« 이전계속 »
TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL REFERENCES
Bennett, Rev. W. J. E. Phill. Judg. 200; L. Rep. 4 P. C. App. Case of
350, 371. Blunt
Rev. J. H. Blunt and W. Phillimore on
Church Law, 2nd ed., 1876. Burn.
Ecclesiastical Law, by Dr. Burn, 4 vols. Can.
The English Canons of 1603. Church Discipline Act, 1840 3 & 4 Vict. cap. 86. Churchwarden's Guide . 9th ed., edited by Brooke. (Knight & Co.) Exeter Cathedral Case . Phillpotts v. Boyd, L. Rep. 4 A. & Eccl.
297 ; Boyd v. Phillpotts, L. Rep. 6 P. C.
App. 435; Phill. Judg. 343. Gorham, Rev. Mr., Case of Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, Moore's
Rep., 1852. Liddell, Hon. and Rev. R., Westerton v. Liddell, and (on appeal), Cases of
Liddell v. Westerton, Moore's Rep. ;
and Liddell v. Beal, 14 Moore, P. C. 1. Mackonochie, Rev. A. H., Martin v. Mackonochie, L. Rep. 3 A. & Case of
Eccl. 117; and on appeal, L. Rep. 2
P. C. App. 116. Marriage Act
Stat. 4 Geo. 4, cap. 76. Poole, Rev. Mr., Case of Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 7 W.R.
212 ; and Poole v. Bishop of London,
5 Jur. (N.S.) 522 ; and 7 Jur. (N.S.) 347. Phill. Eccl. Law
The Ecclesiastical Law, by Sir R. Philli.
more. 2 vols., 1873 ; with Supplement,
1876. Phill. Judgmts. .
Judgments in the Court of Arches, by
Sir R. Phillimore, 1876. Phill. Reports
Reports in Ecclesiastical Causes, by Dr.
J. Phillimore. 3 vols., 1818-1827. P. W. R. Act, 1874 Public Worship Regulation Act, 37 & 38
Vict. cap. 85.
xii TABLE OF REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS.
Purchas, late Rev. John, Hebbert v. Purchas, Bullock's Rep. 1871; Case of
Brooke's P. C. Judgm. ; Elphinstone v. Purchas, L. Rep. 3 A. & Eccl. 66; also L. Rep. 4 P. C. 301 ; also Phill.
Judg. 158. Ridsdale, Rev. C. J., Case of Clifton v. Ridsdale—the Folkestone Case in the Arches Court, 1 P. D. 316
: on appeal, Guardian,” May 16, 1877 ; Ridsdale v. Clifton and others, 2 P.
Div. 276. Simpson, Rev. Mr., Case of Flamank v. Simpson, L. Rep. 2 A. &
Eccl. 218; Phill. Judg. 7. Stamp Act, 1870
Stat. 33 & 34 Vict. cap. 97. Steph. Comm..
Commentaries on the Laws of England,
by the late Serjeant Stephen, 7th ed.
1874. Wix, Rev. R. H. E., Case of Sumner v. Wix, L. Rep. 3 A & Eccl. 58 ;
Phill. Judg. 152.
I Legal Guide for the Clergy.
Administration: vide COMMUNION : BAPTISM.
Advowson. The right of presentation to a benefice is real heritable property, although incorporeal or invisible. [For the various kinds of advowsons and their incidents, vide 2 Steph. Comm. 715 et seq.] An advowson materially differs from other property known to English Law in this—that it ought not to be a source of profit to its owner, being in the nature of a sacred trust. In a few instances, as at Bilston and one of the Clerkenwell churches, the advowson belongs to the whole body of parishioners. This being undesirable, provision was made by Stat. 19 & 20 Vict. cap. 50, for enabling parishioners and other classes of persons to sell an advowson vested in them, and apply the proceeds for the benefit of the church, schools, or glebe house. When an advowson is vested in trustees the nomination must be jointly made by them. The Crown has by ancient right the nomination to a living vacated by reason of the promotion of the incumbent to a bishopric or deanery. While the incumbent is living the owner of an advowson may sell the next presentation, a clergyman being, however, disqualified from purchasing and presenting himself (Stat. 13 Anne, cap. 11). This rule has in effect been much qualified by the recent decision in Walsh v. Bp. of Lincoln (L. Rep. 10 C. P. 518), where a clergyman having purchased
the life interest in an advowson was held entitled to present himself to the Bishop.
Vide CLERGY: EXCHANGE: INDUCTION: SIMONY.
alms. The “alms and devotions” in the offertory [communion office] have, since the Reformation only, been given to the poor (Ayliffe, 394). After they have been collected by the churchwardens or other fit persons, they are reverently to be brought in the “decent bason (alms dish], and presented and placed on the Holy Table. It is illegal to place them on a stool, credence table, or elsewhere than on the Holy Table. (Flamank v. Simpson, L. Rep. 2 A. & Eccl. 116.) The alms collected at the offertory are to be applied as the incumbent and churchwardens may jointly decide ; and if they disagree the matter should be referred to the Bishop. The collection of the offertory is a lay, not a spiritual, duty; so that if a clergyman choose to perform it in person he cannot claim the benefit of the Act passed to protect the clergy from molestation and annoyance while “celebrating service." (Cope v. Barber, L. Rep. 7 C. P. 393.) A chest or alms-box is placed in each church for the benefit of the “poor and needy neighbours." Can. 84.
Altar or Holy Table, the latter being the word used in the Book of C. P. The word “altar” occurs in the Canons of 1640, in some modern Church-building Acts, and in the Coronation service; while, therefore, it is not an illegal term, it cannot be regarded as an inappropriate one, seeing that there is an offering made and presented on it of the alms and oblations, and an offering before it of the "souls and bodies" of the faithful. Nor can it be denied by any that some of the greatest theologians of the English Church have held that in the Holy Communion there is a representative and
commemorative, though not an actual or a repeated, sacrifice. Can. 82 directs that a decent (i.e., a handsome) table shall be provided, to be covered in time of service with silk or other decent stuff, such as the Bishop may approve in case of dispute; and to be covered with a fair linen cloth at the time of the ministration. From the decided cases it seems to follow * (1.) That the Altar or Holy Table must be a move
able table, made of wood, and not of stone
or other material. (2.) That over or behind it may be placed a raised
ledge, re-table, or super-altar; on which candlesticks may be placed, but the candles may only be used for the sake of light when required; and no cross should be introduced
without the sanction of the Bishop. (3.) That the silken or other covering of the Holy
Table may be varied as to texture and colour,
subject to the direction of the Bishop. (4.) That the Holy Table must never during a
time of service be left uncovered. (5.) That under all the circumstances, the altar
now not being in fact moved about, but standing against the east wall, in a place which (though not now illegal) was not the place in which the table stood usually at the time when the rubric was drawn up, the celebrant is free to adopt the “eastward
position." Vide CEREMONIES : COMMUNION : INCENSE:
* The authorities for these several propositions are as follows : Faulkner v. Litchfield, 1 Rob. Eccl. R. 154; Durst v. Masters, I P. Div. 373 ; and the judgments in the several cases of Mr. Liddell, Mr. Purchas, and Mr. Ridsdale. In The Denbigh Case (2 P. Div. 361) a reredos containing a sculptured group of the Crucifixion was sanctioned.