chapels annexed to the same shall use a surplice, and in all cathedral churches and colleges, the Archdeacons, Deans, Provosts, Masters, Prebendaries, and Fellows being Graduates, may use in the quire beside their surplices, such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees which they have taken in any university within this realm; but in all other places every Minister shall be at liberty to use any surplice or no; it is also seemly that Graduates when they do preach, shall use such hoods as pertaineth to their several degrees.

"And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the Holy Communion in the church, or execute any other public ministration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochette, a surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain."

In reference to this it was decided in the Arches Court in the Decision in Arches Court above cause, that "in all other [i.e. than the Communion] as to the hood. services, the surplice only, except that in cathedral churches and colleges, the academical hood may also be worn." (w)

As to the black gown there has been no decision, but the Black gown. Purchas case contains a dictum of the Dean of Arches. He said that a certain line of argument "would establish the legality of the use of the black gown which has no warrant of law." (x)

COMMENTS ON THE DECISIONS AS TO VESTMENTS.

The above, then, being the decision of the highest and final Ecclesiastical tribunal, it is for the time being the law. It cannot, however, be concealed that this decision has been received with very considerable disfavour among a large section both of the clergy and laity, and that the accuracy of the reasoning upon which it proceeds, and by which the above result was arrived at, has been and still is questioned and (w) L. R. 3 Adm. & Eccl. 94. (x) L. R. 3 Adm. & Eccl. 91.

Judgment of Bishop of Exeter in case of Rev.

W. Blunt.

denied by very many. It is also at variance with at least some of the dicta put forth in Westerton v. Liddell. (y)

As there is such a state of doubt in Ecclesiastical circles, reference may be made to the judgment delivered by the Bishop of Exeter in the case of the Rev. Walter Blunt. (z) With respect to vestments, his lordship said: "The rubric at the commencement of The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer' says, 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 second year of the reign of King Edward VI., in other words, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope.'

"These were forbidden in King Edward VI.'s Second Book, which ordered that The Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor cope, but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.'

"This was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome, and most anxious to carry reformation to the very farthest point.

"But their triumph was brief. Within a few months [a year after the Book of 1552 had come into use] Queen Mary restored Popery; and when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back the Reformation, she, and the Parliament, deliberately rejected the simpler direction of Edward's Second Book, and revived the ornaments of the First. This decision was followed again by the Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, at the restoration of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity established the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics, in the form in which they now stand.

(y) As pointed out, ante, p. 215.

(2) Reported 2 Stephens' Ecclesiastical Statutes, 2046-2062.

parishioners.

"From this statement it will be seen, that the surplice may be objected to with some reason; but then it must be because the law requires a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope.' "Why have these been disused? Because the parishioners Vestments to —that is, the churchwardens, who represent the parishionersbe provided by have neglected their duty to provide them; for such is the duty of the parishioners by the plain and express Canon Law of England. (Gibson, 200.) [In the Irish Canons there is no order to provide a dress for the minister.] True, it would be a very costly duty, and for that reason, most probably, churchwardens have neglected it, and archdeacons have connived at the neglect. I have no wish that it should be otherwise. But, be this as it may, if the churchwardens of Helston shall perform this duty, at the charge of the parish, providing an albe, a vestment, and a cope, as they might in strictness be required to do (Gibson, 201), I shall enjoin the minister, be he who he may, to use them. But until these ornaments are provided by the parishioners, it is the duty of the minister to use the garment actually provided by them for him, which is the surplice. The parishioners never provide a gown, nor, if they did, would he have a right to wear it in any part of his ministrations. For the gown is nowhere mentioned or alluded to in any of the rubrics. Neither is it included, as the albe, the cope, and three surplices expressly are, among the furniture and ornaments proper for Divine service,' to be provided by the parishioners of every parish. (Gibson, ubi supra.)"

Definition of
Ornaments in
Liddell v. Wes-
terton ;

CHAPTER VIII.

ORNAMENTATION.

SECTION I.-Definition of the Term.

N respect of this term Ornaments, there is to be found, what so very seldom can be found in the legal system of this country, a direct and exact definition drawn up ad hoc, and promulgated ex cathedrâ by the ultimate Court of Appeal. This definition has been approved of and repeated by the Privy Council in Martin v. Mackonochie, (a) where it is said: "In these conclusions and in this construction of the rubric, their lordships entirely concur." In Liddell v. Westerton, (b) the Privy Council thus expressed themselves: "Their lordships, after much consideration, are satisfied that the construction of this rubric, which they suggested at the hearing of the case, is its true meaning, and that the word 'ornaments' applies, and in this rubric is confined to those articles, the use of which in the services and ministrations of the Church is prescribed by the Prayer Book of Edward VI.

"The term 'ornaments' in Ecclesiastical Law is not confined, as by modern usage, to articles of decoration or embellishment; but it is used in the larger sense of the word ' ornamentum,' which according to the interpretation of 'For

(a) L. R. 2 P. C. 365.

(b) Moore, Special Report, pp. 156-7.

cellini's Dictionary,' is used pro quocumque apparatu, seu instrumento.' All the several articles used in the performance of the services and rites of the Church are ' ornaments;' vestments, books, clothes, chalices, and patens are amongst church ornaments; a long list of them will be found extracted from Lyndwood, in Dr. Phillimore's edition of 'Burns' Ecclesiastical Law,' vol. i. pp. 375-7. In modern times organs and bells are held to fall under this denomination.

"When reference is had to the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. with this explanation of the term 'ornaments,' no difficulty will be found in discovering amongst the articles, of which the use is there enjoined, ornaments of the church as well as ornaments of the ministers. Besides the vestments differing in the different services, the rubric provides for the use of an English Bible, the new Prayer Book, a poor man's box, a chalice, a corporas, a paten, a bell, and some other things."

affirmed in Martin v.

In Martin v. Mackonochie, (c) their lordships said: "The construction of this rubric was very fully considered by Mackonochie ; this committee in the case of Westerton v. Liddell, already referred to; and the propositions which their lordships understand to have been established by the judgment in that case may thus be stated:

"First. The words, authority of parliament' in the rubric refer to and mean the Act of Parliament, 2 & 3 Ed. VI. c. I, giving parliamentary effect to the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., and do not refer to or mean canons or royal injunctions, having the authority of parliament, made at an earlier period.

"Second. The term ornaments' in the rubric means those articles, the use of which, in the services and ministrations of the Church, is prescribed by that Prayer Book.

"Third. The term 'ornaments is confined to these articles. "Fourth. Though there may be articles not expressly men

(c) L. R. 2 P. C. 365, 390.