Baldacchinos,

and probably are absolutely essential. They said,
They said, "Now
what is a credence table? It is simply a small side-table on
which the bread and wine are placed before the consecration,
having no connection with any superstitious usage of the Church
of Rome. Their removal has been ordered on the ground
that they are adjuncts to an altar; their lordships cannot but
think that they are more properly to be regarded as adjuncts
to a Communion Table. The rubric directs that at a certain
point in the course of the Communion Service (for this is, no
doubt, the true meaning of the rubric) the minister shall place
the bread and wine on the Communion Table, but where they
are to be placed previously is nowhere stated. In practice they
are usually placed on the Communion Table before the com-
mencement of the service, but this is certainly not according to
the order prescribed. Nothing seems to be less objectionable
than a small side-table from which they may be conveniently
reached by the officiating minister, and at the proper time
transferred to the Communion Table, (u) and where a con-
firmatory faculty was granted to sanction the use inter alia
of credence tables."

Baldacchinos, or altar canopies, previous to the Reformation, were in rather general use in England and are still found under various shapes in not a few churches. Their introduction here is referred to a Constitution of Archbishop Peckham, A.D. 1279:-" Dignissimum Eucharista Sacramentum præcipimus de cætero taliter custodiri, ut in quâlibet Ecclesiâ Parochiali fiat Tabernaculum cum clausurâ, decens et honestum, secundum curæ magnitudinem et ecclesiæ facultates, in quo ipsum dominicum corpus non in bursâ vel loculo propter comminutionis periculum nullatenus collocetur, sed in Pyxide pulcherrimâ, lino candidissimo interius adornatâ ; ita quod sine omni diminutionis periculo facile possit extrahi et imponi."

(u) Moore, Special Report, 187-8. See Sieveking & Evans v. Kingsford, 36 L. J. Eccl. 1.

ron.

In White v. Bowron (x) it was determined that all con- White v. Bowstructions of this description are illegal. This cause was an application to the Court by the vicar and the churchwardens. of the parish of St. Barnabas, Pimlico, to issue a faculty authorizing the erection of a baldacchino over the Communion Table of the church of that parish. The petitioners for the faculty had, in accordance with a practice not unusual in the diocese of London, previously submitted the plan for the baldacchino to the Bishop, who, by an indorsement on the plan, directed the attention of the Court to the peculiar character of the proposed erection.

the baldacchino.

of this kind still in existence.

The proposed baldacchino was a handsome marble structure or Description of canopy, with a pointed roof, and three gables pointing different ways, supported by four columns, standing apart from the east wall of the church, and would cover the Holy Table, leaving sufficient space for the celebrant priests to stand within the canopy on the north and south sides of the Table. Affidavits were filed on behalf of the vicar and churchwardens, Many erections which stated that canopies, baldacchins, or baldacchinos surmounting the Communion Table were still in existence in the following churches and chapels of the Church of England: St. Mary Woolnoth; St. Dunstan in the East; St. Augustine, Haggerstone; St. George, Bloomsbury-all in the diocese of London; Trinity College Chapel and Clare College Chapel, in the diocese of Ely; Lincoln Minster; St. Barnabas, in the city of Oxford; Totness Parish Church; Sidcup Parish Church, in the diocese of Canterbury; St. John Miles Platting, in the county of Lancaster; and that in the consecrated churches and chapels of the Church of England enumerated in the following list were to be found canopies and coverings not supported by pillars, but projecting over the Communion Table:-The Parish Church of Burford, in the county of Oxford; the Beauchamp Chapel, Warwick; St. Michael, Tenbury, in the county (x) L. R. 4 Adm. & Eccl. 207.

Baldacchinos are unlawful.

of Worcester; Wadham College, in the city of Oxford; and the Parish Church of Houghton-le-Skerne, in the county of Durham.

Upon a careful consideration of the authorities and facts, the learned commissary (Dr. Tristram) came to the conclusion that the baldacchino prayed for, was a church ornament within the rubrics; that it was not prescribed by the rubrics, nor in any way necessary or subsidiary to the performance of the services of the Church; and, consequently, that it was unlawful.

It will be noted that the application here was for leave to erect a baldacchino where one had not before been erected, and not for a faculty to remove or modify one already erected.

REREDOS.

The question has been raised as to the legality of this erection. This was in the case of Philpotts v. Boyd, (z) where the Dean of Arches held that such an erection is perfectly allowable. After adverting to the principal features of the case, his lordship said he was "of opinion that the bishop, acting alone, had not the power to order the removal of the reredos any more than he had the power, acting alone, to prevent the Dean and Chapter from putting it up." This, however, decided nothing as to the legality of the ornament, and therefore the learned Dean examined this question also. "Inasmuch, however, as he [i. e. the judge] thought the parties had a right to the judgment of the Court upon the most important part of the case, namely, upon the legality of the structure itself, he would not shrink from the labour and responsibility of giving his decision on that point also."

The learned judge then went fully into the matter.

"It

(z) Philpotts v. Boyd, "Times," Aug. 7, 1874. It ought to be mentioned that this very important case, like not a few others, has been, for the time at least, entirely overlooked by the official reporters, and consequently the only existing reports of it have to be sought for in the newspapers. [Author.]

was, no doubt, legal for the bishop to hold a triennial or special visitation; and it was at the latter that the bishop had ordered the removal of the reredos." After mentioning several cases, the learned Dean expressed himself as clearly of opinion that the appeal to this court was properly brought. "The bishop had held, with the advice of his assessor, that the erection of a reredos without a faculty was illegal, as also were the images thereon."

"The appellants, as he understood the argument, did not object to the right of the bishop to visit the cathedral, but contended that his power was limited; and after the decision in the case of the Dean of York and the Order in Council as to the diocese of Exeter, it was clear that whatever was to be done in such a matter was to be done not by the bishop acting alone, but by the proper court. For instance, as to stealing of the Communion Plate, a bishop would have power on a visitation to inquire into the matter, but the punishment for such an offence would be for a criminal court. He had asked how in this particular case the order of the bishop was to be enforced on the Dean and Chapter, and he had received no answer. No case had been cited to the Court of a faculty being obtained by a dean and chapter for the erection of a reredos; and before he [i.e. the judge] held his present office, he had been chancellor of several dioceses, and could not remember a single instance of a faculty for a reredos in a cathedral."

What is the real status of articles in question?

Dr. Tristram in White v. Bowron.

CHAPTER IX.

DECORATION, AND OTHER SUBSIDIARY
MATTERS OF ORNAMENTATION.

ERE, as in the corresponding chapter on Ritual and Ceremonial, (a) the important and primary point is, what is the true nature of the articles? and not, what is their legal status? The latter is really a subordinate question, the answer to which depends upon, and can be given almost as a matter of course after, the solution of the former.

The first point in reality involves two distinct questions. As was clearly put by Dr. Tristram in White v. Bowron, (b) "the first question is whether the article in dispute is an ornament in the sense in which the term ornament is used in the rubrics of the Prayer Book, or whether it is nothing more than an architectural adornment or decoration." Then follows, or may follow, the other question,-If an ornament within the rubrics, is it an allowable ornament, either as being expressly directed, or as being subsidiary to the Services?

Here also must be noted the very important observations contained in one of the judgments of the Privy Council in the suit of Martin v. Mackonochie. (c)

"There is a clear and obvious distinction between the pre

(a) Chapter vi.

(b) L. R. 4 Adm. & Eccl. 207, 216. (c) L. R. 2 P. C. 387.