Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

Royal Supremacy in entire harmony with the following striking incident in the Ceremonial of her Majesty's Coronation:

"...... the ORB with the is brought from the Altar by the Dean of WESTMINSTER, and delivered into the "Queen's Right Hand by the Archbishop, pronouncing "this Blessing and Exhortation:

"Receive this

......

Orb ...... And when You see "this Orb set under the, remember that the whole "World is subject to the Power and Empire of CHRIST "our Redeemer. For He is the Prince of the Kings "of the Earth; King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; "So that no man can reign happily, who derives not "his Authority from Him, and directs not all his "Actions according to His Laws.

"The Queen delivers Her Orb to the Dean of "WESTMINSTER, to be by him laid on the Altar,”—that identical STONE ALTAR which, if the Judgments of the Courts below shall be affirmed, would be pronounced to be an illegal Ornament of the Abbey Church of ST. PETER, WESTMINSTER.

76, MARGARET STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE,

February, 1857.

T. W. P.

LAWFUL CHURCH ORNAMENTS,

ETC.

THE JUDGMENT delivered by Dr. Lushington, in the Introduction Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, on 5th Dec., 1855, in the cases of Westerton v. Liddell, (Clerk), and Horne and others; and Beal v. Liddell, (Clerk), and Parker and Evans, can scarcely be a matter of indifference to any one who has approved or blamed the attempts made during the last few years to revive Ritual and Ceremonial in the Church of England, and to re-introduce such Ornaments and Decorations as were believed to be not inconsistent with her Reformed Offices. As a fact, the Judgment has been praised or condemned, with more or less discrimination, by those persons who had ranged themselves on either of these two sides: while by a third class (composed partly of those who dislike both what Dr. Lushington condemns, and what he allows, and partly of such as have no decided feelings on the subject) the Judgment is much complained of, as plainly betokening that the Judge suffered himself to be influenced by a religious partizanship which he was bound to exclude from his official acts, or as being strangely at variance with the principles of Religious Liberty, and also with that improved taste for Art, which are characteristic of the age.

To those who, like the writer, had persuaded themselves. that the Ritual and Ceremonial movement which has been gradually developing itself during the last twenty years (whether always judicious or not) was, in the main, consistent with the Ecclesiastical law, and in harmony with the principles and structure of the Book of Common Prayer, it became a question of real concern to ascertain whether their convictions or the decision of the Consistorial Court was best warranted by the facts of history. And, as it was plain from the statements of the Judge himself, that the whole matter

B

Main features of the Judgment.

was more one of historical enquiry than of legal research, there was no presumption in one not specially qualified for and accustomed to legal investigations, undertaking to examine the authorities on which the judgment is professedly based.

It was the conviction, when listening in court to the Judgment, that the facts and quotations relied upon by the Judge, either did not warrant his conclusions, or were materially modified by other facts and quotations, which led to the resolution of carefully examining at least such sources of the English Reformation history as are ordinarily accessible, and to some of which the Court had itself appealed.

Moreover, two main features of the Judgment are the views propounded upon the meaning of the Rubrical expression "by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the "reign of King Edward the Sixth," and upon the probable opinion of the Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's days, as to the actual state of the law then, touching Images and kindred "Ornaments of the Church;" and as the language of the Judge leads to the belief that, from whatever cause, he did not (perhaps for lack of opportunity could not) himself make so thorough an investigation of the history of the period as is essential to a complete view of the points at issue, it seemed all the more important to institute such a search.

While engaged in this task a friend brought to the writer's notice a book published about five years ago, by the Rev. W. Goode, and pointed out the coincidence of its statements with the arguments of Dr. Lushington: if this identity of view was the result of independent investigations, then the conclusions of both are the more reliable; whereas if the Judge happened to have read Mr. Goode's publication, it may have assisted to form his judgment; which alternative is true, or whether both notions are inaccurate, can only be matter of conjecture: however, as a perusal of Mr. Goode's pages did not satisfy the writer, that the whole evidence is sufficiently set out in them and in the Judgment combined, he was the more induced to pursue the subject: especially as it seemed pro

"Aids for determining some disputed points in the Ceremonial of the Church of England. By William Goode, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of Allhallows the Great and Less, London. Second Edition. London: Thomas Hatchard, 187, Piccadilly. 1851."

bable that if this were done with sufficient attention to the statements of Dr. Lushington and Mr. Goode, it would go far to exhaust the known sources of information.

sued.

In doing this, it seemed best to adhere to the plan originally Plan to be purformed of tracing the several authoritative directions as to Ritual and Ceremonial which were issued from the beginning of Henry the Eighth's reign to the final revision of the Prayer Book in 1662: setting down chronologically such portions of them as bear upon the Ornaments called in question at the recent trial: there seemed reason to think that this course, aided by such a process of subtraction or addition as the case might require, would best exhibit the successive changes which the Ceremonial of the Church of England had undergone during the period in question, and so would indicate with tolerable accuracy what Ornaments are permitted by the present law.

The Ecclesiastical History of Collier has been chosen for Authorities cited. the groundwork of the proposed summary, presenting as it does a tolerably full and consecutive account of the occurrences to be examined: with this is interwoven statements and documents from Strype, Burnet, Heylin, Cardwell, the authors of the Zurich Letters, and other writers, in the hope of presenting a full, and at the same time, a really impartial history of the subject in debate; concurrently too, either in the text or in notes, the statements or arguments of Dr. Lushington and Mr. Goode are compared with the testimonies of those authorities. No pretension is made to the discovery of new materials for settling the question which is still sub-judice; nor is much attempted in the way of original remark, beyond what seemed necessary for so connecting and illustrating the series of extracts as to present, in a complete and in an intelligible form, what already lies stored up in several volumes. Probably some of the quotations may seem needlessly long, others not strictly relating to Ornaments at all, or at least to those in dispute; but it is important to bear in mind two things-1. That often a short extract would not fairly convey the full sense and force of a document or statement; 2. That the question of Ornaments is so bound up with that of Doctrine or Ritual or Ceremonial, as fre

The enquiry, one of FACTS.

quently to make it essential to notice passages which exclusively relate to the one, in order to understand their bearing upon the other.

Having made these preliminary observations, I proceed now to notice such introductory remarks of Dr. Lushington and Mr. Goode as lead directly to that particular enquiry which is mainly proposed for these pages.

Dr. Lushington says, (Judgment, p. 9.)—

"I am not to consider whether, in my own private opinion, this practice or that usage be abstractedly right or wrong, convenient or inconvenient; but I am to ascertain, if practicable, what the law of the land enjoins, and obey it......I am to enquire what has been done; not what ought to have been done. It will fall within my province to examine what has been established by competent authority at the Reformation and since that period, respecting the questions before me, but not to examine whether all these measures were wise, --whether too much or too little has been done,-or whether some things might not have been done better. So also, when I find that any principle has been laid down by the legislature or any other authority binding upon me, I must carry it out to its legitimate conclusions, such as I believe were intended, not such as I might consider expedient.

......My present task is not to investigate and ascertain great principles, but to institute a dry and tedious inquiry into doubtful questions of positive law."

Again (at p. 15) the Judge indicates the sources of information as being

"1. Any Acts of Parliament bearing upon [the questions in dispute.]......2. The Canons in force. 3. The Ecclesiastical Common Law......4. Judicial decisions......5. The usage and custom that has prevailed...... Books of history or antiquity,-the writings and acts of eminent theologians,—may be justly referred to, and especially for the purpose of ascertaining the principles and reasons on which usage has been founded."

So, too, Mr. Goode (Aids, &c. p. 1) remarks

"...... My object has been, to state fairly and impartially the evidence we possess for the determination of the questions here discussed; as it should ever be recollected in the consideration of such matters, (in which there are tendencies to both extremes among us,) that they are questions of fact, to be determined without any regard to theological prepossessions."

On these grounds then, thus stated by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Goode, it is proposed to join issue: the enquiry is one of FACTS, whether those facts appear in principles, or laws, or

« AnteriorContinuar »