S T R I C T U R E S T H E R E C E N T D E C I S I O N S OI& T H E JU DI CI AL COMMITTEE I TH E PR I V Y C OU NC L. An d e i s t o b e n o te d t a t s uc O n ame n t s of th e Ch u rc h a n d of th e Min is te s t e eo f h e r , h h r r h r a ll t i me s of t ei mi n is t ati on s al l b e e tai ne d an d b e i n u se as we e i n t h i &. u f at h r r , h r r C h r c h o Fu la n d b t h e A u t o i t o fPa l i ame n t i n th e se c on d y e a of th e Rei n of Ki n Fdw' a rd t h g y h r y r , r g g e — O n a men t: Rub ri f Six th . r PRI NT ED A ND PUB LI SH E D , FOR THE THE ENG LISH CHU RCH U NI ON , T HE CHU RCH PRI NTIN G COMPAN Y BY , B U RLE I G H S TRA ND VV . C . x 3 , , 1 8 7 l Pr ice Fou rpmce. n. MA TI N MACKONOCHI E AND HEBBERT R v . H . V . PU RC AS O S O O I B I T I O N A L TT to His G c MI S I N n ot PR H . E ER ra e the ARC B I P o fCA TERB RY B e i n a P ea fo r the Co n ti n uan ce H SHO N U . g l o f PRIM ITIV E a n d CATHOLI C USAG ES an d PRIM ITIV E a n d CA HOLI C R AM E T B the Rev C S G RUEBER S eco n d Edi tio n T . O N N S y . , I s 601 Parker S tran d . ( , 3 7 7 , . ) A so b th e same A utho r l , y , A L T T to His G c the A C HB I S H O P of Y O K on the E ER ra e R R , PRINCIPLES an d CONCLUSIONS o fthe JUDG M ENT o f the C OURT o f i n the s M A K H E co n APPEA Ca e o f M ARTI C ONOC I . S e d L N v . Edi tion ith A en di x 6 Parke r S tran d . w d. , pp , ( , 3 7 7 , ) A l so , OND h R v h C O SP NC of t e e . C S . G U B W h t e R h RRE E E . R E ER it ig t R the D B o n W e v . LOR ISHOP f BATH a d ELLS an d His G race the ARC BI P o f Y RK s P rk r n d I . a e Stra . H SHO O . ( , 3 7 7 , ) SHEPP RD V B E ETT A . NN . PLY to the MA KS o h Rev . C . H EU RT LE Y A D . D . RE RE R f t e A , , a r are t Pro esso r o f Di i n it O x fo rd B ein a DEFE CE h M . o f t g f v y, g N e DE CLA RA T I ON o n the Y E C ARI T si n ed b Twen t -o n e Priests HOL U H S g y y , a n d Prese n te d to the ARC B I P o f CA TERB RY o n M a 0 H SHO N U y 3 , ’ 8 6 B the R ev C S R EB ER S o n Edi ti n a 1 . G U ec d o I r 6 Pa rker 7 y . , . ( , 3 7 7 , S t r n d a . ) Ne ar read ly y, D NT of th S U M e Rt . I T he G H on . ir R . PH LLI MORE D A J E , E N o f the C RT o f ARC E S e on d Edi tio n S Ri i n . c I . v to n s. OU H S , ( g ) S T R I C T U R E S THE RECENT DECI SI ONS OF THE JU DI CIA L C OMMITTEE T H E PRI V Y C O U N I L i i C . o of in on m on o fm n I . The C urt Appeal its c de nati a y Usages o m o n o n n unquesti nably Pri itive and Cath lic , as thi gs f rbidde u der n o n un da menta l rin c le o f c pe alties , has c ntrave ed a f p ip the Chur h o fEnglan d ; whereby; in the eyes o f th o se extern al to her co m m n o of o f En fo r u i n , the character the Church gland truthful m o m m to ness ust needs be seri usly i paired , and her very clai iden tity with the Primitive and Catholic Church questio n ed . E g . 1 0 wa D . 6 o The goth Cano n o f A. 3 says S far s it fro m the purpo se o fthe Church o f England to fo rsake an d reject the c o f n c m n o r an u k Chur hes Italy , Fra e , Spain , Ger a y , y s ch li e in all n w o r Churches , thi gs hich they held practised , that , as A o o o f o f E n n o n o the p l gy the Church gla d c fesseth , it d th “ with r ev eren ce reta in th o se ceremo n ies which do n either e n c o f G o d n o r o ff n m n o f o damage the Chur h , e d the i ds s ber “ men ; and ONLY DEPARTED fro m them in tho se parti “ cul ar points wherei n they were fallen bo th fro m themselves “ n n a n d o m o o in their ancie t i tegrity , fr the Ap st lical Churches , which were their first fo u n ders . These criticisms are con fined simply to a co nsideration o fsome o fthe d m n legal and histo rical diffi culties ofthe ju g e t . B 2 4 — T0 take o n e example The Co urt has fo rbidden the Mixed of w ch o in m n Chalice , hi it is bserved the Judg e t itself, that its use is o f great antiquity an d has prev ailed b o th in East and West . A o o n o of II . c nstructi has been put by the C urt Appeal r h o n n wo o f R c o n in Heb b e t v . Purc as up the plai rds the ubri I ” the Orn a ment: of zb e Cb urc/J a n a i /Je M in irter r tbereef which is a vio latio n of its literal an d grammatical sen se an d co ntradic “ f o on to ry o f the established facts o hist ry . The Sec d year o f n E w wh E h V m n Ki g d ard the Sixth , en the uc aristic est e ts w n o n n n o n n o wn m ere e j i ed , ca t be i terpreted as layi g d the sa e Six tb ea r o f n E w w n rule as the y Ki g d ard the Sixth, he “ they were ab olished neither can the wo rds auth o rity o f “ ” Parliamen t be in terpreted as equivalen t to the Advertise m n o f an c o o r no n o f o n o c o n e ts Ar hbish p the Ca s a C v ati . We can no t co n ceive the po ssibility o f the Statute n aming a w w n w n &c . o in date he the chasuble , , ere r by the Clergy th e celebratio n o f the H o ly Eu charist if it inten ded to refer to n o w o V m n w a subseque t peri d , hen th se est e ts ere expressly “ o d n an d c o n was in f rbi de a surpli e ly substituted their place . The Revisers o f the Liturgy had the free cho ice Open to them f c o o f an o w n A .