Notes on the Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Appeal Hebbert V. Purchas (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1877. Excerpt: ... was not at liberty to take any other view, since their own Court had laid it down in express terms that the three Rubrics and the Section of the Act, above quoted, " all obviously mean the "same thing, that the same dresses and the same utensils, or "articles, which were used under the First Prayer Book of "Edward the Sixth may still be used." (Moore, p. 159.) Their Lordships, citing the objection at the Savoy Conference) remark that" the Rubric had been in force for nearly 60 years, and "they the Puritans do not allege that the vestments had been "brought back"; )it, first among the Vestures which they held it to restore, was "the cope," which they and others had all along vehemently protested against: they knew that, not for 60 years only but for 100 years it had maintained a legal position quite as obnoxious to them as the Chasuble, and an actual position still more obnoxious because the Chasuble had probably fallen into general disuse--a position which it would not easily, if at all, have maintained had the Rubric been abolished which was the basis of Injunctions, Interpretations, and Advertisements. In the opinion of the Court, moreover "a total omission of the "Rubric" would not " have been a protection against them " if this means, as it seems to imply--that any Vestures might have been introduced where no Rubric specified anything--then, happily, a principle is restored which was most strangely rejected in Martin r. Mackonochie when their Lordships held that "a Rubric which is silent as to" a thing "by necessary "implication abolishes what it does not retain." No doubt the Bishops " understood the Surplice to be in question," but they could not have supposed it was that alone, when the Cope had been specified, whatever they might have thought abo...

R781

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles7810
Mobicred@R73pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1877. Excerpt: ... was not at liberty to take any other view, since their own Court had laid it down in express terms that the three Rubrics and the Section of the Act, above quoted, " all obviously mean the "same thing, that the same dresses and the same utensils, or "articles, which were used under the First Prayer Book of "Edward the Sixth may still be used." (Moore, p. 159.) Their Lordships, citing the objection at the Savoy Conference) remark that" the Rubric had been in force for nearly 60 years, and "they the Puritans do not allege that the vestments had been "brought back"; )it, first among the Vestures which they held it to restore, was "the cope," which they and others had all along vehemently protested against: they knew that, not for 60 years only but for 100 years it had maintained a legal position quite as obnoxious to them as the Chasuble, and an actual position still more obnoxious because the Chasuble had probably fallen into general disuse--a position which it would not easily, if at all, have maintained had the Rubric been abolished which was the basis of Injunctions, Interpretations, and Advertisements. In the opinion of the Court, moreover "a total omission of the "Rubric" would not " have been a protection against them " if this means, as it seems to imply--that any Vestures might have been introduced where no Rubric specified anything--then, happily, a principle is restored which was most strangely rejected in Martin r. Mackonochie when their Lordships held that "a Rubric which is silent as to" a thing "by necessary "implication abolishes what it does not retain." No doubt the Bishops " understood the Surplice to be in question," but they could not have supposed it was that alone, when the Cope had been specified, whatever they might have thought abo...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 11mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

200

ISBN-13

978-1-150-57877-9

Barcode

9781150578779

Categories

LSN

1-150-57877-7



Trending On Loot