refer to Mr. Keith, 59, Britannia Terrace, City Road. In Contracting with Builders and others, Beware! or a Few Words to any who are about to build. (Longmans.) A well-toned pamphlet, showing the evils of competition, and the present method of contracting, and only failing in not showing a competent and practicable remedy. A Constant Subscriber.—We believe that his first question might be answered affirmatively; but it would not be expedient at the present time to publish such facts. Had he favoured us with his name, we might have communicated with him privately. As to his second question-monks used to wear their proper habits in choir, without surplices, as they still do in foreign monastic churches. S. Martin's, West Drayton.—Mr. Innes, the architect of this satisfactory restoration, has kindly pointed out a slight error in our notice of it. The piers and arches are not coloured, but merely brought to their proper hue by the removal of accumulated paint and whitewash. Reply to the Queries of G. E. S.-In reply to the second query of G. E. S. in the last number, there is an instance at Eastbourne, and another at Sompting, Sussex. In the former case the chancel is of transition-to-pointed with chevron mouldings, but the east wall and a low sacristy behind it are late Third-Pointed: just over the altar is an ogee-headed seven-foiled recess about the size of a small doorwayhead in the sacristy is a deep recess backing to that over the altar, but now at least, not communicating with it. At Sompting over the altar is a double recess with segmental-pointed heads-each recess 2 ft. 11 in. high by 1 ft. 10 in. wide, and now only 6 in. in depth: part of the hinges remain, and also the holes for the bolts of the locks. To the north of the altar is a round-headed recess, forming a cube of 1 ft. 4 in. with a sculptured tympanum. To the south is a segmental-headed recess 2 ft. 1 in. high, 1 ft. 5 in. wide, and 1 ft. 7 in. deep. The aumbry and piscina (without a shelf) are in their usual position. The church exhibits the style of almost every period. G. E. S. is of course aware that Durandus mentions the subject when treating of consecration and reconciliation. 4. Eastbourne furnishes an instance of this. At the east end of the south wall of the nave, above the respond is a recess which I have little doubt is a piscina; it is of Third-Pointed date and has a stone shelf; the bottom is on a level with the capitals of the chancel-arch. The reviews of several books must stand over, owing to the length to which the Reports of Societies extend. Received W. G. T.-F. C. H. THE ECCLESIOLOGIST. "Zurge igitur et fac: et erit Dominus tecum." No. LXXXIV.—JUNE, 1851. LEGAL OPINION AS TO LIGHTS ON THE ALTAR AT THE TIME OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. In these days of "trouble and rebuke," when a dictatorial power is claimed and exercised over the clergy by the Bishops, especially as to the mode of conducting divine service and the ornaments to be used in the holy ministrations, we do not think our pages can be better filled than with plain legal authoritative statements of the law, as it at present exists, touching those rubrical observances or returns to Catholic practices and ornaments which have created the greatest amount of ignorant opposition, and called down obloquy on the priests who have brought them forward. Of these, the revival of lights on the altar, is one of the most obnoxious to Protestants, and much scandal has been caused by their manner of putting forward their opposition. A very painful instance of this occurred on Easter Sunday last at the church of S. Paul, Birmingham. The Morning Herald of the 23rd of April stated that, "the congregation assembling at the church of S. Paul for the celebration of the solemn festival of Easter were destined to have their devotional feelings sorely disturbed by the introduction of a pair of enormous candlesticks as decorations to the altar. The novelty' was adverted to in a circular, of which a large number was distributed about the pews, and in which Mr. Latimer endeavoured to show that lights on the altar are enjoined by a rubric in the Prayer Book and also sanctioned by con vocation and by an Act of Parliament. A short time since a portion of the congregation raised a subscription for a new cloth for the Communion table; this was used for the first time yesterday (Easter Sunday), and with it the tall candlesticks which have given rise to the scandal now referred to. Many of the most respectable members of the congregation are highly indignant at the insult that has been offered them, and it is feared that not a few will withdraw from the church if the use of these novelties' is persisted in by the minister." Here, then, when an earnest parish priest endeavours to celebrate the divine offices with somewhat more of "decency and order" than the respectability of the congregation were accustomed to, and tries to convince his people of the legality of what he did by straightforward exposition of his authority, he is given to understand, forsooth, that his flock are "highly indignant at the insult" offered them, and that unless what they are pleased to term "novelties" are discontinued, not a few of the most respectable of the congregation will withdraw. It generally happens that when persons are most indignant they are most in the wrong. In the present instance it is so entirely; the following opinion of the eminent counsel who gave it is as clear, decisive, and convincing on the point as it well could be, and although by putting it forward we dare not hope to allay the indignation of the respectable members of the congregation of S. Paul's, Birmingham, yet we trust that both our supporters and opponents will see that in principle and practice it is our earnest desire to recommend nothing beyond what the law allows, but within its bounds to struggle for and maintain as a right whatever privileges it holds forth. The question upon which counsel's opinion was asked was as follows: "Whether the practice of using lights upon the altar at the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion is enjoined or allowed in the Church of England?" ་་ OPINION. I have carefully considered the question proposed to me, and although at first I entertained some doubt, I am of opinion, that the use of lights upon the altar at the time of the celebration of the Holy Communion is allowed and enjoined by the law of the Church of England. The statute of 25th Henry VIII. c. 19, s. 7, expressly enacts That such canons, constitutions, ordinances, and synodals provincial, being already made, which be not contrarient or repugnant to the laws, statutes, and customs, of this realm, nor to the damage or hurt of the King's prerogative royal, shall now still be used and executed as they were afore the making of this act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered and determined by the two-andthirty persons authorised by the act, or the more part of them, according to the tenor, form, and effect of this present act;" a scheme which, we know, was never finally accomplished. Now, amongst the constitutions and ordinances thus confirmed and enforced by this statute, there can be no doubt that the one which was made during the primacy of Archbishop Reynolds is included, which directs that "tempore quo missarum solemnia peraguntur accendantur duæ candelæ, vel ad minus una." (Lynd. provin. 236; Gib. Cod., vol. i. p. 390), a direction in accordance with the General Canon Law, and with the universal prac tice of the Church, as it had existed from an early period. It follows, therefore, that this constitution, thus sanctioned by the authority of a statute, must be still in force, unless some subsequent statute has annulled it, either by express enactment or by necessary implication. I say, by necessary implication, because it is an indisputable rule of law, that where the provisions of two or more statutes "in pari materiâ are not absolutely incompatible, they must, if possible, be so construed that full effect may be given to everything which each of them enacts. But I certainly cannot discover in the several statutes which have been 33 made since that of the 25th Henry VIII. c. 19, anything which either forbids, or is inconsistent with the observance of this constitution; and therefore, even if there were nothing in the Book of Common Prayer as confirmed by the statute 13th and 14th Car. II. c. 4, from which any positive argument might be drawn in favour of its continuance, I should be disposed to say, that the use of lights as directed by the older law not being incompatible with any of the directions of the rubric, ought, in legal strictness, to be still retained. I think, however, that the Prayer Book as it now stands does contain an order by which the practice must be understood to be enjoined, for it expressly requires, "That such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI. ;" and if lights upon the altar may be classed, as I conceive they may, amongst "the ornaments of the church" at the time of the ministration of the Holy Communion, they may also be shown to have been "in use by the authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI." It is remarkable that there is no statute of that year which contains any enactments respecting the ornaments of the church, and even in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., which was authorized by the statute 2nd and 3rd Edward VI. c. 1, but the use of which was not enjoined "till the feast of Pentecost then next coming" in other words, till the third year of that king's reign-there is nothing said about the ornaments of the church, although the vestures of the priest and deacons at the administration of the Holy Communion (which in that Prayer Book is called "the Mass") are particularly appointed. "The altar," indeed, is mentioned, without more; and hence it would seem to have been intended that this should remain as before, with its usual furniture and decorations; in confirmation of which I may observe, that in the injunctions of Edward VI., which were put forth in this very second year of his reign, there is a very strict order "that no manner of person, of what estate, order, or degree soever he be, of his private mind, will, or phantasy, do omit, leave undone, change, alter, or innovate, any order, rite or ceremony, commonly used and frequented in the Church of England, and not commanded to be left undone at any time in the reign of our late sovereign lord, his Highness's father, other than such as his Highness, by the advice aforesaid, by his Majesty's visitors, injunctions, statutes, or proclamations hath already, or shall hereafter command to be omitted, left, innovated, or changed, but that they be observed after that sort as before they were accustomed, or else sith now prescribed by the authority of his Majesty, or by the means aforesaid " (see Cardwell's Document. An., vol. i. p. 35); and it is clear that up to this period no alteration upon the matter now in question had been made. Indeed, in the "Articles to be inquired of in the visitations to be had within the diocese of Canterbury," in the very same year, it is expressly asked (Cardwell's Doc. An., vol. i. p. 43,) "Whether they suffer any torches, candles, tapers, or any other lights, to be in the churches, but only two lights upon the high altar ?" and the injunctions of the previous year had simply been "that they should suffer from thenceforth no torches nor candles, 66 tapers, or images of wax, to be set afore any image or picture, but orly two lights upon the high altar, before the sacrament, which for the signification that CHRIST is the very true Light of the world, they should suffer to remain still;" and it is evident that the objections which had been made did not apply to the lights at the celebration of the Holy Communion, but to those which had been used at other times, and for other purposes. It seems therefore impossible to say that these lights were not in use in the Church of England in the 2nd year of Edward's reign;" and the only real question is, whether they were so "by the authority of Parliament ?" Now it must be observed that the language of the Prayer Book is not, "such as were in use by the authority of an act of Parliament passed in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI.," but "such as were in use by the authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI." words which it is obvious may very well mean, "as were in use in the 2nd year of King Edward's reign by the authority of any statute then in force, though previously enacted." And as there is no statute of that year which prescribes or relates to such ornaments, it must be presumed that this was the meaning of those who framed this rubric, for its language is otherwise unintelligible. But if the constitution of Archbishop Reynolds was binding already (as I have suggested that it was), under the statute 25th Henry VIII. c. 19, sec. 7, the lights prescribed by that constitution (which this statute required "to be still used and executed") were undoubtedly then "in use by the authority of Parliament," and therefore within the words, as well as within the meaning of the order contained in the Prayer Book; an order which, it must be remembered, has itself the force of a statute, having been confirmed by the Act of Uniformity. I am well aware that the statute 2nd and 3rd Edward VI. c. 1, in authorizing the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., prohibited the use of "any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of mass, openly or privily, or mattens, evensong, administration of the sacrament, or other open prayer, than was mentioned and set forth in that book;" but this prohibition, even if the statute were applicable, could not be held to have interfered with the use of lights upon the altar according to the old constitution, for there is nothing in the service book which affects it, and the object of the statute was to secure uniformity, where there had been diversity, in the services themselves, and in the forms of administration; not to interfere with usages, sanctioned independently by proper authority and uniformly observed in all churches; and if such usages were sanctioned by the legislature under the statute 25th Henry VIII. c. 19, they would not be abrogated by the statute 2nd and 3rd Edward VI. c. 1, unless they were absolutely inconsistent with its provisions. I think, however, that the statute 2nd and 3rd Edward VI. c. 1, has really nothing to do with this inquiry; for, as the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. was not in use by the authority of Parliament till the third year of that King's reign (the statute having expressly deferred it to the Feast of Pentecost, A.D. 1549), it is evident that what that book, or the statute which enforced it, prohibited or prescribed, cannot possibly affect the question as to what was so in use |