Page images
PDF
EPUB

It is stated that the Danes had reduced the English to the use of wooden Vessels. One of the Canons of Edgar, (A. D. 960), required the Chalice to be molten, and by a Canon of Walter, (1195), the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be consecrated in a Silver Chalice, where there was a sufficiency for it. "Let every Priest have a Corporas* when he celebrates mass," is the order in Canon 33 of those of the reign of Edgar, (A. D. 960.) The 42d of the same is thus:

"Let all things near the Altar, or belonging to the Church, be very cleanly and decently ordered, and let a light be always burning in the Church, when Mass is sung."

Langton's Constitutions, (A. D. 1222), contain the following regulations.

"We ordain that every Church have a silver chalice, with other decent vessels, and a clean, white, large linen cloth, for the Altar; and let the Archdeacon take care that the cloths and other ornaments of the Altar be decent."

The Constitutions of Archbishop Gray, (A. D. 1250), are very full upon this subject. The first recites that great controversy had arisen within the province of York, concerning divers ornaments and things belonging to the Church, and prescribes what ornaments and things should be repaired by the Parishoners, and what by the Rectors or Vicars. Then an enumeration is made of what each is to furnish. Among the ornaments of the Church, are the following:-the chalice, three towels and corporals,† a cross for processions, and another lesser cross for the dead, a bier for the dead, a vessel for the holy water, an osculatory, a candlestick for the paschal taper, a cense-pot, a lantern with a little bell, a lenten veil, two candlesticks for the collets, the frontal for the high Altar, a decent Pyx for the body of Christ, banners for the rogation days, great bells with their ropes, the holy font with a lock and key, the Chris

* A Corporas is the white linen napkin used to cover the elements, when all have communed.

Of two kinds,- -one the pall spread upon the Altar, the other a napkin folded upon the cup. Durandus Rationale, lib. IV, Cap. 29.

Acolyths, or Candle-bearers.

VOL. XVIII.

23*

matory, the images in the Church, the principal image (in the Chancel) of the Saint to which the Church is dedicated, the beam light in the Church (luminare in ecclesia.)*

The Constitution of Peckham, (1279,) as to the Pyx, is as follows:

"We charge that the Sacrament of the Eucharist be so kept that a tabernacle be made in every Church, with a decent enclosure, in which the Lord's body may be laid, not in a purse or bag, but in a fair pyx, lined with the whitest linen, so that it may be put in and taken out, without any hazard of breaking it."

By Reynold's Constitutions, (1322), it is directed as follows: "Let the holy Eucharist be kept in a clean pyx of silver, or ivory, or otherwise, as befits the Sacrament. Let the linen cloths, palls, corporals, and other Altar cloths, be whole and clean; and let two candles, or one at least, be lighted at the time of High Mass."

Another reading is, Tuellæ Manutergia, et alia altaris ornamenta.

The Constitutions of Winchelsea, (1365,) are almost identical with those of Gray of 1250.†

The Collection of Johnson is brought down to the year 1486, and what we have transcribed is all we find bearing upon this particular point.

Lynwood died in the year 1446, and the enumeration by Burns of the ornaments used, is taken from his Work called The Provincial Constitutions. ‡

We are thus furnished with full and important materials to understand the changes made at the Reformation.—

The provision of the 25th Section of the Statute of Elizabeth, (1558,) the Rubric in her Prayer Book, and that in the Prayer Book of Charles II., (1662,) are before fully stated. They may be thus analyzed.

The ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers, to be retained and hereafter used, shall be the following: Such as were used in the Church of England, in the Second year of the reign of Edward VI, provided they were then used, under or with the authority of Parliament.

* 1 uminare in Ecclesia, is simply the light in the Church.

The preceding citations are from Johnson's Canons, &c., under the various dates. Oxford, 1851. Burns' Eccles. Law, Vol. I, p. 374.

Such is the literal enunciation of the propositions contained in the enactments. What is the true exposition, is the subject of controversy.

I. The first construction to be noticed is, the one contended for by the advocates of high Ritualism; viz: that whatever was in use, at any time during the second year, with the sanction of Parliament whenever given, was retained as lawful, and remains lawful to the present time. Prior Acts of Parliament have therefore at least the same force upon the question, as the Act of 2 Edward VI. itself. There is concurrent authority, if the fact of the legal existence of any other act is made out; and this construction implies the meaning of the word in to be, within, at any time within.

II. The second construction is that given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Liddell vs. Westerton. It is in substance, that the phrase, authority of Parliament, means authority given and declared during the second year. There must be a Statute (or equivalent sanction if there could be any,) passed within that year; and as there was no pretence of any other such authority but the Act of 2nd Edward, that, and what was specified in the Prayer Book adopted under it, formed the sole guide and rule upon the matter. It is of no consequence what was lawfully in use before Edward's second year, or at time prior to the Statute. The question simply is, does the First Prayer Book expressly, or by just implication, prescribe the ornament in question.

any

This indicates the insertion of the word retained after the word were, (ante p. 262,) and admits the same construction of the word in, as before stated: viz.—within.

III. The writer submits a third construction, (the only other, perhaps, which can be imagined,) viz: that whether a particular ornament had the sanction of Parliament, at some time during the second year, is immaterial, unless it retained that sanction at the close of that year. In this view the word in is to be read through, or throughout.†

In support of such interpretation this case may be presented.

* Ecclesiastical Judgments of the Privy Council, London, 1865. This is an accepted meaning in the Latin.

If the Statute of Edward, or the Prayer Book under it, had expressly prohibited the use of a particular ornament, the Act of Elizabeth could not be treated as restoring its use. That would be to repeal an Act of Parliament by an implication, not necessarily and logically arising. It is a settled rule, that if apparently variant provisions can, by a fair construction, subsist together, that construction must be adopted. Two propositions produce a reconciliation. The ornament had not authority throughout the year because forbidden at its close; it had authority at a time within the year under a provision of Law then in force. So in this view, we are to ascertain first, as matter of fact, whether a particular ornament was in use at any time during the year; next, as a matter of fact and Law, whether it retained parliamentary sanction on the 28th day of January 1549, the actual termination of the second year. Of course the Act itself gave the sanction to all contained in the Prayer Book it adopted, and if the Act and Book expressly or virtually excluded all else, any former parliamentary sanction was taken away.

But the question is to be first examined upon the ground taken by the defenders of Ritualism, that if there was the sanction of Parliament to the use at any period of the second year, it is enough; and that there was such sanction.

In the first place it is insisted that there was no Statute on the subject of the Prayer Book, enacted in the second year of this reign; and of course there was no parliamentary authority given to any ornament of any kind during it. Edward came to the Throne on the 28th of January, 1547. This second year ended on the 28th of January, 1549. But the Statute, by its express provision, was not to go into effect until Pentecost ensuing; of course in the third year. As there was no Law then having such authority, passed in such second year, the question is left open, what rule, or law, or usage, did prevail. They proceed to answer this inquiry, by contending, that a Law existed under the sanction of Parliament; but if none, then the ancient Canons of the English Church must govern.

This argument is examined and fnlly refuted in Liddell vs. Westerton. The 24th of January, 1549, is the latest possible

date which can be assigned for the passage of the Statute. It is presumable that it received the Royal Assent immediately, (4 Term Reports, 668.) The provision that it should go into effect at Whitsuntide, was to give time for printing and distributing the Book; then the penalties would attach. When the Books could be furuished before, they were to be used immediately. And what is decisive, Parliament itself, in the Act of 5th and 6th Edward, (Cap 1, Sec. 5,) refers to the Act as passed in the second year of the reign.*

This point is relied upon by the writer of a Tract: "Incense lawful in the Church of England," (London, 1853), and forms the sole ground, on legal principles, of his position. It will be found quoted in other vindications, such as Littledale's Catholic Ritual, p. 11.

The writer submits another reply. The authority of Parliament is required to sanction the use of an Article. The ancient Constitutions and Canons cited and relied upon, had not such authority, unless they acquired it through the Acts of Henry VIII., afterwards noticed. In the writer's opinion, they bound the Church at the time, at least those passed by National Synods. But that is not the point; they had not par-, liamentary sanction, and hence cannot be resorted to. Therefore the other points of the defenders must be sustained, or there was no law or rule at all in the matter.

The first of such points is,-there was parliamentary sanction for many of the ornaments now revived, and particularly for Altar Lights, in the injunctions issued by Edward in the Spring of 1547. One of such injunctions was as follows:

"That such images as they knew in any of their Cures, to be or to have been abused with pilgrimage, or offering of anything made thereunto, or shall be hereafter censed unto, they (and none other private persons) shall, for the avoiding of that detestable offence of idolatry, forthwith take down or cause to be taken down, and destroy the same, and shall suffer from henceforth no torches, nor candles, tapers, or images of wax to be set before any image or picture, but only two lights upon the high altar before the sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain still."t

*The Session began the 24th of November, 1548.

+ Cardwell Doc: Ann. 17. Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, Vol. 2, p. 443. Oxford, 1848.

« EelmineJätka »