Henry Hebbert, heretofore Charles James Elphinstone, - Appellant; The Rev. John Purciias, Clerk, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1870 |
| Date | 01 January 1870 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 17 E.R. 177
ON APPEAL FROM THE ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY.
Mew's Dig. tit, Ecclesiastical Law, XVI. Divine Service, 3. Reredos.-Holy Communion.-Mixed Chalice.-Wafer Bread.-Eastward Position.-Vestments. S.C. L.R. 3 P.C. 605; 40 L.J. Ecc. 33; 19 W.R. 898, and below, sub nom. Elphinstone v. Purchas, L.R. 3 Ad. and E. 66. See Elphinstone v. Purchas, 7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 17; L.R. 3 P.C. 245. For subsequent proceedings see S.C. 7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 551; L.R. 3 P.C. 664; and 9 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 54; L.R, 4 P.C. 301. See Martin v. Mackonochie, 1874, L.R. 4 Ad. and E. 279; Boyd v. Phillpotts, 1874, L.R. 4 Ad. and E. 305; Clifton v. Ridsdale, 1876, 1 P.D. 342; Ridsdale v. Clifton, 1877, 2 P.D. 276; Hudson v. Tooth, 1877, 2 P.D. 132; Heywood v. Bishop of Manchester, 1884, 12 Q.B.D. 414; Read v. Bishop of Lincoln (1892) A.C. 644.
[468] ON APPEAL FROM THE ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY. HENRY HEBBERT, heretofore CHARLES JAMES ELPHINSTONE -Appellant; THE REV. JOHN PURCIIAS, Clerk,-Respondent * [Nov. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 1870, Feb. 23, March 25, and April 26, 1871.] Construction of the notice termed ' The Ornaments-Rubric' prefixed to ' The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer/ which provides " That such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth"; and of the Rubric prefixed to "The Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion," which describes " the Priest standing at the North side of the Table," with that which precedes the Prayer of Consecration, and enjoins " When the Priest standing before the Table hath so ordered the Bread and Wine, that he may with more readiness and decency break the Bread before the People, and take the Cup into his hand, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration," as well as that appended to the same Service regarding the sacred Elements; and of the Rubric appended to the Service for the Holy Communion; that " To take away all occasion of dissension, and superstition, which any person hath or might have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suffice that the Bread lie such as is usual to be eaten; but the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten." First, as regards the Vestments of the Minister whilst officiating in the administration of the Holy Communion, or in other Ministrations, the ' Ornaments-Rubric,' as explained by the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, a.d. 1559, and the Advertisements of Elizabeth, a.d. 1564, made pursuant to the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz. c. 2, and explained by subsequent Visitation Articles; when construed with the Canons of 1603-4, and the Act of Uniformity, 13th and 14th Car. 2, c. 4; does not permit the use by the Minister, while officiating at the Holy Communion of the Chasuble, the Alb, or the Tunicle, but allows of the * Present:-The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherley), the Archbishop of York (Dr. Thomson), the Bishop of London (Dr. Jackson), and Lord Chelmsford, 177 XII MOORE N.S.. 469 HEBBERT V. PURCHAS [1870-71] Cope being worn in ministering the Holy Communion on High Feast days, in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches, and requires the use of the Surplice in all other Ministrations. The use of the Chasuble, Alb, and Tunicle by the Celebrant while officiating in the Communion Service, is illegal [7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 532.] Second, the Rubrics regarding the position of the Minister during the Communion Service designate the North side of the Communion Table, as the proper place for the Minister throughout the Communion Service, and, also, whilst reading the prayer of Consecration, his proper position, therefore, is on the North .side, or the North end of the Table, if it is placed east and west, facing the south, and not that part of the west side of the Table which is nearest to the north; the object being that the People may see him break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands, which they cannot do if he stand with his back to the People, and between the People and the Holy Table [7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 547-550.] Third, the Rubric regarding the elements requires that the Bread to be used at the Holy Communion be pure Wheaten Bread, as is directed by the Canons of 1603-4, and not Wafer Bread, which is illegal [7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 540]; and does not allow the administering of Wine mixed with Water, instead of Wine only, to the Communicants at the Lord's Supper: whether the Water be mingled with Wine before or during the Communion Service [7 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 536.] Semble, the use of a Biretta, or Cap, as a Vestment in the Service of the Church, is illegal. Semble, the provisions of the Canons of 1603-4 and Prayer Book must be read together, as far as possible, and the Canons 17, 25, and 58, upon the Vestments of the Ministers are an exposition and limitation of the ' Ornaments-Rubric.' Such Ornaments are to be limited, as to the Vestments, by the special provision of the Canons themselves, which were not repealed by the Act of Uniformity, 13th and 14th Car. 2, c. 4. The cases of Westerton v. Liddt.ll (Moore's Special Report), and Martin v. Mac-konochie (5 Moore's P.C. Cases (N.S.), 500; S.C. Law Rep. [2] P.C. 365) considered and confirmed. This appeal was brought from a sentence of the Arches Court of Canterbury, in a cause of the Office of the Judge, originally promoted by Charles James Elphinstone against the Respondent, the Rev. John [469] Purchas, a Clerk in Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, the perpetual Curate of the Church or Chapel of Saint James, at Brighton, in the County of Sussex. After the institution of the appeal Elphinstone died, and tHe Appellant, Hebbert, was substituted as Promoter in his place (see case reported on this point, ante, p. 17; S.C. Law Rep. 3 P.C. 245). The cause was promoted in the Arches Court, by [470] virtue of Letters of Request, by the late Lord Bishop of Chichester, in accordance with the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, 3rd and 4th Viet. c. 86. No appearance was given to the Citation by Purchas, and the proceedings were carried on in default. By the Articles admitted in the cause, Purchas was charged with having offended against the Laws Ecclesiastical by using and sanctioning the use of certain rites, ceremonies, acts, observances, matters, and things in the course of, and in connection with, the performance of Divine Service in his Church. On the 3rd of February, 1870, the Judge of the Arches Court (The Right Hon. Sir Robert Phillimore), by an Interlocutory decree, pronounced that Purchas had offended against the Statute Law, and the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of the realm, in having, during Divine Service in his Church, used and worn, and authorized to be used and worn, certain Vestments, and observed and authorized to be observed rites and ceremonies, and read and authorized to be read Prayers, and done and authorized to be done other acts not prescribed by the Rubrics or Formularies of the United Church of England and Ireland, and admonished him to abstain from the use of, or sanctioning the use of, the rites, ceremonies, acts, 1 TO IO HBBBEET V. PUECHAS [1870-71] VII MOORE N.S., 471 observances, matters or things in which he had so offended, and decreed a Monition to issue accordingly, and further condemned him in the costs, excepting the costs of such Articles as had not been sufficiently proved (see the case nom-. Elphinstone v. Purchas (Law Rep. 3 A, and E, p. 66), which report sets out all the Articles admitted in the cause; being thirty-eight in number, as pleaded and amended, except the formal ones). [471] The present appeal was from this decree, so far and inasmuch as the Judge omitted or declined to pronounce that Purchas had offended against the Statute Law and the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, first, by administering Wine mixed with Water, instead of Wine, to the Communicants at the Lord's Supper, as pleaded in the sixteenth Article; second, by standing with his back to the People, between the People and the Holy Table, whilst reading the Prayer of Consecration in the Holy Communion, in such wise as pleaded in the seventeenth Article; third, by the use of Wafer Bread, instead of Bread such as is usual to be eaten, in the administration of the Holy Communion, as pleaded in the twentieth Article; fourth, by causing Holy Water, or Water previously blessed or consecrated, to be poured into divers receptacles for the same in the said Church, in order that the same might be used by persons of the Congregation, or by causing and permitting the same to be used by others, as pleaded in the twenty-fifth Article; fifth, by himself wearing, and sanctioning and authorizing the wearing by other officiating Ministers, whilst officiating in the Communion Service, and in the administration of the Holy Communion in the Church, a Vestment called a Chasuble, as pleaded in the thirty-sixth Article; sixth, by himself wearing, and causing or suffering to be worn by other officiating Clergy, when officiating in the Communion Service in the Church, a certain Vestment called an Alb, instead of a Surplice; seventh, by causing or suffering to be worn by the officiating Clergy, when officiating in the Communion Service in the said Church, certain other Vestments, called Tunics or Tunicles; eighth, by himself wearing, carrying, or causing or suffering other [472] officiating Clergy in the said Church to wear, or bear in their hand, a certain Cap called a Biretta, during Divine Service, as pleaded in the thirty-eighth Article; and had also admitted or declined to admonish him against offending in future in the said matters complained of; and also omitted or declined to condemn him in the costs incurred by Elphinstone in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hebbert v Rev. Purchas
... ... Henry Hebbert,-Appellant; The Re ... John ... JOHN PURCHAS,-Respondent * [March 25, 1871]. After judgment had been ... , Lord Westbury, Lord Cairns, and Sir James William Colvile. 208 HEBBERT V. PURCHAS [1871] ... in the Court below on behalf of the said Charles James Elphinstone, and also in the costs incurred ... ab officio et a beneficio decreed against a Clerk in Orders, the perpetual Curate of a Chapel of ... Thomas Glenan, and Henry Miller, heretofore filed in this appeal, and having heard Counsel on ... ...
-
The British South Africa Company v the Bechuanaland Exploration Company Ltd
...regulations of 1897 were in the position of a statute (Craies' Statute Law, p. 361; The India, 12 L.T. (N.S.) 316; Hebbert v Purchas, 17 Eng. Rep. 177; Seaville v Colley, 9 T. 44; Institute of Patent Agents v Lockwood, L.R., 1894, A.C. 360; Edwards v Edwards, L.R., 2 Ch.D 295). The responde......
-
The British South Africa Company v the Bechuanaland Exploration Company Ltd
... ... ceded by the defendant company to one Charles Stevens for the sum of £150, and on the same ... ...
-
A motion by Henry Herbert, in a cause lately depending between Charles James Elphinstone, of Brighton, in the County of Sussex, deceased, - Appellant-and, The Rev. John Purchas, Clerk, - Respondent
... ... This was a motion to revive the appeal, and for the substitution of Henry Hebbert of Brighton, in the County of Sussex, as Promoter of the Office of Judge in an appeal from a ... ...