ment of the east window of the chancel in Liddell v. Beal (v); and when on the chancel screen in Bradford v. Fry (x). A wooden cross was holden unlawful when attached to the Holy Table in Liddell v. Westerton (y); and so was a moveable cross of wood upon a ledge upon, or apparently upon, the holy table in Martin v. Durst (z). This last decision, in which the Privy Council reversed Sir Robert Phillimore, excited at the time a good deal of surprise. The result seems to be that a cross is lawful everywhere except on the holy table or on a structure which itself is or appears to be on the holy table. There can be no doubt about the fact of the prohibitory decisions; but it is not easy to discover any principle on which they rest. There is no doubt about the lawfulness of a chancel screen, Chancel with or without gates. One such was allowed, though regret- screen. fully, by Dr. Lushington in Westerton v. Liddell (a). Since then there have been several cases; but diocesan chancellors have occasionally thought gates unnecessary or inexpedient, and have refused faculties for them (b). The lawfulness of a reredos at the back of the holy table, Reredos. though, as already pointed out, it implies that the holy table remains always in one place, has been assumed as past question in a number of recent suits. The controversy has been as to the lawfulness of putting sculptured figures or images upon the reredos, or as to the lawfulness of particular figures or representations. Till recently there was very little in the way of judicial Images. decisions about images. There was Pricket's Case (c), in which a man was bound over Pricket's Case. by Wray, C.J., for breaking what were said to be superstitious pictures in the window of a church, without licence from the ordinary. There was a a case in 1639, when the parishioners of All All Hallows', Hallows', Barking, complained to the bishop of certain pictures Barking, Case. and images contrary, as they said, to the laws of the church having been set over the font; and in which, by consent, the chancellor ordered the pictures to be taken down (d). And there was a case in the diocese of Lincoln, where Bishop Cooke v. TalBarlow interfered, in which the validity of a reredos, with lents. painted representations of the Apostles, was upholden by the Court of Arches. This case, Cooke v. Tallents, which was discovered in the records of the Court, and to which the Editor was guided by Bishop Barlow's pamphlet, was relied upon in the Court of Arches in Boyd v. Phillpotts (e). The Privy Council, being satisfied with the correctness of the decision of the Arches Court as to the lawfulness of the reredos, did not hear counsel in support of it, and then lapsed into the unfortunate error of treating the decision in Cooke v. Tallents as of no value, as being a "consent" judgment, which it was not. There has been also preserved on the statute book an act, 3 & 4 Edw. 6, 3 & 4 Edw. 6, c. 10, "for the abolishing and putting away divers books and images.' c. 10. St. Margaret's About 1761 the question arose as to the validity of images in Westminster. painted windows, when the celebrated window in St. Margaret's, Westminster, having the scene of the Crucifixion, was put up with funds provided by parliament. This case gave rise to much discussion and to litigation, in which the main point was, perhaps, not distinctly determined, but in which victory rested with those who contended for the window, which still remains (f). Boyd v. Phillpotts. Hughes v. Edwards. Reg. v. The The question of images, however, came up for serious discussion and decision in the Exeter Reredos Case (g), in which a reredos in the cathedral of Exeter, made of carved stone having sculptured representations in high relief of the Ascension, the Transfiguration and the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, ornamented with figures of angels and a cross, was holden unlawful by Sir Henry Keating, sitting as assessor to the bishop at a visitation, but was on appeal holden lawful by Sir Robert Phillimore in the Court of Arches, and finally by the Privy Council. In the Denbigh Reredos Case (h), a stone reredos having in high relief the three figures of our Lord upon the Cross, the Virgin and St. John, was holden by Lord Penzance lawful and fit to be authorized by a faculty. In the quite recent case of Regina v. The Bishop of London (i), a mandamus was applied for to compel the Bishop of London to transmit a representation under the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, so that the legality of the reredos in St. Paul's Cathedral might be tried. In that case the representation stated that the dean and chapter had (1) "introduced into the said cathedral church, and set upon the altar-piece or reredos therein, an image or sculptured subject representing our Lord upon the Cross in a conspicuous position immediately above the communion table, the figure of our Lord being of the height of five feet or thereabouts.' (2.) "That the said image or sculptured subject is so constructed as to have the appearance of such an altar crucifix as cited at p. 372: 6 P. C. p. 435. See (f) Wilson, Ornaments of (g) Boyd v. Phillpotts, L. R., 4 Adm. & Eccl. p. 297; on appeal, Phillpotts v. Boyd, L. R., 6 P. C. p. 435. (h) Hughes v. Edwards, 2 P. D. p. 361. Query, see Re St. Lawrence Pittington, 5 P. D. p. 131. (i) 23 Q. B. D. p. 414; 24 Q. B. D. p. 213. was used in the Church of England immediately before the Reformation, so as to answer the purposes for which such a crucifix was intended." (3.) "That the dean and chapter had introduced into the said cathedral church, and set upon the said altar-piece or reredos therein, an image or sculptured subject representing the blessed Virgin Mary with the child in her arms, in a conspicuous position a few feet above the first-mentioned image or sculptured subject, the figure of the Blessed Virgin being of the height of five feet six inches or thereabouts." The Bishop gave in substance as his reason for refusing to further the proceedings, that the case fell within the principle of the Exeter Reredos case; and this reason, though holden insufficient by the Queen's Bench Division, was on the contrary holden sufficient, and to show a good exercise of episcopal discretion, by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords. On the other hand, in the Folkestone case, pictures of Stations Clifton v. of the Cross were considered by Lord Penzance to be unlaw- Ridsdale. ful (k), evidence having been given by a Roman Catholic Ecclesiastic that they were connected with a set of devotions which Lord Penzance considered superstitious; and in the same case, Lord Penzance first, and the Privy Council on appeal, held that a metal crucifix on the top of the chancel screen which had been put up without a faculty must be taken down, both as put up without a faculty and as a decoration for which in the circumstances of that church no faculty ought to be granted, as it was liable to be abused (7). These last words contain the principle by which the Exeter Principle of Reredos case, the Denbigh Reredos case, and the crucifix in the decisions. Folkestone case were respectively tested; and the result is that all images in stained glass, paintings or sculpture, are lawful unless they are liable to be abused by superstitious devotion. Another form of architectural decoration in connection with Baldachin. the Holy Table, as appropriate to the basilica form of church as a reredos is to the ordinary Gothic church, is a Baldachin or canopy. A few are in existence in churches; but in the one case in which a faculty for a baldachin was applied for and opposed, the Chancellor of London refused a faculty (m), basing his judgment both on the very substantial ground that a large majority of the parishioners opposed, and on the further ground that baldachins were unlawful. This opinion, however, was mainly founded upon a supposed connection between such canopies and portable canopies used in processions in times before the Reformation, a connection which it is respectfully suggested by the Editor will be found on further inquiry to be verbal only. The case came upon both judge and counsel as (k) Clifton v. Ridsdale, 1 P. D. p. 316. (1) Ibid.; Ridsdale v. Clifton, 2 P. D. P. 276. (m) White v. Bowron, 4 Adm. & Eccl. p. 207. Proceedings under P. W. R. Act. a matter of much novelty; and the actual refusal of the faculty was unquestionably well founded upon the ground of the opposition of the parishioners. The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 85), s. 8, gives power to take proceedings if the complainants are of opinion-"(1) That in such church any alteration in or addition to the fabric ornaments, or furniture thereof has been made without lawful authority, or that any decoration forbidden by law has been introduced into such church. . . . . Provided that no proceedings shall be taken under this act as regards any alteration in or addition to the fabric of a church, if such alteration or addition has been completed five years before the commencement of such proceedings" (m). Due attend ance on the public worship. 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 1. On pain of punishment by the censures of the church. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59. SECT. 5.-Attendance on and Behaviour at Public Worship. The law of the Church of England provides that there shall be public worship in her churches twice every day, as well as on every holyday, under which category Sundays are included. Civil penalties have been inflicted by the law of the state upon lay parishioners absent without reasonable let from their parish church on holydays, but not upon ordinary week days (n). But the duty of performing daily service in church has been again recognized by a recent statute (o). By 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 1, s. 1, all persons " shall diligently and faithfully having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent endeavour themselves to resort to their parish church or chapel accustomed, or upon reasonable let thereof, to some usual place where common prayer and such service of God shall be used in such time of let, upon every Sunday and other days ordained and used to be kept as holydays; and then and there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of the common prayer, preaching or other service of God:" on pain of punishment by the censures of the church. Sect. 2. "And for the due execution hereof, the King's most excellent Majesty, the lords temporal, and all the commons in this present assembled, doeth in God's name require and charge all the archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries, that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledge, that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their dioceses and charges, as they will answer before God for such evils and plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholesome law." By 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59, s. 1, it is provided that this first section. (m) Vide infra, Part IV. Chap. IX. B. D. p. 671. (0) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 37. "shall be repealed so far as the same affects persons dissenting from the worship or doctrines" of the church," and usually attending some place of worship than the Established Church; and further that "no pecuniary penalty shall be imposed upon any person for his so absenting himself as aforesaid." church. By Can. 90 of 1603 the church-wardens or quest-men of every Canon 90. parish, and two or three or more discreet persons in every parish All persons to be chosen for side-men or assistants by the minister and shall resort to parishioners, if they can agree (otherwise to be appointed by the ordinary of the diocese), shall diligently see that all the parishioners duly resort to their church upon all Sundays and holy-days, and there continue the whole time of divine service; and none to walk or to stand idle or talking in the church or in the churchyard or church-porch during that time; and all such as shall be found slack or negligent in resorting to the church (having no great or urgent cause of Orderly absence) they shall earnestly call upon them; and, after due behaviour during divine monition (if they amend not), they shall present them to the service. ordinary of the place. The choice of which persons, viz., churchwardens or quest-men, side-men or assistants, shall be yearly made in Easter week. Among the constitutions of Egbert, Archbishop of York, one is, that whilst the minister is officiating, if any person shall go out of the church, he shall be excommunicated; and this is taken from a canon of the fourth council of Carthage (p). By Can. 18 of 1603, "No man shall cover his head in the Canon 18. church or chapel in the time of divine service, except he have some infirmity; in which case let him wear a night-cap, or coif. All manner of persons then present shall reverently kneel upon their knees when the general Confession, Litany, and other prayers are read; and shall stand up at the saying of the Belief, according to the rules in that behalf prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer and likewise when in time of divine service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind for this life, and the life to come are fully and wholly comprised. None, either man, woman, or child, of what calling soever, shall be otherwise at such time busied in the church, than in quiet attendance to hear, mark, and understand that which is read, preached, or ministered; saying in their due places audibly with the minister, the Confession, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed; and making such other answers to the public prayers as are appointed in the Book of Common Prayer: neither shall P. VOL. I. (p) Gibs. p. 964. 3 B |