'and so proclaimed....LORD COKE in the second Institute (P. 683). writes a commentary upon the statute of 32 Hen. VIII. and he never insinuates that the repeal of those former particular statutes with reference to the succession to the Crown repealed the Table of Prohibited Degrees. On the contrary, he states what the prohibited degrees are in the very words of those Acts ..I therefore am of opinion that the judgment which was given is perfectly right, because a party cannot be guilty of the crime of bigamy for contracting a second marriage, when the former one was in point of fact null, and in the very language of the law was void, to all intents and purposes.'-Justice COLERIDGE, WIGHTMAN, and ERLE, held the same opinion. (CRIPPS' Eccl. Cases 32; 10 Law Times. 155; 12 Jurist. 174; STEPHEN'S L. Rel. to Cl. 1470; WADDILOVE's Digest. 245.).-See also Hill. v. Good. Gibs. 412; Vaugh. 302; 3 Keb. 166; Kay v. Sherwood. 1 Curt. 195, 199. -201; 1 More. P. C. C. 353; Chick. v. Ramsdale 1 Curt. 34; Collet. v. Collet. Skin. 37; Faremouth. v. Watson. 1 Phil. 355; Hinks v. Harris. Carth. 271.

Among other cases of prohibitions to the marriage contract as being within the Levitical Degrees, the Reader may be referred for further information to the following:-(1) Marriage with a Wife's Sister's Daughter: See Ellerton v. Gastrell. 1 Comyn. 318; Snowling v. Nursey. 2 Lutw. 1075; Worthy v. Watkinson. 2 Lev. 254; 3 Keb. 660; Massey's case, Strype's Cranmer 46; Gibs. 412, 413; Remmington's case in Howard v. Bartlet. Hob. 181;-(2) Marriage with a Wife's Daughter by a former Husband: See Blackmore v. Brider. 2 Phil. 360.(3) Marriage with the Sister of former wife's Mother: See Regina v. Madden. 1 Inst. Circ. Rep. 731.-(4) Marriage with a Niece: See Burgess. v. Burgess. I Consist. 392; Hames v. Jescott. (or Jephcott) Gibs. 413; Ld. Raym. 68; 1 Consist. 353; 5 Mod. 170; 3 Salk. 66; Watkinson v. Mergatron. Sir T. Raym. 464; Woods v. Woods. 2 Curt. 529.-(5). So also a Marriage with a first Husband's Brother: See Aughtie v. Aughtie. 1 Phil. 202.-(6) But a marriage with the Wife of deceased Great Uncle is said not to be within the prohibited degrees. See Harrison v. Burwell. Vaugh. 206; 2 Vent. 9; Hill. v. Good. Vaugh. 302.

Consult also the annexed authorities from which the chief of the above remarks have been gathered, viz:-BURN'S Eccl. Law. Phil. ii. 439-451; CRIPP's Laws of Ch. & Clergy. 638-641; LAW's Eccl. Statutes. iii. 257-336.; ROGER'S Eccl. Law. 635637; STEPHEN's Laws Rel. to Church. 710-723; ib. Statutes 269-273; WADDILOVE'S Digest. of Eccl. Cases. 245-246; and the various Ecclesiastical Reports referred to. But for the arguments advocating the repeal of 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 54., see Serjeant MANNING'S elaborate pamphlet, entitled 'Observations on the Debate in the House of Lords, &c., on Marriages within the Prohibited Degrees.' 1s. 6d. Benning. 1854.

The Ten-Commandments are usually seen written up at the east end of our Churches, or Chancels, in accordance with the requirements of the 82nd CANON (of 1603-4). This is the only authority enjoining the practice, and it is still binding upon the Clergy, and of course upon the Ecclesiastical officers of the Ordinary, the Churchwardens,

The CANON, after giving certain directions with respect to the 'Communion-Table,' thus proceeds :

.We appoint, that &c....and that the Ten-Commandments be set up on the East end of every Church and Chapel, where the people may best see and read the same; and other '&c....All these to be done at the charge of the Parish.'— CANON 82.

*** Our Writers on Ecclesiastical Law transcribe this injunction thus:-'CAN. 82. The Ten-Commandments shall be set up at the charge of the Parish, upon the east end of every Church and Chapel.' &c.-BURN's Eccl. L. Phil. i. 371; C. G. PRIDEAUX'S Chn. Guide. 45; ROGERS' Eccl. L. 156; STEER'S Par. L. Clive. 35; STEPHENS' Law Rel. to Cl. 288. MR. CRIPPS, however, adds the following remark:-' But as it is very possible that in many Churches they could not easily be read or seen by the people, if 'set up at the east end, it is presumed that they may be, as they 'frequently are, set up elsewhere in the body of the Church, where 'they may be more easily read.' (p. 418.)-Laws Rel. to the Ch. & the Clergy.

The custom of setting up the Ten Commandments' appears to have had its origin in the time of Elizabeth; as we may gather from the following evidences; where we shall also find, that by the expression, on the east end of the Church or Chapel,' is implied the east end of the Chancel: thus

In 1560. ELIZABETH writes to her Ecclesiastical Commissioners, ABP. PARKER, and others, directing them:- Amongst other 'things to order, that the Tables of the Commandments may be 'comiye set, or hung up in the east end of the Chauncell, to be not 'only read for edification, but also to give some comlye ornament 'and demonstration, that the same is a place of religion and 'prayer.'-CARDWELL'S Doc. Ann. i. 262 ; STRYPE's Parker. iii. p. 46. App. xv.

In 1561. In the Orders, taken the 10th day of October in the third year of Elizabeth, we have the following:- And further, that there be fixed upon the wall, over the said CommunionBoard, the Tables of God's precepts, imprinted for the said 'purpose. Provided yet that in Cathedral Churches the Tables "of the said precepts be more largely and costly painted out, to the 'better shew of the same. (ii. 361. n.)—HEYLYN, comparing this Order with the like injunction in the "Book of Advertisements of 1564 (see infra), concludes, That the Communion-Table was "to stand above the steps, and under the Commandments; and, "therefore, all along the wall on which the Ten Commandments were appointed to be placed: which was directly where the "Altar had stood before." (ib. 363.).*-HEYLYN's Hist. of Ref. E. H. S.; British Mag. Oct. 1848.

In 1564. The Book of Advertisements, from which our present CANONS are chiefly derived, after speaking with respect to the Communion-Table, adds:-' And to sett the Tenne Commaunde'mentes upon the easte walle over the said Table.'-CARDWELL'S Doc. Ann. i. 292.

WILLIAMS (Bp. of Lincoln, ob. 1650.), in his argument against HEYLYN, thus explains the position described in the above injunction:-To be fixed on the east wall, over the Communion-Board, I can signify nothing else but that they should be fixed higher 'than the Communion-Table, upon some part of the east wall, so as the people, seeing the Communion-Table, might over that 'see and read the Ten-Commandments.' (p. 43.)-Holy Table.

In the present day there is great difference of opinion with regard to the position of the Ten-Commandments.' Some, adhering to the strict letter of the CANON, object to their appearance on the east wall of the Chancel: others, referring to the Injunctions of Elizabeth, and the usages of that time, as expositors of the CANON, insist with equal tenacity upon the 'Commandments' occupying that position. Again, there are many Clergymen who display the Commandments' in small rubricated letters of Lombardic character within canopied recesses behind the Communion-Table, where they form a decoration of the

* In a Note is added by the Editor:-'Comp. Cypr. Anglic. p. 20. The words of the Order, and HEYLYN's reasoning on them, are inconsistent with the notion which has of late been very 'confidently propounded,-that the Elizabethan Reformers intended to place the Commandments' in the Chancel-arch, as a 'substitute for the images which they removed from the Screen.' -HEYLYN'S Ref. E. H. S. ii. 363. n.

Reredos while others, adopting the ordinary plain Roman text, arrange them conspicuously in two 'Tables' over the Communion Table. Where, however, a diversity of opinion prevails the dictum of the Ordinary has the power of settling the dispute; and he may also prohibit their being removed from the place they have customarily occupied. In fact, the Table of Commandments' cannot be obliterated, or taken down, without the permission of the Ecclesiastical Superior, expressed by a Faculty, or otherwise.

6

In the 'INSTRUMENTA ECCLESIASTICA' it is stated:-There 'is no authority for placing the Table of Commandments at the east ' end of the Chancel.'-PLATE 67.

The Tract, a "FEW WORDS TO CHURCH-BUILDERS," when speaking of the Reredos, writes:- The Reredos, Dossel, or Altarscreen, IS AN ORNAMENT, it cannot be too often repeated, FIT ONLY FOR A LARGE CHURCH. It should seldom be erected in a 'modern building, and then should be of stone: and wherever it 'is adopted, there must be no niches, unless there are figures. * Reredoses for the Commandments are intolerable. Perhaps more 'money has been wasted on Dossels than on any other ornament of 'Churches. A very simple Reredos....may be allowed for the 'candlesticks.' (p. 14.)-Published by "The Cambridge Camden Society."

In the Tract, a 'FEW WORDS TO CHURCHWARDENS' the annexed remarks follow the citation of the 82nd CANON :-'They (The Commandments) ought not to be seen, as they often are, in other parts of 'the Church. Whenever they want renewing, if renewed at all, 'they should be painted in large black letters, with all those letters in red, which are printed in Capitals in the Prayer Book: this is called_rubricating, and it gives them a handsome look.' (p. 9.)— PART. I. Pub. by the Ecclesiological Society.

* A Reredos is defined in the 'GLOSSARY OF ARCHITECTURE as 'The wall or screen at the back of an Altar, Seat, &c.; it was 'usually ornamented with panelling, &c., especially behind an Altar, and sometimes was enriched with a profusion of niches, 'buttresses, pinnacles, statues, and other decorations, which were ' often painted with brilliant colours; Reredoses of this kind not unfrequently extended across the whole breadth of the Church, and were sometimes carried up nearly to the ceiling. In village 'Churches they were generally simple, and appear very frequently 'to have had no Ornaments formed in the wall, though sometimes 'corbels or niches were provided to carry Images, and sometimes 'that part of the wall immediately over the Altar was panelled. 'It was not unusual to decorate the wall at the back of an Altar 'with panelling, &c., in wood, or with embroidered hangings of tapestry work to which the name of Reredos was given.' (p. 305).— 4th Edition.

Terrier.

A TERRIER, from the French terre, and Latin terra, is a written survey of the lands, houses, and other possessions of a Benefice, including an account of the temporal rights of the Church, and of the Parish. Although a Terrier is seldom called for in these days, yet it is required by the CANON (87th), and is still an important document. It is directed to be carefully preserved in the Bishop's Registry, from which a copy may at any time be procured: indeed an official transcript should be kept in the ParishChest for the convenience of reference. (GODB. Appen. 12.). The CANON runs thus:—

'We ordain that the Archbishops and all Bishops within their 'several Dioceses shall procure (as much as in them lieth) that 'a true Note and Terrier of all the Glebes, lands, meadows, 'gardens, orchards, houses, stocks, implements, tenements, and 'portions of tithes, lying out of their Parishes (which belong to any Parsonage, or Vicarage, or rural Prebend) be taken by the 'view of honest men in every Parish, by the appointment of the 'Bishop (whereof the Minister to be one), and be laid up in the 'Bishop's Registry, there to be for a perpetual memory thereof.' -CANON 87.

Where no Terrier exists, or when it has been lost, or mislaid, a new survey of the glebe lands, &c. should carefully be made, and all rights, privileges, and customary dues be clearly and fully described in it. This should be properly attested by the Incumbent, and chief Parishioners, and be transmitted to the Registry of the Diocese.

With regard to the authority of a Terrier as evidence in a Court of law, we may quote the following opinions :

DR. BURN writes:-These Terriers are of greater authority in 'the Ecclesiastical Courts than they are in the temporal; for the 'Ecclesiastical Courts are not allowed to be Courts of Record: and yet even in the temporal Courts these Terriers are of some 'weight, when duly attested by the Register, (Johnson 242.); especially if they be signed, not only by the Parson and Church'wardens, but also by the substantial inhabitants; but if they be 'signed by the Parson only, they can be no evidence for him; so