the cup and paten during the celebration of the case of Liddell v. Westerton, the ad the holy communion in a greater degree verse judgment was robbed of its sting by than is necessary to comply with the rubric; two incidental passages in which in the court (2) the use of incense for censing persons below Sir Robert Phillimore insisted on the and things, or its introduction at the begin historical and legal continuity of the prening of or during the celebration and its re reformation and post-reformation church, and moval at the end; (3) the immixture of emphasized the distinction between non user water with the wine during the celebration; and the disuser of lawful practices. These (4) the act of kneeling during the prayer formidable weapons of offense and de fense were of consecra tion; and (5) not allowed the placing of to rust or to two lights lie idle. But upon the holy 'at this point the thread of altar during the celebra the narrative tion. Sir must be bro Robert Philliken for a more decided moment to the first three notice the of these case of Hebpoints (on bert v. Purchas (1872 two of which Mr. MackL. R. 2 P. C. onochie had 301), which already given had an im way) against portant influ Mr. Mackence on the onochie; he future stages held that the of the Mackact of kneelonochie suit. ingduringthe In that case prayer of the main CHANCEL, ST. AL1IANS, HOLBORN, WITH OLD ALTAR. consecration point atissue, was not unlawful, unless the bishop had for our present purpose, was the vexed question whether the ornaments rubric in forbidden it; he also held that the pres ence of two lights upon the holy altar was the Prayer Book, which is one item in lawful; and gave the prosecutor no costs the schedule to the Act of Uniformity, 1662, because of the divided honors of the suit, and which admittedly directs that the vest ments used under the First Prayer Book of and his lack of any but a technical quali Edward VI " shall be retained and be in use" fication as prosecutor. An appeal was tak until further or other order, had been modi en to the Privy Council in regard to the per mission of kneeling, the use of altar lights fied by Queen Elizabeth's advertisements in and the disallowance of costs, and on all 1564-5, or, to put the matter in a different three points the judicial committee reversed form, whether these advertisements came Sir Robert Phillimore's decision. (L. R. 2 within the meaning of the words " other or A. and E. 116.) Here again however, as in der " in the act of 1662. The judicial com
