"c. 12, s. 1, as having also been passed in the second year of "Edward VI." (The Law of the Rubric, p. 97. Camb. 1866.)

Next, there seems no ground for saying that the Act " con"cerned a matter of great urgency." The New Prayer Book was not required by the Act to be used before "the Feast of "Pentecost," i.e. June 9, 1549, therefore there was abundance of time and no need of the Royal Assent until the Session ended on March 14, 1548-9.

If it be thought that the printing of the Book could not safely be proceeded with until the Royal Assent had been given, the answer seems to be that the printing did proceed, for a copy exists one part of which is dated "the viii" and another "the xvi. daye of Marche in the third yeare," (Cardwell, Two Liturgies, p. xl.) and printing was not very rapid in those days.

There is another ground for doubting this alleged "urgency " and consequently for thinking that the Royal Assent was not given before Jan. 28th, and therefore not in the Second Year of Edw. VI. The 8th Section of the Act provides that " where "the said Books shall be attained and gotten before the said Feast "of Pentecost," the New Service was to be used "within three "weeks" after the Books were procured. Now if the Royal Assent was not given until the 14th March this order would pretty certainly prevent the Book being used illegally before that date, seeing that no part of the Book appears to have been ready before the 8th March. Whereas if the Royal Assent had been given as early as the Judicial Committee suppose, and if the matter was so urgent as they think, it would have been natural to order its use at once: unless indeed it was supposed it might need three weeks' study, notwithstanding that, in the Preface, the Book was so especially commended for its simplicity.

It may be replied that to mention a year and not a document would have left the Clergy in 1559 without any definite guide as to what Ornaments they were to use:* yet precisely the

* This was Dr. Lushington's difficulty: he said, "I find that I am referred to a guide, the existence of which I cannot with certainty discover" (Moore, p. 35): he added that "As to the Ornaments of Ministers, there was enough in the First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth to satisfy the meaning of the direction" (Ibid): whereas with respect to "Ornaments of the Church" he had previously said, "I know of none deserving notice on this occasion" as being "prescribed by that Book of Common Prayer" (Ibid, p. 31). The Judicial Committee, also construing "second year" as First Book and limiting "Ornaments" to "the

same difficulty (if it was a difficulty) must have beset them at the beginning of Mary's Reign when she referred them to "the "last year of Henry 8th": the interval, however, was very short in each case; only 7 years for the Marian and but 11 years for the Elizabethan Clergy: the latter were, of course, most of them the same men who had alike used the Sarum Missal and the Prayer Book of 1549, and therefore they were perfectly acquainted with the customary Ornaments at each period although only some of them were prescribed nominatim in either of those Service Books. Indeed it is quite easy for us at this distance of time to ascertain from Documents of the period, which are perfectly accessible, what were the Ornaments of the Church of England and her Ministers in the Second year of King Edward 6th, whichever we regard as the true meaning of that expression.

It must, then, I think, be admitted that the definition of "Second year," given in Liddell v. Westerton, is open to question; and that, consequently, the meaning of this part of the Rubric is still an arguable point: practically, however, it was not of much consequence, originally, because the Court did not regard the Rubric as being exclusive. For, although they said "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 the Sixth " (Moore, p. 156), they did not say that nothing was to be included among this class of Ornaments but those things expressly named in that Book. On the contrary, their Lordships took a larger and more liberal view: they repeated their definition of "Ornaments" in somewhat varied

several Articles used in the performance of the Services and Rites of the Church," said that "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." (Ibid, pp. 156-7.) But the fact is that that Book does not prescribe some of those notoriously and necessarily in use of both kinds, e.g., the Stole for the Minister; the Linen Cloth for the Altar: these it would have been illegal to use from 1549 to 1552 if only what the Book prescribed was lawful: but the Court, aware of this difficulty, also employed the larger expression, "used under the First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth." (Ibid, p. 159.) I must adhere to this distinction in the terms used by the Court, notwithstanding that Canon Robertson calls it "frivolous" and cites Mr. B. Shaw in proof of the terms being employed interchangeably "in legal language." (How shall we conform to the Liturgy? p. 294; Ed. 1869.)

C

and less exclusive language, saying of the Elizabethan Rubric"Here the term 'Ornaments' is used as covering both the "Vestments of the Minister and the several Articles used in "the Services; it is confined to such things as, in the perform"ance of the Services, the Minister was to use" (Ibid, p. 159): they did not say that the Ornaments themselves are confined to those mentioned in the Book; and then, as though to leave no doubt that they did not mean to lay down a rule which should limit the List of "Ornaments" to those in terms prescribed by the Prayer Book, they further say "they are not prepared to "hold that the use of all articles not expressly mentioned in the Rubric, although quite consistent with, and even subsidiary "to the Service, is forbidden. Organs are not mentioned, yet "because they are auxiliary to the singing, they are allowed. "Pews, cushions to kneel upon, pulpit cloths, hassocks, seats "by the Communion-table, are in constant use, yet they are "not mentioned in the Rubric." (Ibid, p. 187)-some of these, e.g. "Cloths" and "Organs," being in the "list" of Ornamenta which the Court referred to (Ibid, p. 157) as being given by Lyndewood, or recognized "in modern times." But this liberal definition has been greatly restricted by the Judgment in Martin v. Mackonochie, the Court having then decided that "Lighted Candles" used during the celebration of the Holy Communion "are clearly not Ornaments' within the "words of the Rubric," because, besides not being prescribed by the Rubric, "they are not subsidiary to the Service"; although it is impossible to hold that "pulpit cloths " e.g. are subsidiary if the lights are not. It has therefore become necessary to draw attention to the great probability, to say the least, that "Second year" is capable of another and larger meaning than that assigned to it in Liddell v. Westerton. IV. Their Lordships continue their argument thus:"The Act of Parliament set in the beginning of Elizabeth's book is Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, and the 25th Clause of that Act contains a proviso, 'that such ornaments of the Church and [of sic] the ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use, as was in this Church of England by authority

of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI, until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of the [for the read her] Commissioners as [dele as] appointed and authorized under the Great Seal of England for causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm.' "The Prayer Book, therefore, refers to the Act, and the Act clearly contemplated further directions to be given by the Queen, with the advice of Commissioners or of the Metropolitan. It was not, apparently, thought desirable to effect an immediate outward change of ceremonies, although the adoption of the second Prayer Book of Edward VI, in lieu of the first, had effected a great change in the very substance of the Communion Service, with which the theory of the peculiar vestments (the albe and chasuble) was closely connected."

The Court, in this passage, appears to assume that this Law as to the "Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers" was only designed to serve a temporary and passing purpose, and was intended to be superseded as soon as possible. It is important to remark that this view does not seem consistent with the aspect of this period of English Church History which presented itself to the minds of the Judicial Committee fourteen years ago; and therefore those who are acquainted with that History are at least free to prefer the following account given by the Court in Liddell v. Westerton:

"After the overthrow of Protestantism by Queen Mary, and its restoration on the accession of Queen Elizabeth, a great controversy arose between the more violent and the more moderate Reformers as to the Church Service which should be re-established, whether it should be according to the First, or according to the Second Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth. The Queen was in favour of the First, but she was obliged to give way, and a compromise was made, by which the Services were to be in conformity with the Second Prayer Book, with certain alterations; but the Ornaments of the Church, whether those worn or those otherwise used by the Minister, were to be according to the First Prayer Book." (Moore, p. 158.)

The Judicial Committee in Hebbert v. Purchas assume that the power given to Queen Elizabeth to take "other order" as

to the "Ornaments" was governed by the consideration that "it was not, apparently, thought desirable to effect an imme"diate outward change of ceremonies." Their Lordships' language might imply that they have not carefully attended to the words of the Statute, for they treat "Ornaments" and "Ceremonies" as though they were interchangeable terms; whereas the 25th section of 1 Eliz., cap. 2 enabled the Queen to take "other order" as to " Ornaments," and the 26th section enabled her to "publish such further ceremonies "as might be requisite if "any contempt or irreverence" were " used in the "ceremonies" provided in the Prayer Book. If "Ornaments were "Ceremonies" this distinction was useless. But, not to dwell now upon this point, the question arises whether this provision of the Statute cannot be satisfactorily accounted for on an entirely different ground. It must be remembered that a power to regulate such matters, which had been possessed by the Crown, was taken away by the 1 Edw. VI, cap. 12, s. 4, which repealed the Statutes (31 Hen. viii., c. 8, and 34 and 35 Hen. viii., c. 23) rendering Royal Proclamations valid as Acts. Henry VIIIth and Edward VIth had both used this power in issuing Injunctions which limited the general Law as to Ornaments and Ceremonies: in proof of this it is sufficient to refer to the Letter sent by the Council on May 13, 1548, to the Licensed Preachers bidding them not to "stir and provoke the "people to any alteration or innovation:" its words are "What "is abolished, taken away, reformed and commanded, it is easy to "see by the Acts of Parliament, the Injunctions, Proclamations, "and Homilies." (Cardwell, Doc. Ann., I., p. 65.)

Queen Mary, in abolishing what was done in the Reign of Edward VI, had adopted "the last year of Henry VIII” as the standard for "Divine Service and Administration of Sacra"ments." (1 Mary, 2, cap. 2.) Queen Elizabeth chose "the "Second Year of the Reign of King Edward VI" as the Reformed Standard for "Ornaments." The Court, in Liddell v. Westerton, said, indeed, that these Ornaments "were to "be according to the first Prayer Book": if this only means, as their Lordships elsewhere say, what was "used under" that Book, and is not restricted, as in Martin v. Mackonochie, to what