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...