페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

Hence the Petition to Her Majesty in Council that the Cause might be re-heard: the particulars of this Application and the Reasons for the Prayer not being granted, will be found at pp. 444-48 of this Publication.

But, although the immediate object of the Notes had thus passed away when they were in part prepared, it seemed worth while, perhaps, to finish them; consequently they have expanded into the present Volume which, up to p. 217, was printed off before April 1872; and soon afterwards most of the succeeding pages relating to the Vestment question were composed. The work was then unavoidably laid aside owing to my most unexpected appointment to this Benefice, in October 1872, by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherly) whose kindness I am glad here gratefully to acknowledge.

Since that time Duties in this Parish have only permitted these Notes to be resumed at intervals, and thus the completion of them has been delayed until now. During their progress your own Book, “Worship in the

Church of England” (1874), appeared; and also some other important Publications have been issued in reference to the Points adjudicated upon in the Purchas Suit. I delayed, however, to read them until this Work was finished; for this reason alone—that if the independent investigations should agree in their general Conclusions, the Inquiries and their Results might, probably, be regarded as somewhat reliable.

For the very kind readiness with which you responded to my request, and so enabled me thus to address you, I beg leave now to return my best thanks. It need scarcely be said that your acceptance of this Dedication in no way implies your concurrence with any opinions

or arguments which I have advanced in the course of this Volume : indeed I must add that you have not yet seen it.

The last sheets were being revised when the Hearing of the Appeal, Ridsdale v. Clifton and Others, was commenced before the Judicial Committee, on January 23rd. Let us trust that the able Arguments, addressed to an unusually strong Court, (See p. 449), on behalf of the Appellant, by Sir James Stephen and Mr. Arthur Charles, may lead their Lordships to the conviction (at which the Court, in the Purchas Case, might have arrived under the like favourable circumstances) viz., that the Vestments, the Wafer-bread, and the Eastward Position of the Celebrant-three of the Points decided adversely in the Appeal Hebbert v. Purchas, but now included in Mr. Ridsdale's Appeal—are all LAWFUL according to the Rubrics of the present Book of Common Prayer.

Believe me, my dear Mr. BERESFORD-HOPE,

Yours very sincerely,

THOS. W. PERRY. THE VICARAGE, ARDLEIGH, COLCHESTER.

March 9, 1877.

CORRIGENDA.

Page 27, Note, line 2, for Burleigh Papers, vol. 8, No. 16read

“Lansd. 8, f. 16. in dorso, ‘14 Nov. 1564 Varieties in the Services

ye Churche of precisians.'” » 67, line 21, for “II” read “III.”

69, line 21, for 1557read 1577.„ 150, Note, line 22, for “Salisbury" read Sarum." 154, Note, line 12, for " when approved ” read “when they

were approved."

16, for "consequently only" read "consequently

from this, or from some other cause, only.”

165, line 7 from Note, for

read

never yet

never made
made."

» 211, Note S, line 2, for p. 67read “p. 627.

232, line 6 from bottom, for “ institutam” read “instituta.”

» 241,

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

line 3 from bottom, for "p. 318-88" read p.

318. 8vo.”

322, last line, for touching Faires Markets” read “ touching

Faires and Marketts."

335, line 7, for

seem to have raised” read "

seem to have then raised."

379, line 12, for

“ That Ridley must” read “That Ridley, or whoever was Celebrant, must."

389, line 9, for "pp. 379-81 ” read 370-81."

NOTES

ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

HEBBERT v. PURCHAS.

To ensure accuracy the text of the Judgment, which is

here given in full, is reprinted from the Official copy : the insertions between square brackets are corrections of the quotations.

Judgment of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the

Privy Council on the Appeal of Hebbert, heretofore Elphinstone v. Purchas, from the Arches Court of Canterbury ; delivered 23rd February, 1871.

Present:

LORD CHANCELLOR (Hatherly, W. Page Wood).
ARCHBISHOP OF YORK (Dr. Thomson].
BISHOP OF LONDON [Dr. Jackson].
LORD ChelmsFORD [F. Thesiger].

In this case, which comes to us from the Arches Court

of Canterbury, the learned Judge of that Court has directed a monition to issue to the Rev. John Purchas as to several matters and things complained of by the Promoter, and has condemned him in costs; and the Defendant has not appealed. But as to certain charges contained in the 16th, 17th, 20th, 25th, 36th, and 38th Articles of Charge, the learned Judge has refused or omitted to direct a

B

monition to issue against the Defendant, and to
condemn him in the costs of these Articles; and
against the decision upon these Articles the Pro-

moter has appealed.
“ The substitution of Henry Hebbert as Promoter, for the

purpose of this Appeal, for Charles James Elphin-
stone, the Promoter in the Court below, since
deceased, has been allowed by a former judgment

of this Committee.
“ The Rev. John Purchas, the Respondent, has not ap-

peared, and the Committee has not had the assis

tance of the argument of counsel on his behalf.
“The charges which are the subject of this Appeal are

that the Respondent has offended against the Statute
Law and the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesias-
tical, by administering wine mixed with water,
instead of wine, to the communicants, as pleaded
in the 16th Article; and by standing with his back
to the people, between the people and the Holy
Table, whilst reading the Prayer of Consecration in
the Holy Communion, as pleaded in the 17th
Article ; and by the use of wafer bread instead of
bread such as is usual to be eaten, in the adminis-
tration of the Holy Communion, as pleaded in the
20th Article; and by causing holy water, or water
previously blessed or consecrated, to be poured into
divers receptacles for the same in the said church,
in order that the same might be used by persons in
the congregation, or by causing or permitting the
same to be used by others, as pleaded in the 25th
Article; and by himself wearing and sanctioning
and authorizing the wearing by other officiating
ministers, whilst officiating in the Communion
Service, and in the administration of the Holy
Communion in the said church, a vestment called
a chasuble, as pleaded in the 36th Article; and by
himself wearing, and causing or suffering to be worn
by other officiating clergy, when officiating in the
Communion Service in the said church, certain
other vestments called dalmatics, tunics or tunicles,
and albs, and by himself wearing, carrying, or
causing or suffering other officiating clergy in the
same church to wear or bear in their hand, a certain
cap called a biretta, during Divine Service, as
pleaded in the 38th Article. (Case pp. 9, 10.)

1

« 이전계속 »