The prayer book articles and homilies; some forgotten facts in their history which may decide their interpretation . uired to celebrate in a Cathedral or Collegiate Church (for the copecontinued to be illegal in parish churches, and wassuppressed therein by Ordinaries like Bancroft andLaud), both he and his assistants wearing copes onsuch occasions to mark the eminence of the superstition as to a distinctive dress for the sacrificer as the worker of an invisible miracle, wasobviated by attiring the other ministers of the wordand sacraments equally and alike in similar garments,sin
The prayer book articles and homilies; some forgotten facts in their history which may decide their interpretation . uired to celebrate in a Cathedral or Collegiate Church (for the copecontinued to be illegal in parish churches, and wassuppressed therein by Ordinaries like Bancroft andLaud), both he and his assistants wearing copes onsuch occasions to mark the eminence of the superstition as to a distinctive dress for the sacrificer as the worker of an invisible miracle, wasobviated by attiring the other ministers of the wordand sacraments equally and alike in similar garments,since the Epistoler and Gospeller no less than theprincipal minister are the administrators anddistributors of the sacred feast which through them is given unto us as the Catechism teaches. It followsthat the action of Bishop Creighton and others inofficiating sometimes with a cope, sometimes without,but never with Gospeller and Epistler agreably isunhistorical as being contrary to any known law ofthis Church and Realm at any period of its history,and therefore a violation of the Thirty-fourth Articleof Z\K Ornamcnte IRiibric. No. I (ELIZABETH, 1559-61) IX 1S57 ^t ^^^s ruled by the Supreme Court ofAppeal, in Liddell v. Wcstcrton, that theauthority of Parliament mentioned in therubric means the first Act of Uniformity (2 and 3Edward VI., cap. i.), and that the word Ornaments applies, and in this rubric is confined, to thoseArticles the use of which in the services and minis-trations of the Church, is prescribed by the [First]Prayer Book of Edward VI.^ The Judges in thatcase were careful to say they had nothing to dowith the ornaments of the minister or anythingappertaining In the subsequent cases ofHebhcrt v. Pitnhas, and Ridsdalc v. Clifton, the samedoctrine was extended (though \\ith certain modifica-tions) to the dress of the officiating clerg}-. Nevertheless, the Folkestone Judgment laid downalso as a principle, that no Judgment, even of theSupreme Court,
Size: 3058px × 817px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., book, bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, booksubjectchurchofengland
