may be connected with any of the Ornaments that will come under our notice; as with the Bells, the Ringers; with the Organ, the Organist, &c. We will now proceed to details.

THE ORNAMENTS AND GOODS

OF THE CHURCH.

It is very essential that the OFFICIATING MINISTER should be aware of the exact position in which he stands with respect to the Ornaments and Goods of the Church; and know likewise what Ornaments must necessarily and absolutely be supplied, and at whose cost, as well as what may be only optionally provided.

The CANONS of 1603-4, which possess the chief authority in this matter, impose the duty of providing all the necessary ORNAMENTS of the Church upon the Churchwardens, and upon them alone, and at the Charge of the Parish.

In CANON 85, it is laid down, that-'The CHURCH6 WARDENS or QUESTMEN shall take care and provide that the Churches be well and sufficiently repaired....and all things 'there in such an orderly and decent sort, without dust or any thing that may be either noisome or unseeemly, as best becometh the House of God, and is prescribed in an Homily 'to that effect..At their Charges unto whom by law the same ' appertaineth.'-CANON 85.

In default, the CHUCHWARDENS are amenable to the Ecclesiastical Court, as directed by the Statute, 13 Edw. I. St. 4. (Circumspecte agatis)—' The King 'to his Judges sendeth greeting: use yourselves circumspectly, in all matters concerning the Prelates where they do punish for that the Church is not conveniently decked, in which cases, the Spiritual Judge shall have power to take knowledge, not'withstanding the King's prohibition.'-(BURN's Eccl. L. Phil. i. 367. e;). By this Statute all interference by temporal 'Courts in these respects is withheld.'-(ROGER'S Ecc. Law. p. 153.)

LORD COKE says The law alloweth the Ecclesiastical Court 'to have conusance...for the providing of decent Ornaments for 'the celebration of Divine Service.'-(2 Inst. 489.)

LORD STOWELL observes - The Law respecting Church Ornaments is now (1794) generally understood and settled. The consent of the Parishioners is not indispensably necessary, unless to charge the Parish with an expence for the support of the Ornament ' after it has been put up. But if there is no such charge incurred, 'the approbation of the majority of the Parishioners is not necessary, nor the disapprobation binding on the Ordinary. A Faculty does not enjoin the raising of any rate; and if it is found a burthen it may be removed by another Faculty.' (Chw. of St John, Margate (or Ramsgate) v. The Parishioners, 1 Hagg. Cons. 198. 298.). Here LORD STOWELL decreed a Faculty for accepting and erecting an Organ offered to the Church, without a clause against future expences being charged to the Parish, which was rich and populous; thus carrying out a rule, which he laid down in another case, where he says The Court is not bound by 'the wish of the Majority, though it will pay great attention to it in granting a Faculty. The Court may refuse the whole Parish 'joined together; or may grant, if it appears necessary, a prayer 'on the application of one against all the rest.' (Groves and Wright v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hagg. Cons. 189. See also Jay v. Webber, 3 Hagg. 4; Pearce, &c. v. Rector of Clapham, 3 Hagg. 11.)

If an Ornament had been presented to a Parish Church, or purchased by a Subscription, and the consent of the Ordinary given for its erection, it seems that the consent or refusal of the Parishioners to its erection would be immaterial, because neither the expence of erecting it or repairing it would in such a case fall upon them.-(Butterworth & Barker v. Walker & Waterhouse, 3 Burr. 1689). See also WADDILOVE'S Digest of Cases. p. 104.

:

The CLERGYMAN, however, has nothing whatever to do with ordering the Ornaments or Goods of the Church should he do so, he must do it at his own cost, and at his own peril. Nor has he the power of rejecting what are ordered by the CANONS, or of interfering with their custody or control. The Minister's function herein has lately been decided in the Ecclesiastical Court, as follows

The BISHOP OF EXETER (Dr. Phillpotts), in his judgment in the recent case of W. G. Parks Smith (Clerk) 28th May, 1847charged under 3, 4 Vict. c. 86. with placing or causing to be placed, and suffering to remain during the performance of Divine Service on Easter-day of this year, in various parts of the 'said Chapel, (St John's Tormoham), and especially on the Com'munion-Table, certain Ornaments, or other unauthorized things, being against the laws Ecclesiastical...These Ornaments were two glass Vases containing Flowers, and a Cross about 2 ft. high decked with Flowers.'-thus proceeds.. Was it unlawful for him to do so? In answering this question, it is first necessary to ' remark, that Mr. Smith had in his own right, nothing whatever to do with the ordering of the Ornaments or Furniture of the 'Church. This is a matter which belongs to the Churchwardens,

፡

66

I where there are such Officers; and where there are none...to those to whom it may have been, by proper authority confided: 'to the Minister's opinion, indeed, and to his wishes, in all lawful things, great deference ought to be, and doubtless will 'always be, shown. But if he assume a right which does not 'belong to him; if he permit himself to step beyond the line of his own duty, and to intrude on the province of others, it becomes 'him to be cautious, to the utmost, against venturing on any act which, in itself, even questionable. Now would it be lawful for any persons whomsoever, even for those Officers to whose care the Ornaments of the Church are especially committed; would it be lawful for them to deck the Lord's Table, in prepa'ration for the Holy Communion, with Vases containing Flowers, ' and with a Cross placed on the Table for the occasion? Certainly not; unless there be an express or implied direction so to do. It is not enough, that there be no express prohibition. The very nature of the case, the general requisition of Uniformity, and the positive enactment, "that no Form or Order of Common Prayer, "Administration of Sacraments, Rites, or Ceremonies shall be openly used other than what is prescribed and appointed to be "used," all alike lead to the same conclusion, that it is not lanful for any person whomsoever, to introduce novel Ornaments, at his own discretion. In truth, where would the claims of such discretion end? If one person may, at his pleasure, decorate the Lord's Table with a Cross, another may equally claim to set a Crucifix upon it, whilst a third might think it necessary to erect some symbol of Puritan doctrine or feeling to mark his reprobation of his Romanizing neighbour. There is indeed one important order in the Book of Common Prayer, as it is settled by the last Act of Uniformity, and as it was enacted also by the similar 'Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 2; "that such Ornaments of the Church, and "of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their Ministrations, shall "be retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of the reign of King Edward VI." Now were Vases containing Flowers, and 'the Cross decorated with Flowers on the Lord's Table at the Minis'tration of the Sacrament, in use at that period? If it could be 'shown that they were, this would indeed be a legal and full 'justification of the replacing of them now, however strange and ' novel such a decoration might appear. But nothing of the kind has been affirmed....The only direction in the Rubric is, "that the Table at the Communion time have a fair white linen cloth upon it;" and the 82nd Canon appoints, "that the Communion "Table shall be covered in time of Divine Service with a carpet of silk, or other decent stuff, and with a fair linen cloth at the time "of Ministration." This must be holden virtually to exclude all else, except what is used, or may be used, in the Service itself. 'If any one venture to go further-to add anything which he may 'deem an Ornament-he does it at his peril; he must be prepared to show, that what he adds "was in use, in this Church of 'England, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI."; 'else he renders himself liable to Ecclesiastical censures.' After referring to primitive usage, the Bishop concludes,- As there is no ground on which the act, admitted by Mr. Smith, can be 'deemed lawful, it is my duty to adjudge that he be admonished, and I do now admonish him, not again to offend in the like

manner; and I further order that he pay the costs of these proceedings.'-(quoted in STEPHEN's Laws Rel. to Cl. p. 1083.). We may add also the opinions annexed

The late REV. H. J. ROSE makes the following editorial remark in the British Magazine- The Clergyman does not provide the Ornaments of the Church. It may, or may not, be his duty to present the Churchwardens for not doing it; but he cannot refuse to Officiate because they have not provided the proper Orna'ments.'-(quoted in ROBERTSON'S' How shall we Conform to the Lit.' p. 77).

MR. ROGERS, (Barrister-at-Lan) observes,-'CHURCHWARDENS are appointed to provide the Furniture of the Church, the 'Bread and Wine for the Holy Sacrament, the Surplice, and the Books necessary for the performance of Divine Worship, and such as are directed by Law: but it is the Minister who has the use.'Eccl. Lan, p. 152,

MR. STEPHENS (Barrister-at-Law), speaking of the Ornaments on the Communion-Table in reference to the case brought before the Bp. of Exeter, above quoted, says-A Clergyman has not, in 'his own right, anything whatever to do with providing the Ecclesiastical Ornaments or Furniture of the Holy-Table: it 'is a duty which exclusively belongs to the Churchwardens, or 'other Officers ejusdem generis; and if they do not provide the proper Ornaments or Furniture, they are liable to punishment in 'the Ecclesiastical Courts. But Churchwardens have not, nor has any other Ecclesiastical or temporal authority, except it be the Legislature, a right to place anything upon the Holy-Table, unless 'it was "in this Church of England by the Authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of Edward VI." Every thing, however, that it was lawful to place on the Holy-Table in 'that year, is its legal Furniture, and indeed ought to be placed on it, at the present day.' (p.1109.)-Book of Com. Pr. E. H. S.

66

เ

From what has been already advanced, it is clear that the CHURCH WARDENS, or the Church Officers ejusdem generis, are the persons who are alone responsible for the due provision and care of the Ornaments and Goods of the Church. Yet if the Incumbent chooses to present to his Church, any 'necessary Goods,' Ornaments, or Instruments of superior kind, or more correct Ecclesiastical design, than what are already provided, the Churchwardens are at liberty to accept or refuse them; and it is not often they adopt the discourteous alternative of objecting to receive them.

We may now touch upon the several questions of I. Alienation, II. Custody, III. Property, and IV. Repair, as connected with this subject.

I. Alienation of the GooDs of the Church.— By the Laws of England, the Goods belonging to a Church may be aliened: yet the CHURCHWARDENS alone cannot dispose of them without the consent of the Parish: and a gift of such Goods by them without the consent of the Sidesmen, or Vestry, is void. WATSON'S Cl. L. 399. (BURN's Ec. L. Phil. 1. 377; STEER'S Par. L. Clive 38; STEPHENS' L. Rel. to Cl. 286.).

But by the Civil Law, the Goods belonging to a Church are forbidden to be alienated or pawned, unless for the redemption of Captives, for relief of the Poor in time of great famine and want, or for paying the debts of the Church, if a supply cannot be otherwise raised; or for other cases of necessity, or great advantage to the Church. And in every alienation, the cause must be first examined, and the decree of the Prelate intervene, with the consent of the whole Clergy or Chapter.--WOOD's Civ. L. 142. (BURN's Ec. L. Phil. 1. 377; STEPHENS' L. Rel. to Cl. 285).

II. Custody of the Goods, &c. is in the CHURCHWARDENS, as may be gathered from CANON 89, which directs

'All Churchwardens......last of all, going out of their Office, 'shall truly deliver up to the Parishioners whatsoever money or 'other things of right belonging to the Church or Parish, which 'remaineth in their hands, that it may be delivered over by them to the next Churchwardens, by bill indented.'-CANON 89.

CHURCHWARDENS may be cited by the Ordinary to give further account of the Church Goods, although their Accounts have been already allowed in Vestry: and if it appear that they have disposed of any of the Goods without his consent, though with the approbation of the Parishioners, and only in order to defray part of the Church-Rates or expences, the Ordinary may compel the Churchwardens to replace the Goods out of their own pockets, or inflict such other punishment as he may deem expedient.(Bishop v. Turner. Godb. 279); PRIDEAUX Chw. G. D. D. 153, 155.

DR. PRIDEAUX speaks of the power of the Ordinary; thus 'At the time when the Churchwardens pass their Accounts 'to the Parish, of all money received and expended during their 'Office, they must also give an account of the Church Goods' committed to their charge and custody, which must be then 'brought forth, called over, and examined before the Parishioners in Vestry; and after that, they are to be delivered over to their successors by bill indented......and when they have faith'fully accounted for all these particulars, they are then fully 'acquitted of their office (p. 142)...... The Church Goods are, in an especial manner, under the care of the Ordinary; and although all the Parish have allowed the Churchwardens' Account, yet as to these, if the Ordinary be dissatisfied, he may ex-officio call them 'to account before him too; and also may punish them, if he finds they have disposed of any of them, on any account whatsoever.

H H